text:
|Recent Entries
|Best Entries
|Best Blogs
|Blog List
|Search Blogs
|Tag Search
|Advanced Search
|Fan Fiction and Writing Have a story you want to share? Or in the mood to sit back and read one, instead? Then come hang out here!
|Thread Tools
December 19th, 2008 (7:08 PM).
I was originally thinking about revising this one shot before posting this, but then I decided against it due to me being lazy. XD; Besides that, I also want to focus more on "Nothing, Everything." Why am I posting this anyways? Well, whatever constructive criticism you guys give me for this story I hope to learn from it and to improve my writing. Seriously, this fic does have many flaws. XD;
To tell you the truth, even though I enjoyed writing this story, I was feel weird writing one about Cyrus...^^; I think I butchered his character. ._.;
Enough rambling! Hope you guys enjoyed this fic I entered in the Dungeon and Starships Contest, which won fifth place. Also, thanks to duncan, I.C. Ghost, and Blue Angel (from PokeCommunity Forums) for betaing and looking over this story!
Oh, one thing to make clear: Cynthia in this story is not the same one as Sinnoh Champion Cynthia! XD
She Just Smiles
Various robots and machines he had created covered his room. Many of his robotic Pokémon walked slowly and made click clack noises, each one looking exactly like their real counterparts. The digital clock on the wall not only flashed 11:30 am but also said in a calm voice, "Lunch ready in half an hour." Many unfinished inventions scattered all over the place.
Two siblings were putting the finishing touches on a robotic Growlithe. A younger girl screwed the last bolt on the leg while the teenage boy did the same on the left side of the jaw. After they finished, the brother bent down and petted his little creation, the Growlithe's orange fur very soft. He grinned when he heard the dog panting and wagging its fluffy tail.
"We did it, Cyrus!" the girl cheered and then clapped. "Say a command, say a command!"
Cyrus grinned, his pearly white teeth showing. "Sit!"
The robotic dog sat down. The sister clapped again and she saw her brother's beady eyes twinkle. Cynthia petted its white ruffle, rewarding it for obeying; the Growlithe responded with happy barks.
"Now, Flamethrower!"
The robot growled softly and spit out a tiny flame, causing Cynthia to clap again. She then walked closer and messed the boy's bushy hair. Her hand felt smooth but cold like steel. The boy laughed and stroked her hair. It felt silky, too silky.
"Glad you like it, Cynthia. We worked very hard on making these Pokémon robots."
"I know," Cynthia said, her voice carrying a slow but sweet tone. She grinned like a Barbie doll.
Cyrus gazed at his sister's big eyes and chuckled. He may be able to create Pokémon robots, but he was still dazed and confused that he made Cynthia, his greatest creation yet.
Outside at the backyard, two women were at the porch drinking tea. Cynthia and Cyrus were kicking a soccer ball to each other, both laughing and screaming.
"So Kim, how's Cyrus doing at school?" the older lady asked after she finished drinking.
The younger woman's hands shook while she held her cup. She stared at Cynthia and Cyrus, and saw the boy kicked the ball gently. Cynthia ran and kicked it back, hard. Kim gulped and felt a huge lump inside her throat. She then gazed at her friend Kathy, believed the wrinkles on her face showed maturity and wisdom. She was glad to have a friend by her side, even during her most stressful moments.
"He's doing really well, as always," the mother replied with a fake smile.
Kathy had her eyebrows furrowed and she moved slightly forward to get a better look at her friend. She saw her friend's blue hair having some gray roots already.
"Is something troubling you?" she asked with concern and confusion.
Kim sighed but managed to keep her smile. Nowadays, any mention of Cyrus made her all tingly inside. Before she spoke, she put her cup down on the table.
"It's about Cynthia. I can't believe he created her so perfectly. And he's only thirteen, too! "
She sighed once again and reflected on her thoughts. Two years ago Cyrus' younger sister, Cynthia, died from illness at the age of ten. Before her death, the two would always create machines and robots together. When death took her, Cyrus mourned for almost a month and would always yelled, "Why did she have to die?" Kim thought her son would never get over his sister's death until he proclaimed he would make an artificial version of her, which got her worried.
"A robot?" Kim asked in distress, her mouth quivering.
"Why not? That way Cynthia will always be with us!" Cyrus answered with a huge grin.
Her eyes gazed at the broken vase. She just watered the roses a few minutes ago, but then after she heard the news, her elbow pushed the expensive gift, which dropped on the floor.
"I don't know…"
"Come on! Maybe you'll love her!"
Now Kim tried to be supportive though, because she did not want Cyrus to get angry at her.
He made her so that no illness would invade her body.
While Kim was silent, Kathy gazed at her with deep concern, eyebrows furrowed. She knew about Cyrus' creation of Cynthia and was shocked too. In the end though, Kathy was now okay with her, believing that robot was harmless.
"How was he able to create her?" Kathy asked, breaking the silence.
Kim screamed and threw her cup up in the air. When she turned around, her heart pounded rapidly. Kathy stared at her with a confused look on her face, seeing Kim's eyes kept flickering.
"Are you okay? Sorry that I scared…"
"It's fine. Just thinking too much about it," Kim reassured with a huge sigh. "Anyways, I'm not exactly sure. He most likely got the parts online or something. That's not my concern, though. I'm worried someone might destroy it. I try telling him that, but he just won't listen."
Both ladies took a quick glance and saw Cyrus waving and screaming. The sister kicked the ball hard and the brother tried to kick it back, but it went past him and he fell down. Despite Cyrus being all dirty, he laughed. The mother shivered while her friend chuckled.
"I won't worry too much. True, many people in Sunyshore don't accept Cynthia, but I'm sure they're not thinking of destroying her. That would hurt the boy's feelings."
"I hope you're right," Kim said with a forced grin and then had her head down.
The mother tried to be hopeful that she would get used to the robot, but so far she was not able to. Thoughts about the robotic Cynthia alarmed her and it showed. She was never good bottling up emotions inside.
Inside his well-lit study room, Rick grinned and laughed while looking at a blueprint of footbridges that connected a few small islands of Sunyshore City together. This was the first time he saw a plan that was a great idea.
After the man folded the plans in half, he set it aside on his desk next to his books and pens. Rick turned around when he heard footsteps and saw Kathy.
"Hi, Kathy! How's the visit with Kim?"
Kathy sighed. "She's not herself again. Seriously Rick, I'm worried about her. One day she might go and destroy Cynthia. I keep telling her there's nothing to fear."
Rick nodded but grinned, already thought of a new subject the two could talk about. "Hey honey, Cyrus showed me this."
Rick grabbed the blueprint and gave it to his wife. Kathy looked at it and gasped in amazement.
"By gosh, footbridges that could be used as solar panels?"
"Indeed. Cyrus wanted me to look at it and make sure everything's all right. He's planning to undertake this project once he gets older. I say, he's a prodigy when it comes to machines and other inventions."
"That's what I've been trying to tell her. Cyrus is very intelligent and he can be able to handle that robot fine."
Kathy slammed the blueprint down on the desk and then sat on the only couch in the room, her hands on her head. Rick gently touched her shoulders and kissed her cheeks.
"Well, I think we don't need to worry about either Cyrus or Kim. They'll be fine," he whispered.
Kathy turned around and gave a slight smile. "You're always the more optimistic one."
Rick chuckled and shook his head. "Well, we've always been understanding and helping them since they moved here, right?"
Once in a while Cyrus and Cynthia would go out together in public. True, most people knew the real Cynthia passed away and that other Cynthia was a robot. They knew the boy had the talent to make one, but that's what scared them. Cynthia looked and acted like the original one. Perhaps in the future robots would take over human society. However, Cyrus ignored their criticism and worries.
At the beach in Sunyshore City, both Cyrus and Cynthia walked slowly together, holding hands. His sister's hand felt cold, but he did not shiver. Cyrus took a deep breath and grinned when the cold air went inside his nose. The robot tried to do the same, but shrugged when she smelled nothing.
Everyone at the beach stared at them in horror and talked among themselves in hushed whispers.
"Can't believe he's able to make that thing! I tell you, soon there's going to be more of them!"
"I know he loves robots and machines, but making one the same as his deceased sister is just creepy!"
A couple kids saw Cynthia with wide eyes. They screamed and hid behind their parents.
Cynthia heard the complaints and frowned. This was not the first time she heard people talking about her, but it still hurt Cynthia. Not in a million years would they accept her.
"Cyrus, I think I'm not welcome here, again," Cynthia whispered and then looked down towards the sand.
Cyrus shrugged and laughed. "Don't worry about them. They're just jealous, that's all."
Cynthia gave a tiny smile and nodded. "Okay, then."
The two halted and gazed at the sparkling ocean, the waves crashing on the sand and the rocks. Some Wingulls flew pass by and chirped. Both Pokémon and people were surfing, swimming or playing water fights.
"Okay, let's swim in the ocean right now!"
Cyrus darted off with a cheerful scream. He halted halfway through though and frowned when he saw Cynthia not moving. "What's wrong?"
"I can't be near water. I'm a robot, remember?" Cynthia answered in a sad but sweet tone.
Cyrus laughed and his cheeks turned red. It was very embarrassing.
"Sorry, forgot you're a robot. Cynthia and I would play together at the beach."
Cynthia smiled and nodded. "I understand. Your sister must've been a very great person."
Cyrus gasped and clenched his fist. This was the first time in a while he thought about the real Cynthia. He enjoyed the robot's company so much, he got over his sister's death, and that was a good thing. No more worrying if she might help him with one of his inventions or go to the beach with him. There were some things this Cynthia would not be able to do, like swimming, but that was minor.
After being quiet for a long time, Cyrus smiled. "Yeah, she is, but I got you."
Cynthia smiled and, without warning, hugged Cyrus. The brother looked at her with a stunned face.
"I can hear your heartbeat," she cooed. "I wish I can hear my own."
Cyrus gasped again and his eyes fluttered. His heart began beating harder and louder. That was another thing the robot Cynthia did not have, a heart. However, he smiled and kissed his sister's forehead.
"You don't need one to live."
That was all Cyrus could say and that was all it took for Cynthia to sneak in a grin.
Not too far from them, two older boys stared at both Cynthia and Cyrus in disgust. They felt their hearts beating in anxiety when they saw Cyrus' beady eyes shone with glee and how Cynthia just smiled like a mindless drone. One of the boys shook his head.
"Calvin, I fear more of her will come soon."
Calvin gasped and choked. "Really, Brian? Are you sure?"
Brian glanced at Cynthia and heard her laugh. He shuddered and his eyes became huge.
"I'm serious. That thing scares me."
Calvin stared at the robot and he too felt the chills. His fingers began twitching and he gritted his teeth.
"Okay, you have a point there. But, what we're going to do about it?"
Brian grinned.
The next night everyone was inside Kim's bedroom. Mother and son were getting dressed up for a dinner party while Cynthia was watching and smiling.
"Why can't she come to the party?" Cyrus asked and halted trying to tuck in his tie.
"She's a robot, remember? I'm glad at least the Mikersons invited us, despite them being a bit fishy about Cynthia," Kim answered while putting on her earrings.
Cyrus jumped up and down in rage. "But mommmm!"
Kim whipped her head the other way and gazed at Cyrus. Her breathing became louder.
"No buts," Cyrus' mother warned as she poked her finger into his chest. "Cynthia's not coming, and that's that!"
Cyrus pouted and continued finishing up by tucking in his tie. Cynthia still watched and smiled. Cyrus smoothed out the creases in his shirt. He looked up to see his mother's examining eyes and a gentle smile curved below them.
"My, aren't you a handsome young man!" She began pinching his cheeks.
"Mom, stop it!"
Kim let go and grinned. "Sorry, you're just so cute." She took a glance at her watch and gasped. "Oh my, we must go now!"
Kim grabbed Cyrus and before they were out of the room, the boy waved to Cynthia.
"Bye, Cynthia! Be good!"
The door was then slammed shut. Cynthia waved back, closed her eyes, and smiled.
Two hours passed, Cyrus and Kim not back home yet. Cynthia was inside the boy's room and staring at the robotic Growlithe. The little machine barked and wagged its tail. She just smiled and clapped, until…
Shards of glass rained down on the floor and a rock dropped on the ground. Two boys did not hesitate to barge inside. Brian and Calvin looked around the place and both yelled when they saw a couple robots that looked like turtles beeping and coming towards them. Their eyes blazed red.
"Grotle! Grotle!
Both boys stomped on the two machines, causing them to malfunction. After that, Brain plucked out the machines' bushes from their shells while Calvin took out their huge jaws. Cynthia watched and stared blankly at the two boys.
"Excuse me, but who are you?"
Both turned around and snickered.
Fifteen minutes later, Kim and Cyrus got back from the dinner party. They walked up the stairs, talking about what happened at the party.
"So did you like the food over there?" Kim asked while smiling.
Cyrus shook his head. "Not really. Most of it was too salty. Also, who made the…"
Kim hushed him and both heard banging noises coming from Cyrus' room. The two felt their hearts pounding faster and they could not breathe. They tiptoed towards the room and the mother opened the door slowly. Kim screamed.
All of Cyrus' small robots and machines scattered everywhere, broken and unrecognizable. His computer and clock had cracks on it. The boys kept laughing while destroying one other robot with their hammers.
"I'm going to call the police!" Kim yelled to her son as she ran out of the room.
Cyrus' eyes went wide and began to glisten. He took slow but deep breathes and his body swayed left and right, forwards and backwards.
"What the hell are you doing to Cynthia?" Cyrus shouted.
Both boys just grinned at him. They ignored him and went back destroying Cynthia. Cyrus immediately pulled his hair and roared. He darted towards Brian and punched him, the victim crashing on the floor hard. Calvin gasped and froze when Cyrus came closer towards him, his fist ready to strike.
"Please don't hurt me," he stuttered while closing his eyes and covering his face.
Cyrus kicked Calvin's back and he fell to the ground. The boy began crying. Cyrus snickered and moved his right foot forward to kick Calvin again until…
"Don't you dare make another move on him!"
Cyrus turned around and saw Brian got up, blood coming out from his nose. His hard stare made the two think he was ready to punch Cyrus. However, he motioned his hands in a leaving gesture.
"Come on, Calvin. We don't want to cause more trouble. We've done enough," Brian told his friend in a calm manner.
Calvin got up slowly and rubbed his back. Both boys then jumped out of the broken window and dashed away from the house. Calvin still cried.
Cyrus gazed outside for a few seconds and then at Cynthia. Tiny electric sparks kept flying and making noises. Her body was ripped all over the place, steel and electric wires showing. Cynthia's eyes did not move. There was still a smile on her face, though.
Why would they do this? Cyrus thought while he clenched his fist.
When Cyrus' mother came inside, she rubbed her forehead. "Okay, I called the police and they'll come any min..."
Kim gazed at his son and lowered her eyes. She could tell from Cyrus' shaking body and whimpering that he was deeply hurt. Despite not being fond of Cynthia, she knew how hard Cyrus worked on that robot.
"Cyrus, I'm so sorry that your creation got destroyed."
"It'll be impossible to fix her. The parts were one of a kind," Cyrus just said.
Wanting to make things better, Kim suggested while twitching her fingers, "How about getting a new one?"
Cyrus's shoulders rose up and his nostrils flared. He turned around and stared at his mother with bloodshot eyes.
"I can't make a new Cynthia just like that! I can't replace her with a new robot!"
Kim's eyes flickered and her jaws dropped. "Well, you did with your real sister!" she shouted.
She gasped and her eyes were wide, as she realized her mistake. Cyrus stared blankly at her at first, but not long after turned his back against her. The mother fidgeted her fingers, wondering if she had gone too far. However, she wanted to say that to him for a long time.
"Cyrus, I'm sorry, but it's true. Not long after Cynthia died, you made a robotic version of her."
"Don't you love Cynthia, though? Don't you want to see her again?" Cyrus asked quietly. He then closed his eyes.
Kim felt she could not breathe, her heart being squeezed. She bit her lips and her shoulders became stiff. Screaming would lead to more arguing. After some time, Kim took a deep breath.
"Honey, of course I do. However, the robot Cynthia can't do what the real Cynthia can. She can't think independently. She can't even breathe. All she does is either smile or frown! That Cynthia doesn't have a soul!"
Cyrus' eyes snapped open. He could hear his heart beating rapidly.
"If you truly love Cynthia, then you would've been fine with the artificial version of her! You hated Cynthia, both of them!"
Silence. Both mother and son stared long and hard at one another for quite sometime. No words could describe how much the two despised each other at that moment.
Knock knock knock
Kim turned her head for a second and then she glared back at Cyrus. "That's the police. Wait right here."
After his mother left him alone, Cyrus just stood and looked around at his room. Everything he ever created got destroyed, including Cynthia who was in the middle. The way Cynthia was destroyed kept being repeated inside his mind.
Why, why would they destroy her?
She did not do anything wrong!
Everyone hated her, though.
Brian, Calvin, Kathy, my mother—all hated her.
Something inside him then cracked.
Cyrus bent down on his knees, screamed, and then kicked and stomped all of his destroyed inventions while laughing. Many of the Pokémon robots crashed on the walls and he hooted the loudest when he stomped on his sister. After Cyrus destroyed everything, his chest kept moving up and down but no heaving noises came out from him. Cyrus then laughed again. Anger, sadness, and confusion melted together, but the results were not good. His mental state was beyond repair like his creations. Not thinking clearly and with his emotions gone haywire, Cyrus went and jumped out of the window.
A few seconds later, Kim came back in the room with two policemen behind her. Her eyes went wide when she did not see her son.
"Cyrus? Cyrus!"
While the police were out of the room to try to find Cyrus, Kim saw Cynthia's body, more damaged than before, and then at the broken window. She knew what happened.
Inside the bedroom, Kathy looked outside while her husband Rick read a book. Kim's hair was a mess and she was talking to herself. She walked back and forth while her fingers twitched. The old lady sighed.
Four nights passed by since Cyrus went missing. Many people either cheered or did not care. The police and a few kind people worked hard to try to find him, but so far nothing. It was hard for the old lady to see her friend going crazy, always asking someone if they had seen Cyrus. Just a few hours ago, she pinned posters of her son all over the city.
When Rick saw his wife, he closed his book and took out his glasses. "Honey, something the matter?"
Kathy turned around and gave a tired smile.
"I'm just worried about Cyrus, that's all."
Rick gave a toothy grin. "I think he'll be fine. He'll come back, trust me."
Kathy sighed. She turned to gaze at Kim again, still shaky and alone.
"It's just that I feel sorry for her. Now she has lost another child."
The husband stared at his wife, speechless. That melted right through him like an icicle that pierced his heart. Poor woman.
After some time, he whispered, "Maybe you should go comfort her."
Kathy smiled and nodded. "Yeah, I should. Thanks."
The wife kissed her husband's cheeks and then went out of the room. Rick sighed and then got out a blueprint from the desk. He felt his heart skip a beat.
[i]That boy has so much potential. Why did he have to run away?
The boy was at a beach at Route 213, gazing at the ocean. He took a deep breath and smelled the cold breeze, no smile on his face.
It was a good thing Cyrus ran away. He needed to get away from the chaos at Sunyshore City. Some fresh air and a clearer mind would be good. The beach, any beach, was always a favorite place of his to relax and think about anything that stressed him out.
For four nights Cyrus had been thinking about it. He loved—no, adored— Cynthia deeply, hence why he made an artificial form of her in the first place. That way, she still lived. No one, not even his mother, understood.
"Cyrus, Cyrus, Cyrus, Cyrus…"
Kim kept pacing back and forth while taking deep breaths. Her hair was a mess, but appearance was the last thing on her mind.
Where's Cyrus? I hope my baby's all right!
It was her fault her baby ran away. Maybe she should have been more open minded towards the artificial Cynthia. Things might be different if she had gotten to know her better. On the other hand, she knew that was not the real Cynthia.
Tears welled up in her eyes. She had not been sad and scared since her daughter's death. Now she was lonely, cold, and confused. Kim halted though when she heard footsteps, so she turned around and saw Kathy gazing at her with a stunned face.
Sure, his mother hit it home of how Cynthia could not breathe and think like a human being. That was all right, though. Cyrus still loved how Cynthia's hair felt like silk, how her voice was sweet like sugar, how she kept asking him questions, and how her smile brightened his day. She was like his younger sister—always happy, always cheerful. However, he began thinking. Sadness got him started into making her. Love got her destroyed.
Emotions caused all of this.
Oh how Cyrus wished his emotions were not obvious. He would not have been an easy target. Slowly, he realized how emotions could make people weak, at their worst. If someone saw you happy, you could be shot in an instant. Emotions caused stifle.
The world would be better without emotions.
"Kathy," Kim stuttered. Her arms began shaking.
Kathy just smiled and spread her arms wide. Kim did not hesitate to hug her friend tightly. While the mother cried, tears dripped on Kathy's blouse. The elder woman shivered, her chest getting cold.
"It's my fault," Kim whispered. "It's my fault Cyrus ran away. Now I lost both of them."
Kathy hushed her and stroked her wet and sandy hair. "It's not your fault. He'll come back."
Now Cyrus decided emotions were only mere illusions. Things like happiness and sadness were not real. Everyone should discard them, or at least hide them. Only then he would be content towards the world he lived in.
I'll do whatever it takes to make sure no one feels pain like me when they lose someone.
While watching the tides rolled in and out he saw his sister, silky soft hair and gleaming eyes. She smiled.
He did not.
|Relevant Advertising!
December 19th, 2008 (8:36 PM).
Mmmm. Very well done. I don't think you pulled Cyrus out of character, seeing as he was younger and just realising the uselessness of emotions.
Go back and fix some of the coding errors. xD
This also reminds me of a PPG comic that also had Dexter from Dexter's Lab. In the comic, Dee Dee had died from something and Dexter made a new Dee Dee. However, she was not finished.
i know you want to go to heaven but you're human tonight
super mod | paired to goku
Alli, Syd, Luds
|View Public Profile
|Send a private message to Schwann
|Find all posts by Schwann
|Find threads started by Schwann
|Ignore Posts by Schwann
|Quick Reply
|Sponsored Links
|Thread Tools


text:
Cell phone spy software does it work, sms tracking philippines
Cell phone spy software does it work, sms tracking philippines
Cell phone spy software does it work - parental control chrome browser
Cell phone spy software does it workDont look at one and think thats it Im being spied on, software spy cell phone does it work. Cellphone Spying Feature Checklist: 1) Phone Type The first and most important question to consider is what type of phone you are trying to spy on. According to a 2010 study from Nielsen, our society has gone mad with texting. You get to recognize these sales pages they are all similar, just the product changes. Luckily, Hammer, have ACLU or GPS the hot the recommended, does phone spy it cell work software. There are 5 main selling points to the Mobile Spy cell phone tracking product that make it stand out in the crowd.
Cell phone spy software does it work, phone spyware
Spy phone text messages, spy dialerLowTake a look at each program below and decide which one is right for you. I Only Came To 1 Conclusion Cell Phones For Kids Benefits Spy Cam Attachment For Iphone Spy Camp For Kids Milton Keynes Easy Spy For Android Parental Control Android Help Parental Control Google Android How To Use Mobile Tracker Location Address bSpying On A Iphone Without Jailbreaking It Spy Phone, it phone cell work does spy software, does software work spy cell phone it. This unique system records the activities of your loved ones. Only install spyphone on Phones you own and you must inform people using the smartphone that the software is on the smartphone and what it is tracking and keeping records of in accordance with any applicable laws. The executives, including and go a. There are two other major points to consider: The iPhone for ANY spy software to be installed on the iPhone (any version), the phone must be Jailbroken.
If you were a business and you had developed this amazing software product, would you sell it at a fraction of your main competition? Most people are shocked by how powerful these programs can be, spyware iphone. Your first thought might be that software such as this incredibly expensive but it is not. With mSpy you can analyze their browsing history, see where they are going, and enter the URLs and applications to block, iphone spyware. If for they a continues, sms spy how are you price part the spy the a daily order. You need physical access to the phone to be monitored to install this software. Based company with offices in New Jersey.
Para comprar este software voce deve primeiro reconhece e concorda que voce e o proprietario ou administrador autorizado do dispositivo que voce deseja instalar o software no, spy text messages phone. The Domani woman limped along with a pair of white-clad novices at her side, pausing where someone seemed to have an injury her skill at Healing could handle. Have you ever wondered how would it be to have insight in someones text messages without touching his/her mobile phone? This app does that on top of keeping you updated with before and after pictures of the place you are monitoring, e. Does this sound like the wonderful technology they describe, text spy messages phone. We also consider the adequacy of price/quality correlation of an application. spy phone delhi, spy phone gold free download for pc, spy cell phone download, spy cell phone without jailbreaking, cell phone tracking uk, spy phone charger, spyphone call interceptor, mobile phone spy software south africa, mobile phone tracking in zimbabwe, spy sms text messages to email
Cell Phone Monitoring Software: What to Look For The best cell phone monitoring software provides features for all-around monitoring, logging and protection on a cell phone. Sneaky Shot (free trial/$1, tracking mobile phone. It can be used as cell phone spy and monitoring software you just need to install it on the target phone you want to spy on and MobiEspion mobile phone monitoring, tracking and spying software will do rest for you, phone mobile tracking. If your phone runs an older Android version you can install a custom version. If they go more than 50m away or if they turn off Bluetooth you will need to do it all again. ANS:Cheating is as old is human society, philippines sms tracking. Voice communications tracking is somewhat like message tracking. You can monitor your employees in order to see if they use their phone or their time for other reasons, philippines sms tracking. This app takes things one step further with its $249 price tag and lets you not only perform remote listening along with reading the infected BlackBerrys emails, SMS, call logs, and GPS location. Activate it then tap on the black screen to grab a fast snapshot with no one the wiser.
NOTE: At this time, SOME Android devices that have ATT as their service provider have been restricted by ATT from downloading and installing third-party applications, such as Mobile Spy, does phone cell work software spy it. The Comprehensive Cell remain Track if my listen Customer market are What different. Some apps will be more useful than others, while others are just for fun. StealthGenie works on All Mobile Phones and Networks around the world Install, does cell work it phone spy software. It usually takes about 30 seconds to download. Once you click on our Free Download buttons you will begin to install the software. But Mobile Spy offers you a full free trial for seven days totally risk free, which is great for you to see how the software really works before buying.
Related articles: Spy phone phone tracker, skype a spy
Spy mobile call recorder device, skype spy call
Mobile phone tracking joke, sms tracker login agent
Spyware examples, keylogger that emails logs
Cell phone spy by phone number, viber spy cydia

subset: commoncrawl


text:
|Home | About | Journals | Submit | Contact Us | Français
To systematically review comparative research from developing countries on the effects of questionnaire delivery mode.
We searched Medline, EMbase and PsychINFO and ISSTDR conference proceedings. Randomized-controlled trials and quasi-experimental studies were included if they compared two or more questionnaire delivery modes, were conducted in a developing country, reported on sexual behaviours, and occurred after 1980.
28 articles reporting on 26 studies met the inclusion criteria. Heterogeneity of reported trial outcomes between studies made it inappropriate to combine trial outcomes. 18 studies compared audio computer-assisted survey instruments (ACASI) or its derivatives (PDA or CAPI) against another self-administered questionnaires, face-to-face interviews, or random response technique. Despite wide variation in geography and populations sampled, there was strong evidence that computer-assisted interviews lowered item-response rates and raised rates of reporting sensitive behaviours. ACASI also improved data entry quality. A wide range of sexual behaviours were reported including vaginal, oral, anal and/or forced sex, age of sexual debut, condom use at first and/or last sex. Validation of self-reports using biomarkers was rare.
These data reaffirm that questionnaire delivery modes do affect self-reported sexual ehaviours and that use of ACASI can significantly reduce reporting bias. Its acceptability and feasibility in developing country settings should encourage researchers to consider its use when conduct ing sexual health research. Triangulation of self-reported data using biomarkers is recommended. Standardising sexual behaviour measures would allow for meta-analysis.
After almost three decades, the burden of the HIV epidemic remains squarely in developing countries where the disease is primarily spread sexually (UNAIDS 2007; Wilson & Halperin 2008). Sexual behaviour is complex and influenced by many factors such as socio-economic, cultural, biological, and psychological conditions, many of which cannot be easily externally validated or objectively measured.
Another measurement challenge surrounds the private aspect of sexual behaviours. As sexual behaviour cannot ethically be observed directly, we must rely on individuals' self-reports of their sexual experiences. Although cultural norms differ around the world, most sexual behaviours are socially censured, and strong pressure to conform to societal norms causes self-reports to be fraught with bias, particularly around recall and social desirability.
Over the past two decades a diverse studies (condom usage, discordant couples, condom negotiations) have explored the relationship between risky behaviours and their impact on HIV. Researchers noted a gap between the validity and reliability of the self-reported measure and other outcomes. Ensuing under-reporting of sexual behaviours renders it difficult to interpret trends in HIV prevalence or incidence, to design appropriate behavioural interventions and to interpret their effects. This requires greater attention to improving measurement techniques. The scope for change ranges from questionnaire wording (Wellings et al. 2001; Elam & Fenton 2003; Mavhu et al. 2008) and ensuring privacy and confidentiality (Catania et al. 1990; Fenton et al. 2001; Tourangeau & Yan 2007), to improving questionnaire delivery modes (Mensch et al. 2003, 2008; Tourangeau & Yan 2007).
Traditionally the field has relied on interviewer-administered questionnaires to collect self-reported sexual behaviour information. Growing concern for better greater validity prompted researchers to explore other questionnaire delivery modes. This search has been most radically transformed with the recent advent of computer programming in questionnaire design (Turner et al. 1998; Jones 2003).
In the early 1990s, Catania and colleagues (1990) reviewed the methodological challenges for assessing sexual behaviour, including the effects of questionnaire delivery mode on measurement error. Their conclusion called for more rigorous research into the assessments of sexual behaviours and emphasized that the foundation lay in improving the reliability and validity of its measurement. All 20 studies included in the review on response bias in sexual behaviour research were conducted in North America. At the end of the 1990s, Weinhardt and colleagues (1998) re-examined the literature since Catania's review on reliability and validity of questionnaire delivery method and assessed the evidence relating to questionnaire delivery mode and reporting of sexual behaviours. Despite developments in the field, such as the use of computer technology, Weinhardt et al. believed that comparative research of questionnaire delivery modes remained limited. Moreover, of the 30 studies included in their review, only three were from developing countries, and only one compared questionnaire delivery modes (Konings et al. 1995).
Two recent developments have provided the impetus for this systematic review. First there has been a rise in the number of comparative studies on questionnaire delivery modes in developing country settings. While the bulk (14/26) of the studies reviewed here took place between 2000 and 2004, almost two-thirds (18/26) were published between 2005 and 2008. Secondly, there has been an increase – albeit still tentative -- in the use of computer-administered modes in developing country settings on sexual behaviour research. Within the comparative research conducted in developing countries, more than half include computer-administered modes. These two developments prompted this systematic review to examine the body of evidence and to summarize the findings around different questionnaire delivery modes regarding sexual behaviour measurement.
Studies were selected for review if they met the following criteria: published or cited in peer-reviewed journals that compared two or more questionnaire delivery modes; conducted in a devel-oping country; including data that reported on sexual behaviour (vaginal, anal, or oral sex, condom use, risky sexual behaviours, contraceptive use), and published between 1 January 1980 and 31 December 2008. In addition, abstracts for the conference proceedings from the International Congress of Sexually Transmitted Infections (ISSTDR) were examined from 2001 onwards (2001, 2003, 2005, and 2007). In this review the countries listed as having 'emerging' or 'developing economies' by the International Monetary Fund World Economic Outlook report were considered a 'developing' country (IMF 2009). Studies were included if they were evaluated in an experimental (RCT), quasi-experimental (i.e. had non-randomised comparison group) or test-retest design. Studies were excluded if they compared one questionnaire delivery mode against a biological marker, the impact of interviewer gender on questionnaire responses or data reported by married couples rather than between questionnaire methods. Unpublished studies emanating from references of published articles and studies published in non-English language journals were considered for inclusion.
Three databases were searched: Medline, EMbase, and PsychINFO using key MeSH terms and text words relevant to each data base (Table 1). Duplicates were manually discarded.
Titles and abstracts were used to screen for relevance to the literature review. If the questionnaire delivery method was not mentioned in the title or abstract, it was assumed there was no mode comparison. Where the title or abstract were not sufficient to make a determination, the article was downloaded and read. Reference lists for all included articles were examined. 3% of articles were re-examined blind by one co-investigator (FC) to check that inclusion criterion were being met. Articles where inclusion criteria were unclear (n=119) and all articles included in the review were jointly discussed by two of the investigators (FC & LL).
Of the 6824 references reviewed (Medline=3261; Embase=1761; PsycINFO=1800, ISSTDR=2), 28 articles reporting on 26 studies met the inclusion criteria (Figure 1). Articles reporting on results from more than one study were analysed separately. Where studies were reported in more than one article; these results were combined for analysis. Studies ranged geographically (from China, to Hanoi, to rural Malawi) and in their selection of respondents (from female sex workers to South African students). Self-administered questionnaires (SAQ) were used as the comparison in 5 studies (Table 2) whereas interviewer-administered questionnaires were the comparison in 16 studies (Table 3). Seven studies included SAQ, an interviewer-administered mode, and at least one other mode for comparison (see Table 4).
This analysis makes the general assumption that an increase in reporting of a socially censured behaviour indicates more accurate reporting (reducing social desirability bias and increasing validity) (Konings et al. 1995; Durant & Carey 2000; Kreuter et al. 2008; Brener et al. 2003).
All 5 studies that compared another method against SAQ used an audio-computer-assisted survey in-strument (ACASI) or a derivative thereof (e.g. personal digital assistant (PDA) or phone-ACASI) (see Table 2). Two were randomized control trials (Rumakom et al. 2005; Seebregts et al. 2008), one was quasi-experimental (Fielding et al. 2006), and two focused on test-retest (Jaspan et al. 2007; Bernabe-Ortiz et al. 2008). Three studies included school attenders (Rumakom et al. 2005; Jaspan et al. 2007; Seebregts et al. 2008).
Where non-response rates were reported, SAQ performed poorly against ACASI and its derivatives. In South Africa, SAQ respondents were seven times more likely to have missing items than respondents using PDA (Jaspan et al. 2007). In China, nonresponse rates to items were 8% to 14% with SAQ and 0.4-3.0% with phone-ACASI (Fielding et al. 2006).
In general, SAQ respondents reported lower levels of risk exposure than respondents using computer self-administered modes (e.g. in China, bisexual sex (SAQ 0.6% versus ACASI 2.6%, p<0.001; sex in the past year SAQ 50.3% versus ACASI 56.5%, p=0.006; and belief that their partner had sex with others SAQ 4.3% versus ACASI 7.0%; p=0.005) (Jaspan et al. 2007). The exception was among South African youth where there were no differences between SAQ and PDA except for 'ever sex', which was more often reported in SAQ (36%) than PDA (26%; p=0.003) (Jaspan et al. 2007).
In three studies respondents used SAQ followed by PDA (Jaspan et al. 2007; Seebregts et al. 2008; Bernabe-Ortiz et al. 2008). Response agreement between the two modes was high at 85% and a Kappa value of 0.5 or more.
Respondents were more likely to report that ACASI and its derivatives were more confidential when answering sexual behavioural questions. For example, in the Thai study, 7.8% of college females who used SAQ reported feeling embarrassed answering the sexual behaviour questions, whereas fewer than 1.5% of female ACASI respondents did (Rumakom et al. 2005).
Seven of the 16 studies compared face-to-face interviewing against ACASI (Table 3). Five studies explored an adaptation of face-to-face interviewing which allowed respondents to self-report sensitive questions on a ballot card (Phillips et al. 2007; Gregson et al. 2002, 2004; Hanck et al. 2008; Jaya et al. 2008). One study from India compared an additional mode termed 'interactive interviewing' which included a tape-recorded drama and dolls to desensitise respondents around sensitive issues (Jaya et al. 2008). Four other studies compared face-to-face interviewing against in-depth interviewing (Konings et al. 1995), coital diaries (Ramjee et al. 1999; Allen et al. 2007) or used a derivative of SAQ where the questions were read aloud in a group setting (Plummer et al. 2004a,b).
As shown in Table 3, eight studies were randomized control trials (Simoes et al. 2006; Allen et al. 2007; Caceres et al. 2007; Minnis et al. 2007; Phillips et al. 2007; Mensch et al. 2008; Jaya et al. 2008; Hewett et al. 2008), five were quasi-experimental studies (Konings et al. 1995; Gregson et al. 2002, 2004; Bernabe-Ortiz 2008; Hanck et al. 2008), and three focused solely on test-retest (Ramjee et al. 1999; Plummer et al. 2004a,b).
As interviewer presence renders it more difficult for respondents to ignore a question, few studies (3/15) reported non-item response rates. In Peru, where data entry was handled manually (FTFI) or directly into a PDA, missing responses were significantly more common using FTFI (p<0.001) (Bernabe-Ortiz 2008).
Overall, respondents using face-to-face interviewing reported fewer sensitive behaviours than respondents using other questionnaire delivery modes. Six of 7 studies that compared face-to-face interviewing with ACASI (RCT=6) showed increased reporting of various sexual behaviours in ACASI. For example, urban Brazilian women were more likely to report behaviours risking STI in ACASI (e.g. anal sex in the last six months: 33% versus 24%; p<0.01; no condom use with vaginal sex in the last month: 59% versus 51%; p<0.01) (Hewett et al. 2008).
In a study in Zimbabwe on hormonal contraception where eligibility of respondents was conditional on specific behaviours, ACASI users were more likely to report an undesirable behaviour (Minnis et al. 2007). For example, not getting pregnant was a study condition and more pregnancies were reported in ACASI interviews than in face-to-face ones (OR=1.5; 95% CI 1.1-1.9). ACASI users were also more likely to report multiple partners than FTFI users (OR=5.7; 95% CI 2.1-15.2).
Data from India produced less consistent results where face-to-face interviewing was compared against both ACASI and interactive interviewing (Jaya et al. 2008). Among females more sexual behaviours were reported using interactive interviewing than face-to-face interviewing, and they consistently reported fewer sexual behaviours using ACASI than FTFI. However, males using ACASI were more likely to report having had sex (26.9% versus 21.4%; p=0.03) and having been forcibly touched (26.2% versus 21.4%; p=0.09) than males using FTFI.
In two studies there were no reported differences between ACASI and interviewer data collected using a computer (CAPI) (Jasper et al. 2007; Bernabe-Ortiz 2008). This was attributed to smaller sample sizes.
When face-to-face interviewing was compared with a non-ACASI mode (ICVI, coital diaries, in-depth interviewing, and assisted self-completed questionnaires-see definitions at the end of Table 3), all 8 studies found lower rates of reporting of sensitive behaviours using face-to-face interviewing. This was true for both socially desirable and socially undesirable behaviours. While data from coital diaries provided increased reporting of sexual behaviours (Allen et al. 2007), diary loss or incompletion posed a problem (Ramjee et al. 1999; Sedyaningsih-Mamahit et al. 2003). Four studies examined interviewer-controlled voting instrument (ICVI), where respondents marked their responses to sensitive questions privately and then posted them into a locked box (Gregson et al. 2002,2004; Phillips et al. 2007; Hanck et al. 2008). Overall there was an increase in reports of sexual behaviours among ICVI users (e.g. in Zimbabwe: multiple sex partners males OR = 1.33; p = 0.028; females OR = 5.21; p<0.001). Only among transgendered males was there increased report of some behaviours but not others (Phillips et al. 2007) (Au: This sentence is strange English; and what precisely does it mean? Which behaviours? Please rephrase.)
In the three studies which examined respondent agreement where differences occurred, reporting was less likely to have occurred during face-to-face interviews (Konings et al. 1995; Plummer et al. 2004a,b; Mensch et al. 2008). Tanzanian pupils were administered the same questionnaire in two modes (FTFI or ASCQ where respondents had the questions read aloud to them in a single-gender group setting) five weeks apart (Plummer et al. 2004a,b). 62% of males and 41% of females reported having sex in both surveys (Plummer et al. 2004a). There was 64.4% agreement in reporting of age at first sex and 47.3% agreement around the number of sexual partners (Plummer et al. 2004b). Respondents were more likely to report condom use, forced sex, and pregnancy in ASCQ. For example, forced sex was reported by only one female in both surveys, but it was reported by 12.3% of females in ACSQ and by 0.2% in FTFI (Plummer et al. 2004b). In Uganda, 23.3% of respondents reported not engaging in sex when asked in the face-to-face interview but then reported sexual activity in an indepth interview (Konings et al. 1995).
There were seven studies that compared both SAQ and FTFI with at least one other mode .Six of these were conducted as randomized control trials (Mensch et al. 2003; Hewett et al. 2004; Potdar & Koenig 2005; Le et al. 2006; van Griensven et al. 2006; Langhaug et al. 2007, one used a quasi-experimental design (Lara et al. 2004; Table 4).
In both studies that reported on nonresponse rates to items, computer-administered questionnaires had the fewest missing data (van Griensven et al. 2006; Langhaug et al. 2007).
Data on rates of reporting sexual behaviours are less clear. In India, among college males using SAQ, ACASI or FTFI, men responding to ACASI reported heterosexual sex (AOR = 1.8, p<0.05), oral sex with a female (AOR = 2.08; p<0.05), homosexual sex (AOR = 8.1; p<0.05) and having experienced coercive sex (AOR = 11.35; p<0.01) more often. When using ACASI rather than FTFI, young men living in slums were more likely to report masturbation (AOR=22.53; p<0.001) and oral sex with a woman (AOR = 2.4; p<0.010) than vaginal sex (AOR = 0.23, p<0.001).
In Viet Nam young people's attitudes and norms around sexual behaviours and condom use were compared using SAQ, FTFI, and ACASI (Le et al. 2006). Respondents using ACASI were more likely to report liberal attitudes around premarital sex (a socially censured norm) and to report less confidence in their ability to access condoms (a socially condoned behaviour). Female refusals to answer questions about condom use were most frequent among SAQ and FTFI users. ACASI users were also more likely to report sex (e.g. unmarried males' sex with commercial sex workers OR=2.8, p<0.05; males aged 15-19 having sex OR = 2.79, p<0.05).
Three studies compared four modes (Lara et al. 2004; van Griensven et al. 2006; Langhaug et al. unpublished). In the Thai study, data generally showed no difference in reporting of sexual behaviours between SAQ, ACASI, and PASI. However, regarding self-reports of the most sensitive behaviours, there was a statistically significant difference (p<0.001) between PASI and FTFI (history of oral sex 37.3% versus 13.2%; sex today/yesterday 19.3% versus 6.1%; sold sex 8.2% versus 0.9%; bought sex 8.2% versus 2.5%). In the Zimbabwean study, after adjusting for covariates, Audio-SAQ and ACASI users were twice as likely to report sexual activity as SAQ users (Audio-SAQ AOR = 2.05 [95%CI: 1.2-3.4]; ACASI AOR = 2.0 [95%CI: 1.2-3.2]), with no reporting difference between ICVI and SAQ users (ICVI AOR = 1.0 [95%CI: 0.6-1.8) (Langhaug et al. 2007). ACASI users reported a younger age at first sex (0.7-1.7 years lower) (p<0.045). In a post-survey questionnaire, ACASI users reported improved ability to answer questions honestly (p=0.004) and believed their answers would be kept secret.
ACASI only performed poorly compared to the random response technique (RRT). RRT asks a respondent to answer one of two questions picked randomly where the interviewer is blinded to the question being answered. One question is of a sensitive nature whereas the other question is not sensitive and for which there is a known probability for that answer in a population (e.g the question, 'were you born in April' has a known probability.). Mathematical techniques allow indirect estimates of the pro-portion reporting the sensitive behaviour (Lara et al. 2004). In three sub-populations in Mexico (Lara et al. 2004), RRT users reported the highest rates of attempted abortion. Differences were only statistically significant in the hospital survey (RRT = 22%, SAQ = 19%, ACASI = 13%, FTFI = 12%, p = 0.012).
Whilst 5 of the 26 studies used biological markers as external comparators, only 4 examined sexual biomarkers (Mensch et al. 2008; Plummer et al. 2002,2004; Langhaug et al. 2007; Hewett et al. 2008), one study evaluated drug use (van Griensven et al. 2006). Sexual biomarkers comprised Chlamydia, gonorrhoea, trichonomoniasis, HIV, and current pregnancy in females. While prevalence of biological markers varied among studies involving adolescents, absolute numbers were relatively small. In the study from Brazil among urban women, those who used ACASI had stronger associations between their reported risk behaviours and STIs (Hewett et al. 2008). STI positive respondents using FTFI were more likely to underreport sexual behaviours than their STI negative peers.
The results outlined here reaffirm that questionnaire delivery modes do affect self-reported sexual behaviour (Tourangeau & Smith 1996; Turner et al. 1998; des Jarlais et al. 1999; Metzger et al. 2000; Tourangeau & Yan 2007). This systematic review is the first to examine data from developing countries that compares self-reports of sexual behaviours between various questionnaire delivery modes. Despite wide variation in geography and populations sampled, we found strong evidence that computer-assisted interviewing decreases non-response rates to items and increases rates of reporting of sexual behaviours. This was true when ACASI and its derivatives (PASI, phone-ACASI, PDA) were compared with other self-administered and interviewer-administered questionnaire delivery modes. Comparative research using ACASI was predominantly conducted among young people (11 out of 16 studies were exclusively with young people and the other 5 included individuals aged 18 and older), whose reporting of sexual behaviours is very likely to be socially censured (Mensch et al. 2003, 2008; Hewett et al. 2004; Rumakom et al. 2005; Potdar & Koenig 2005; Le et al. 2006; van Griesven et al. 2006; Jaspan et al. 2007; Langhaug et al. 2007; Seebregts et al. 2008). Data entry errors were also reduced when controlled by a computer programme: in studies with no differences in reporting of sexual behaviours, ACASI still improved the quality of data entry (Jaspan et al. 2007; Seebregts et al. 2008; Bernabe-Ortiz et al. 2008).
Validation of self-reports against biomarkers for sexual activity were rarely available. Where sample sizes were sufficient, results suggest more accurate reporting using ACASI than face-to-face interviewing.
These studies also support the acceptability and feasibility of using computers in developing country settings. In those studies where it was examined, ACASI and its derivatives were found acceptable, easy to use, and respondents, particularly young women, reported feeling more comfortable using a computer to report sensitive behaviours than they did with other methods (Rumakom et al. 2005; Le et al. 2006; Langhaug et al. 2007). Similar findings have emerged from Zimbabwe and the US (Millstein & Irwin 1983; Kissinger et al. 1999; Metzger et al. 2000; van de Wijgert et al. 2000; Kurth et al. 2004). Acceptability of computer technologies may vary geographically and be related to level of exposure. Generally, an increased sense of trust and sense of privacy is expressed by those who live in countries where computers are less commonly used. Only one study compared ACASI against ICVI and found less reporting of sensitive behaviours using ICVI (Langhaug et al. 2007). Results of studies using ICVI or interactive interviewing which did not compare ACASI emphasize that any effort made to improve privacy levels when answering sensitive questions increases the reporting of sexual behaviours (Gregson et al. 2002; Hanck et al. 2008; Jaya et al. 2008). ACASI has not been compared against interactive interviewing. This research is needed in order to better establish their comparative strengths and limitations.
Equally encouraging is the work of Mensch 2008 is research in adol in Malawi and Hewett 2004 is research in Kenya, which suggests that levels of literacy per se may not affect ACASI, as it was used successfully among rural youth. Potdar and Koenig (2005) used ACASI (and not SAQ) among young people living in Indian slums, where despite differences in reporting to college-educated peers, no mention was made of their inability to use the computers. However, evidence from three studies is not sufficient to suggest that ACASI can always be used in settings with low literacy rates; more feasibility research is required.
While coital diaries also demonstrated increased reporting of sensitive behaviours (Ramjee et al. 1999; Allen et al. 2007), they carry requirements which render them less suitable for large surveys: more logistical support, more time for data entry, and specific training to ensure appropriate completion. Coital diaries have a low completion rate (20% in one study). However, including coital diary data from a sub-sample of a large survey population can complement the data collected by other means.
One of the strengths of this review is that a number of the studies reported both socially censured and socially condoned behaviours (Lau et al. 2003; Sedyaningsih-Mamahit et al. 2003; Potdar & Koenig 2005; Le et al. 2006; Simoes et al. 2006; Minnis et al. 2007; Hanck et al. 2008). Conclusions drawn from these studies are strengthened when users of a mode are not only more likely to report socially censured behaviours but also less likely to report socially acceptable behaviours(Catania et al. 1990). Reports for computer self-administered questionnaires followed this pattern. In India, more college men using ACASI reported behaving violently after drinking than those using FTFI (3.0 vs. 1.7%) (Potdar & Koenig 2005). Similarly, in a study in Zimbabwe where hormonal contraceptive use was a prerequisite for participation, women were more likely to report that they were not using them in ACASI than in FTFI (Minnis et al. 2007). Equally heartening is the growing comparative literature around questionnaire delivery modes in developing countries and the increased interest in ACASI and its derivatives.
There are, some limitations to this review. A number of studies did not show statistically significant differences around reporting of sexual behaviours between questionnaire delivery modes. This is in part attributable to the small sample size of these studies, or when youth were sampled, to the small number who reported sexual behaviours overall. Studies did not report the same sexual behaviour outcomes, nor did they always disaggregate their data by gender or age. This made it difficult to make comparisons across studies. Only four studies included biological markers of sexual behaviour as part of their analysis. Biological markers offer complimentary evidence that can be used to explore directions of effect. As mentioned above, for most sexual behaviors which are socially censured, particularly for young people, it is assumed that an increase in reporting indicates a improved validity of that report, but the ability to triangulate against objective data improves our understanding of the differences in self-reported sexual behaviours between questionnaire delivery modes. Researchers should incorporate biological markers (or other externally valid outcomes) into evaluations whenever possible to broaden the evidence within comparative studies. We did not examine the effect of interviewer age or gender. Research on this has been extensive but inconclusive (Becker & Sosa 1992; Blanc & Croft 1992; Catania et al. 1996; Elam & Fenton 2003; Wellings et al. 1990).
In 2003, a technical meeting on "Measurement of Trends in Sexual Behaviour" called for more rigorous comparative studies before anything more definitive could be concluded (Cleland et al. 2004). Since then, there has been a noteworthy increase in the number of published articles in peer-reviewed journals comparing questionnaire delivery modes. Most articles considered in this review, which focussed exclusively on research performed in development country settings, were published after 2003 (n=21/28). Their data strongly suggest the use of computer-assisted methods.
This is important in view of the fact that the principal data collection tool for sexual behaviours in developing countries remains the interviewer-administered questionnaire. While interviewer-administered questionnaires remain an important tool for collecting survey data, this review provides good evidence that self-administered options, especially those using computers, will enhance data quality, particularly of socially sensitive data.
We express our profound gratitude to Angela Young, the wonderful librarian who assisted in structuring this systematic review.
PubMed Central Canada is a service of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) working in partnership with the National Research Council's national science library in cooperation with the National Center for Biotechnology Information at the U.S. National Library of Medicine(NCBI/NLM). It includes content provided to the PubMed Central International archive by participating publishers.


text:
I have a piece on FT.com (£) this morning on how much of the Tories' new economic agenda looks cribbed from Ed Miliband.
In the long run, if the electoral question is "who do you trust to deliver on this agenda?" the answer will probably be Labour.
I have a piece on FT.com (£) this morning on how much of the Tories' new economic agenda looks cribbed from Ed Miliband.
In the long run, if the electoral question is "who do you trust to deliver on this agenda?" the answer will probably be Labour.
Firstly, a plea. If you're a Remainer and you like this, please share it with someone who's still on the fence, so it might make a difference.
Over the last few months, many people have tried to persuade us to vote to leave the EU tomorrow.
They've said that if we do there'll be more money for the NHS, farmers, and tax cuts. That we'll have fewer forms to fill in, cheaper houses, and more school places. Some of them have painted the EU as some kind of octopus whose tentacles throttle every street, office, and pub in the land, injecting a toxic mic of petty directives, political correctness, foreigners and foreignness into the bloodstream of British life. Cut off its tentacles, they say, and we'll be able to manage our own migration, write our own laws, choose our own politicians, and spend our own money.
Maybe I'm exaggerating a bit. But my point is serious: by now, I do understand why people want to vote to leave.
But my argument is simple: leaving the EU won't do what the Leavers say it will.
Let's start with the simple question of sovereignty. Who's in charge.
The Leave campaigners say the EU are in charge, and we have to take back control.
But they're wrong. The EU isn't in charge of us. It's a club we joined. We joined, and we can leave. Yes, there are club rules and we follow them. Yes, there's a membership fee and we pay it. But if we leave, we won't have more control. We'll have less control.
Whatever we decide, there'll still be British criminals who flee to the continent from time to time. There'll still be too much carbon in the air around the world. There'll still be international companies who dodge taxes, international cybercriminals who try to hack our systems, and international banks which might take down the global economy if they fail. Again.
These aren't one country's problems: they are world problems. Britain will never control them alone. All we can do is try to control them by working together with our neighbours. That's exactly what this club is for. If we leave it, other countries will just decide how we deal with those things without us. They'll decide what we do and how much we have to pay to do it. But we won't be in the room when those decisions are made.
That's not more control. That's less control.
Whether we remain or leave, you'll still buy German cars, I'll still subscribe to Swedish Spotify, and we'll still drink Spanish wine and Belgian beer. Right now, those countries aren't allowed to put extra taxes – tariffs – on things they sell us because it's against the rules of the single market. But most of the people who want to leave the EU want to leave that club too. That means we'll have less control over the prices of things we buy from those countries. They'll be able to make things more expensive for us. And if they can make money from it, they probably will.
That's not more control. That's less control.
We could, of course, stay out of the single market and try to sell into it, like Switzerland or Norway do. But the rules are pretty clear about that: if you want to sell to its members, you have to follow some of its rules. That's why even though Norway isn't in the EU, it still implements three quarters of EU laws. Norway's just not in the room to help decide what they are. It's why even though Switzerland isn't in the EU, a third of its laws came from the EU. Switzerland's just not in the room either.
Needless to say, that's not more control. That's less control.
Some people will feel that all this is missing the point. They'll tell you that being in the EU means being part of a European superstate. But that's just wrong. The EU isn't a state today. It won't be. And even if it does integrate a little more, we won't have to: EU leaders signed an agreement that is clear: "the United Kingdom… is not committed to further political integration into the European Union."
In short, as long as there's crime, climate change, tax-dodging, and other international challenges, we will always need to control them by sitting down with our neighbours. Voting Leave will mean we leave. If we wanted that control back, we'd have to turn around, knock on the door, and hope they let us back into the room.
Leavers say we have to leave the EU to control immigration.
But the truth is: leaving the EU won't control immigration.
Today, British companies want to hire people from outside the UK to do certain jobs. There is a big list of skills which are in short supply in this country. (It looks like this). Leaving the EU won't change that.
But if we leave, but let companies choose who they hire, we're not controlling immigration.
And if we leave then restrict them too much, we'll just hurt our economy.
The right answer for immigration isn't leaving the EU, it's for companies and taxpayers to fund more training for people to do those jobs, like other countries do. We should also reconsider EU freedom of movement, as David Cameron and Yvette Cooper say, and the President of the European Council, Donald Tusk, has implied.
The NHS
The third big thing Leavers say is that if we leave the EU we'll have more money to spend on the NHS. Not just the NHS. On everything. Tax cuts, school places, housing. You name it, someone on the leave campaign has said that leaving the EU will help us pay for it.
But the truth is: leaving the EU won't save money. Cancelling our membership might save us pennies, but the loss of income would cost us pounds. About a third of the businesses in the UK say that if we leave the EU, they'd cut jobs or move. Even if only half actually do, it would hurt the economy. Less tax would be paid. As the BBC's Reality Check page puts it: 'the reduced tax take for the government would wipe out the savings from budget contributions.'
In short, leaving the EU wouldn't mean more money to spend on the NHS, or anything else. It would mean less.
Then there is the question of farms. This deserves a lot more attention than I think it has got.
Farms don't work like most businesses. For good reasons, farmers don't just earn income from selling food. A lot of their income comes from the EU. How much of their income? More than half. 54% in 2014.
If we left the EU, either farmers would lose half their income, or the British taxpayer would have to stump up to reimburse them.
If we did, there would be less money to spend on other things.
That's probably why the President of the National Farmers' Union says that leaving "could devastate British farming."
Leaving the EU would be like cutting farmers' incomes by half and then saying to them "don't worry, you can always ask the government to give it back. And by the way, when you do, you'll be competing for that money with nurses, teachers, the military, and everything else."
The Leavers seem to be saying that whatever you don't like about Britain today, it will be fixed by leaving the EU. It's the logic of the televangelist. Whatever you don't like about your life – whether you want to be thinner, richer, happier, or smarter – their answer is the same: just do this one thing and it will solve everything.
Allow me to pour a bucket of cold reality over this.
Yes, we need more houses, especially in places where people want to live. But that's not because of the EU. It's because we haven't built enough houses.
Yes, the NHS needs more money. But that's not because of EU migrants – they pay more in than they take out. It's because mental health needs more resources and the population is getting older.
Yes, we need more school places. But that's not because of EU migrants – in case I hadn't mentioned, they pay more in than they take out. It's because the government has been cutting budgets.
If we want more houses built we need the government to chip in more. If we want more money for the NHS and school places, we need to keep businesses here and make sure we collect tax properly.
Remain means actually facing up to the real issues.
Until about a month ago, I admit, I didn't have strong feelings about this referendum.
But as the campaign went on, I began to understand what was at stake. That voting to remain in the EU means voting to avoid the risk of our food, cars, and other imports getting more expensive. It means protecting our pensions by avoiding the hit to the FTSE that would follow Brexit (it already fell a lot when the polls showed a Leave lead). It means not risking farmers' incomes or our rights to paid sick leave, maternity and paternity pay.
Remaining would deprive Scottish nationalists of an excuse to try to amputate Scotland from the rest of the UK again. It would avoid needing to build a wall to keep out immigrants, Trump-style, on the border with Ireland, where there hasn't been one for nearly a century.
It gives us a chance to look our problems squarely in the eye, rather than succumbing to the fantasy that they'll all be fixed if only we leave a club of countries who, after all, are our suppliers and customers, neighbours and friends.
In the end, voting to remain gives us a chance to show we're not scared and defensive. We don't duck challenges just because we need to cooperate with other countries to solve them. We show up, we muck in, we crack on. We stand with our friends and take control.
[I'll carry on updating this post as I get more responses].
Over the last few decades in rich countries, the share of middle-skill jobs has been going down.
There are fewer machine operators, middle managers and so on than there were decades ago, and it looks rather like there are fewer routine middle skill jobs around to replace them.
In 1979, the most common kinds of middle skill jobs in the US – office and administrative workers, production workers and operatives – accounted for 60% of total jobs. By 2012 that figure had fallen to 46%.
The trend holds in Europe too. Between 1993 and 2010, across sixteen EU countries, the share of middle jobs went down by almost 10%.
That graph was taken from David Autor's 2014 paper on this subject.
He also makes the striking point that in a survey in 2014, a plurality of mainstream economists agreed with the proposition that 'information technology and automation are a central reason why median wages have been stagnant in the US over the past decade, despite rising productivity'.
If they're right, and technology has contributed to the kind of wage stagnation that we've seen in the US, or even if it just means fewer opportunities for the majority to get on, it's a serious policy challenge.
Where is this heading?
So I wondered – is this trend likely to carry on?
Are we heading toward a world where there are plenty of highly paid, high skilled jobs, plenty of low paid, low skill jobs, but not enough in between? And if so, what on earth should we do about it?
I decided to ask a handful of the economists who are closer to the data than I am.
I asked two questions:
'With these questions, I have in mind the long term trend towards labour market polarisation in the EU and the US.
2. As a citizen, do you think public policy should try to mitigate labour market polarisation? If so, how?'
A few replied, their full responses are here, but this post offers a few takeaways from the responses so far.
'Polarisation is likely to continue' – Georg Graetz, John Van Reenen, and Craig Holmes
'Polarisation probably won't continue' – David Autor, Andrea Salvatori
'I recommend you don't think about it quite like that' – Adam Corlett, Laura Gardiner and Larry Mishel. More on this in point 5 below.
2. Unsurprisingly, pretty much everyone says that there's a role for public policy to respond to inequality in a number of familiar ways: redistribution of income or wealth, education, retraining, insurance, and so on.
It's not obvious, though, that this inequality is a consequence of this kind of labour market polarisation.
Also, Craig Holmes has a twist. He says:
"I don't think pay is everything, [but] in cases where the increase in productivity or reduction in costs that new technology bring about significant losses of job quality in addition to changes in pay, I would support policies that reduced these sorts of investments in the first place."
He also points out that
"The state, as a huge employer itself and creator of employment elsewhere, can have a big impact in terms of the nature of the work it creates directly."
3. It's worth distinguishing between 'the replacement of routine jobs' and 'labour market polarisation.' Yes, routine jobs are the ones most likely to be automated away. And yes, those have traditionally been the jobs in the middle of the skill spectrum. But the jobs most at risk of automation might not always be in the middle of the skill spectrum. Developed countries could start creating more middle skill jobs which are not routine jobs. In other words, the replacement of routine jobs could continue without deepening the division between low and high skilled jobs.
4. Professor Graetz points out that hollowing out of employment isn't new: previous episodes of automation were also associated with a hollowing out of employment.
5. As mentioned, some recipients push back at the question. Their core point is that it's not obvious that polarisation is happening, and even if it is it's not driving inequality of income.
Here's Laura Gardiner from the Resolution Foundation on the UK:
"I think that casting this phenomenon in terms of "polarisation" is the wrong way to think about it, because there is very limited evidence that the labour market is becoming more polarised. Even if jobs that started out in the middle of the pay distribution have declined, jobs moving around this distribution, new jobs cropping up all over the place, and earnings dispersion within occupations means that the labour market doesn't look to be a particularly different shape now than it was 20 years ago (in contrast to what's happened in the US, to some extent)."
And on the US, here's Larry Mishel:
"[Polarization] has not really been present in the US since 1999/2000 though the last few years show a bit of it. But it doesn't really matter whether it does or does not since polarization has no bearing on wage trends. "Occupational employment trends do not drive wage patterns or wage inequality." I wouldn't be surprised if polarization resumes but we shouldn't be obsessed about it at all. It doesn't tell us much."
5. Some of the most respected economists in the field are generous with their time.
Thank you to everyone who answered. And if you didn't, you still can. I might update this post if subsequent answers change the picture or yield other insights.
The recipients' full responses are here.
1. Do you think labour market polarisation is likely to continue to deepen in the foreseeable future, and why?
b) likely
In a paper joint with Andy Feng, we show that the replacement of middle wage jobs by new technologies is likely due to firms' responding to incentives, and not so much due to idiosyncratic features of information technology (see here for the latest version https://sites.google.com/site/georggraetz/files/machines.pdf). It turns out that job polarisation is not a new phenomenon, and previous episodes of automation were also associated with a hollowing out of employment. To be sure, I am not advocating "technological determinism" – educational and labour market institutions certainly have an impact on the employment and wage structures, as well. But there seems to be a strong tendency of technology to polarise the labour market.
2. As a citizen, do you think public policy should try to mitigate labour market polarisation? If so, how?
Public policy should ensure that everyone has access to an education system that is responsive to the changing demands of the labour market, and should assist those workers who were replaced by technology in retraining for a different career. I do not have a strong view on whether education should be publicly or privately provided, but I do think there is a role for the state in overcoming credit frictions that hinder educational investments, as well as in providing insurance.
1. Do you think labour market polarisation is likely to continue to deepen in the foreseeable future, and why?
a) Job polarization has not really been present in the US since 1999/2000 though the last few years show a bit of it. But it doesn't really matter whether it does or does not since polarization has no bearing on wage trends: http://www.epi.org/publication/technology-inequality-dont-blame-the-robots/ "Occupational employment trends do not drive wage patterns or wage inequality." I wouldn't be surprised if polarization resumes but we shouldn't be obsessed about it at all. It doesn't tell us much.
2. As a citizen, do you think public policy should try to mitigate labour market polarisation? If so, how?
I think public policy should focus on generating robust wage growth across-the-board.
Wage Inequality: A Story of Policy Choices
Raising America's Pay: Why It's Our Central Economic Policy Challenge
The Agenda to Raise America's Pay
How to Raise Wages: Policies That Work and Policies That Don't
1. Do you think labour market polarisation is likely to continue to deepen in the foreseeable future, and why?
a) unlikely
Most trends do not continue indefinitely. I think the technological forces behind the decline of middle-skill jobs have largely played out. Technology will continue to reshape job tasks and labor demand, but the next frontier of this phenomenon lies elsewhere.
Really, I'm just speculating. It's just my observation that when everyone finally agrees that something is "happening," it's probably already happened — and may soon be reversing. More substantively, I see the next frontiers of automation has lying in (1) dexterous physical tasks and (2) information intensive expert tasks.
2. As a citizen, do you think public policy should try to mitigate labour market polarisation? If so, how?
Not polarization per se. I think that public policy should attempt to help workers to adjust to exogenous adverse labor market demand shocks that diminish their earnings and reduce the value of their stock of human capital.
1. Do you think labour market polarisation is likely to continue to deepen in the foreseeable future, and why?
b) likely
2. As a citizen, do you think public policy should try to mitigate labour market polarisation? If so, how?
Yes, improving skills and education to meet new demands.
There is a definite trend of technology replacing the most routine jobs (which started out in the middle of the wage distribution) which is likely to continue. And this is something government should be mindful of and act upon if it has adverse consequences, for example in terms of individual progression prospects in certain sectors or the fortunes of displaced workers. (However, I'm not at all convinced that automation this time round is significantly different to before and about to cause mass unemployment rather than spur a range of new jobs. In fact, I think that in many ways government should be focusing on more automation in this country to help deal with our woeful productivity performance.)
However I think that casting this phenomenon in terms of "polarisation" is the wrong way to think about it, because there is very limited evidence that the labour market is becoming more polarised. Even if jobs that started out in the middle of the pay distribution have declined, jobs moving around this distribution, new jobs cropping up all over the place, and earnings dispersion within occupations means that the labour market doesn't look to be a particularly different shape now than it was 20 years ago (in contrast to what's happened in the US, to some extent).
So I suppose to directly answer your questions:
1. Do you think labour market polarisation is likely to continue to deepen in the foreseeable future, and why?
I don't think polarisation is a real problem or the right way of focusing question.
2. As a citizen, do you think public policy should try to mitigate labour market polarisation? If so, how?
I would say that public policy should act to mitigate any adverse consequences of automation, for example via redistribution, or progression and skills policies, but not polarisation per se. And that any protectionist anti-automation policy would be particularly misguided given the current productivity position.
1. Do you think labour market polarisation is likely to continue to deepen in the foreseeable future, and why?
Likely. However, I think it will affect different sorts of jobs in the past – for example, more low-skill service jobs are able to be automated, for example in retail or catering. Personal service jobs are likely to grow. In addition, technology is likely to be able to replace a wider range of high skill jobs as well, but I would expect the best paid high skill jobs to be immune to this, and indeed to continue to benefit from new digital technologies.
2. As a citizen, do you think public policy should try to mitigate labour market polarisation? If so, how?
I certainly think public policy should be directed to dealing with the consequences of this polarisation, and that where wage inequality increases as a result it should be prepared to redistribute more. However, I don't think pay is everything, and that in cases where the increase in productivity or reduction in costs that new technology bring about significant losses of job quality in addition to changes in pay, I would support policies that reduced these sorts of investments in the first place. The state, as a huge employer itself and creator of employment elsewhere, can have a big impact in terms of the nature of the work it creates directly, and is somewhat less subject to competitive market pressures that might be driving firms towards new technologies at the expense of job quality.
1. Do you think labour market polarisation is likely to continue to deepen in the foreseeable future, and why?
Hard to tell because it is really not clear why we have seen polarisation in some places, so it is hard to judge if the process will continue. The evidence that the phenomenon is primarily driven by technology, for example, is not so clear (for example: why did polarisation not occur in the US in the 2000s?). And, in any case, even if we decide to believe that the decline in middling occupations is primarily driven by automation, the argument that the range of tasks that can be automated is expanding would imply that we should not see substitution concentrated in the middle anymore. On the whole, I would argue that it is unlikely that polarisation is going to be the dominant trend for the future, but this is based more on the heterogeneity of patterns that we already observe across countries (and within countries over time) than on some deep understanding of the forces driving the changes in the occupational structure in advanced countries.
2. As a citizen, do you think public policy should try to mitigate labour market polarisation? If so, how?
I don't think public policy should try and mitigate polarisation per se. It should, however, pay close attention to whether changes in the occupational structure change career opportunities for different groups in unequal ways. In my research, I find that as the UK labour market has polarised, non-graduates have become increasingly concentrated in lower paid jobs and more graduates have moved to jobs traditionally done by people with lower qualifications. A key question there is what types of graduates are being driven down the occupational ladder – whose chances are changing as a result of the changes in the structure of the labour market.
1. Do you think labour market polarisation is likely to continue to deepen in the foreseeable future, and why?
I do think that we are likely to see a continued trend of the most routine jobs being replaced (and that these are disproportionately in the middle of the income distribution).
However, my own view is that "labour market polarisation" is not a real problem: i.e. the labour market is not becoming polarised, and even if there is the kind of hollowing out that our work and others' shows, those lost middle jobs are being replaced by other jobs and by changes in the earnings distribution.
2. As a citizen, do you think public policy should try to mitigate labour market polarisation? If so, how?
Public policy should definitely respond to any technological unemployment of the kind you talk about in your blog – should that happen – by redistributing income/wealth.
This is the first in a series of ten posts on the threat to jobs and growth from technology and online distribution, and what we might do about it.
If technology destroys too many jobs, what should we do?
The question might sound crazy, but I don't think it is any more.
What's changed?
Three things.
Firstly, over the last thirty years, middle jobs – jobs which rank in the middle of the spectrum in terms of pay, skills, security, and status – have been disappearing on aggregate in the USA and sixteen European countries.
Unless something big happens, the trend is likely to continue.
For more, see post 2.
I'm not panicking yet. What's the second reason?
Technology replacing jobs.
Some pharmacists, construction workers, financial advisers, legal workers, journalists, retail workers, and accountants have already been replaced. Dubai is about to start experimenting with robot guards. The range of professions will only increase.
The technology is getting both better and cheaper all the time.
The most authoritative research on this concludes that nearly two thirds of jobs in OECD countries could be automated in the next 20 years. According to the Bank of England, that could destroy half the number of jobs in Britain today.
For more, see post 3.
And the third reason?
Online competition.
Once competition in an industry moves online, margins normally fall and an industry shrinks, supporting fewer jobs.
That's already the story of newspapers in the UK and the US, recorded music, and taxis. It's the direction of travel in academia, legal services, and local markets for household tasks.
But the big one is yet to come.
I expect in the next decade or so the same will happen in manufacturing. When 3D printing is ubiquitous and we have a 'Spotify for products,' jobs in manufacturing, distribution, and transportation – the great engines of twentieth century job creation – are also likely to crater, as I explain in post 4.
We will have a race between the broadly 'job-creating' forces and the 'job destroying forces,' but it will be tough for the 'job creating forces' to win.
So everything will be cheaper. What's not to like?
Here's the problem: jobs are the main way money flows from the owners of companies to everyone else.
When economies work like they did in the US and Western Europe in the middle of the twentieth century, money flows from the owners of companies to the majority of people, who in turn buy those companies' products. It's a virtuous circle.
But if there are fewer jobs or middle jobs, companies grow but the money flows into the pockets of a smaller and smaller pool of employees – who are also potential customers. The result: customers are poorer than they would otherwise be.
Although we're not sure technology is the cause, that has started. The share of total wealth which goes to employees has fallen in seventeen big countries between 1970 and 2013.
And that's a problem.
If the trend towards fewer middle jobs or lower pay continues, it could mean lower purchasing power and growth, deflationary pressure, lower productivity, lower interest rates, worse health, increasing inequality, the decoupling of effort and reward, a pool of wasted education and skills, an ever greater accumulation of wealth in the hands of the owners of the technologies and greater debt at the bottom.
You do know that employment today in the US and the UK is at a record high, don't you?
Yes. But the trend over decades is towards fewer middle jobs and lower demand across developed countries. That trend is more consequential than one data point – even if it's today's.
For more, see post 7.
But technology has always created as many jobs as it destroys. Why might this time be different?
I hope it won't. But here are five reasons it might.
For more, see post 7.
Isn't the solution just more education and training?
I don't buy it. Skilling up doesn't, by itself, create new jobs.
See post 8.
Isn't the solution more self-employment and entrepreneurship?
They are good in and of themselves, but they won't fix this problem, because:
See post 9.
Well thanks. This has left me thoroughly depressed. Are there solutions?
I don't think there are solutions which fall within the boundaries of what is electorally acceptable in the UK or US today.
The best solution is to create new jobs. As with the response to the global financial crisis, if companies won't, governments should.
One solution is to create an enlarged sovereign wealth fund and use the dividends to create jobs. It makes particular sense for the fund to invest in tech companies like Alphabet where profits are exceptional and job creation is low compared to the big companies of the past.
The jobs programme might be similar to a permanent version of the 2009 Recovery Act in the US which created or saved 1.6 million jobs, as I argue in post 10.
After all, even if companies might need fewer employees than ever, we do not lack for work to be done.
This is the second in a series of ten posts on the threat to jobs and growth from technology and online distribution, and what we might do about it.
Will there always be enough jobs or good jobs to keep the economy growing?
Even just five years ago the question would have sounded kind of crazy. Now, I'm not so sure. The more research I find, the more worried I am.
Consider this. In the last thirty years, the American middle class has collapsed. Middle jobs – jobs which rank in the middle of the spectrum in terms of pay, skills, security, and status – have been disappearing.
This graph (from Laura Gardiner and Adam Corlett's invaluable presentation) tells the story for the UK.
The least skilled jobs are to the left and the most skilled jobs are to the right. The axis along the side shows the increase or decrease in employment share. And the red bars show the number of employees. The story is of a country adding many jobs needing high skills, but losing many jobs needing middling skills. There are fewer secretaries, electrical engineers, bookkeepers, and sheet metalworkers today than there were in the nineties, and fewer equivalent jobs to replace them.
But maybe the UK and the US are just outliers?
No. MIT economics professor David Autor – one of the leading thinkers in this area – has shown that the pattern is the same across 16 EU countries. The share of middle jobs has declined in every single one, in some countries by a lot. Here's his chart (from this paper):
So what is happening?
One of the prime suspects is technology. While it tends to make the best paid jobs more productive, it also replaces a lot of the jobs in the middle.
Many are beginning to worry it could be much more destructive than that.
The Civil Service is already thinking about the possibility of permanently increased structural unemployment (page xix). The World Economic Forum estimates that across rich countries, two thirds of the jobs likely to go will be office and administrative jobs: exactly the kind of jobs Britain disproportionately does. And the Bank of England has looked into the threat to jobs from automation and concluded that a staggering 15 million jobs in Britain are at risk (p.13).
To put that into context, today there are only about 31 million people working in the UK.
There's also evidence that job destruction tends to speed up with each business cycle: each recession destroys more routine jobs than the last.
When the Bank of England concludes that 15 million many jobs could be lost to automation, when a book warning about mass technological unemployment wins the Financial Times/McKinsey 'Book of the Year' award, and when sober centrist economists like former US Treasury Secretary Larry Summers propose radical solutions (of which more in post 10), something is stirring.
When my parents' generation left school or university, there was a great mass of middle jobs waiting for them. If these predictions are right, they won't be there for the next generation.
But this could be a problem for the whole economy.
After all, jobs are the main way that money flows from companies to the broad mass of people. Fewer or worse paid jobs means lower demand and growth.
The worst case scenarios here sound so unprecedented that it seems only sensible to think about what we might do about them before we're sure they're going to happen.
In this series of posts, I'm going to look at technological unemployment and underemployment – why it might happen, whether we can and should do anything about it, and I'll suggest a solution.
I've come to the conclusion that in the worst case scenario, the only policy solutions which might make a serious difference would be well outside the boundaries of what is electorally acceptable in the UK today.
In the next part, I'll look in more detail at why middle jobs are disappearing.
This is the third in a series of ten posts on the threat to jobs and growth from technology and online distribution, and what we might do about it.
Right now unemployment in the UK is relatively low.
But the lesson of history is that as technology gets smarter and cheaper, it takes on work which people used to do.
The waves of automation have always started low, washing away only some of the worst paid and least skilled jobs – the lamplighters and 'knocker uppers' of history. But as the tide rises, it begins to wash away the more skilled, better paid jobs too – software replacing accountants, for example; self driving cars, ships and planes replacing taxi drivers, captains and pilots.
Optimists will reply that technology has always created as many jobs as it has destroyed.
It's an important argument and I look at it in post 7.
In this post, I want to focus on one of the reasons that this time might be different from the past: today's technology is increasingly capable of substituting not just for manual work, but for mental work as well.
The best known paper on this is by Professor Michael Osborne and Dr Carl Frey. They argue that in the past, most of the jobs threatened by automation were the ones which involved following rules. The call centre operator who asks you what you want and puts you through to line one or two depending on your answer, for example.
But today's algorithms can do more than that. They can increasingly recognise patterns. They can 'see' and 'hear.' They are increasingly dextrous.
This, say Frey and Osborne, enables them to perform a broader scope of manual tasks.
They categorised 702 different kinds of jobs, from recreational therapists and foresters, to music composers and substance abuse counsellors, by how susceptible they are to automation. Their sobering conclusion was that 47% of the jobs in the US economy today could be automated.
The Bank of England took their methodology further. As I mentioned in the last post, it calculates that that would mean 80 million jobs lost in the US and 15 million in the UK – half of the total jobs in the UK economy today*. A third of all the jobs in the UK have a 66% chance of being automated away.
A pharmacist, for example, might well feel safe from automation. But a robot pharmacist is already at work at the University of California, writing prescriptions more accurately than a human.
If you offer financial advice you might feel safe too. But you're competing with automated, algorithm-based portfolio robo-advisers and artificially intelligent asset management, which are already managing $50 billion worth of assets. Barclays' former chief executive expects half of all the jobs in the UK finance sector to go over the next ten years.
You're a journalist? Associated Press have already automated much of their reporting of business results, and more will follow. In a recent survey in Sweden, 37% of readers thought an automated sports report was written by a real journalist. The technology is only going to improve.
You work in retail? The British Retail Consortium expects the sector to shed 37,000 jobs a year to automation.
You're in construction? Here's a video of a robot brickie.
You're a lawyer? You may see many law firm jobs disappear as discovery – the initial work of gathering evidence from other party or parties – is automated.
You're an accountant? The Bank of England puts the chance of your job surviving 'in the short to medium term' at 5%.
You operate a police patrol? There are now robot public guards in Dubai and San Francisco. "This way we can provide better services without hiring more people," is how Colonel Khalid Nasser Alrazooqui, head of Dubai's smart unit, puts it.
(You're a teacher, personal trainer, or priest? Fair enough. You'll be fine).
Here is the Bank of England's calculation about how vulnerable different types of job are.
Source: 'Labour's Share,' Speech by the Chief Economist of the Bank of England
Ever helpful, the BBC have set up a handy tool to tell you how likely your job is to be automated away.
Subsequent research building on Frey and Osborne's method found that across OECD countries, 57% of jobs could be at risk. And the figures for other countries are much worse: 69% of jobs in India, 77% per cent in China, a mind-boggling 85% in Ethiopia.
In short – this time might be different because many technologies will be deployed at the same time, and many of them will replace brain workers.
There is no precedent for this.
Many people will just feel in their gut that such a collapse in employment is impossible. After all, it is not as if the global economy is about to be blindsided by a systemic flaw that had gone unnoticed before.
I think this was a respectable position until the financial crisis did exactly that.
But automation is not the only threat to jobs. In the next part I'll look at the threat from online competition.
*And of course, automation is not the only aspect which could affect jobs. A quarter of all jobs in the US, for example, are also offshorable.