Enhancing Statistical Literacy: Enriching Our Society

Enhancing Statistical Literacy: Enriching Our SocietyAuthor(s): Katherine K. WallmanSource: Journal of the American Statistical Association, Vol. 88, No. 421 (Mar., 1993), pp. 1-8Published by: American Statistical AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2290686 .

Accessed: 10/06/2014 18:44

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

American Statistical Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journalof the American Statistical Association.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 193.104.110.110 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 18:44:41 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=astata

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2290686?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Enhancing Statistical Literacy: Enriching Our Society

KATHERINE K. WALLMAN*

"Statistical questions suffuse the fabric of our society at almost all folds." When Bill Kruskal and I offered that ob- servation in an Amstat News article just over a decade ago, the universe of our immediate concern was the federal statistical system-a universe that to some may have seemed rather parochial. Our principal intent in sharing our views with the members of ASA was to underscore the pervasive- ness of statistics produced by the federal government in our professional and personal lives. The urgency in our voices stemmed from what we perceived to be "penny-wise but pound-foolish decisions" that would undermine the quality of data for research, program planning, allocation of re- sources, and policy evaluation-by academics, business leaders, government officials, and citizens-for years to come (Kruskal and Wallman 1982).

It is not my mission tonight to revisit either historic or recent tragedies and triumphs of the federal statistical system. Many have written and spoken on these matters; several of my predecessors have discussed these issues, and how the ASA might respond to them, in their presidential addresses to our membership. I will, however, use the milieu of federal statistics as the opening scene for elaborating my hope that by enhancing statistical literacy we may succeed in enriching our society. My aims for the remarks I will share with you this evening are three:

* to underscore the importance of strengthening understanding of statistics and statistical thinking among all sectors of our population;

* to highlight some avenues we can pursue to enhance our citizens' statistical literacy; and

* to suggest some ways that individual statisticians and the American Statistical Association can enrich our society.

* Katherine K. Wallman is currently Chief, Statistical Policy, United States Office of Management and Budget. She previously served as Executive Di- rector, Council of Professional Associations on Federal Statistics. This article was presented as the presidential address at the 1992 annual meeting of the American Statistical Association in Boston, Massachusetts.

WHAT IS "STATISTICAL LITERACY"?

Shortly after I chose "Advancing Society's Statistical Lit- eracy" as a theme for our meetings this year, I had a frightening thought: What will I say if someone asks, "What is 'statistical literacy'?" I wrote that question on a piece of paper and put it in my center desk drawer, where it proceeded to haunt me almost daily.

As I gathered and read materials on "statistical literacy" from many sources, the diversity of views I encountered mirrored the breadth of perspectives our colleagues within and outside the statistics profession bring to this subject. The perspective I offer is this:

"Statistical Literacy" is the ability to understand and critically evaluate statistical results that permeate our daily lives-coupled with the ability to appreciate the contributions that statistical thinking can make in public and private, professional and personal decisions.

PERCEPTIONS WITHIN AND OUTSIDE GOVERNMENT

To set the stage for elaboration of my principal themes, I want to share with you two vignettes of recent federal statistical history. The concerns these vignettes illustrate stem from what I would characterize as a series of "mis-es"- misunderstandings, misperceptions, mistrust, and misgivings: misunderstandings about the sources of statistical data; misperceptions about the willingness of citizens to provide information; mistrust by some members of our population about how statistical data will be used; and misgivings about the value of statistics for guidance in public and private choices. These mis-es, I contend, are rooted in society's lack of "statistical literacy."

Disputes about the content and method of federal statistical endeavors are not as new to the scene as some embroiled in the debates of recent decades may have thought. At the

In the Public Domain Journal of the American Statistical Association

March 1993, Vol. 88, No. 421, Presidential Address

1



2 Journal of the American Statistical Association, March 1993

time of the first decennial census, according to an account provided by historian Margo Anderson,

Congress also discussed whether the census should collect any information beyond a mere headcount necessary for apportion- ment. James Madison proposed a rather elaborate schedule to categorize the population by age, sex, race, and occupation.... He was successful in convincing Congress to request information about some basic distinctions of race, sex, and age, but the Senate deleted the census of occupations, because, Madison wrote to Jefferson, they considered it "a waste of trouble and supplying materials for idle people to make a book." (Anderson 1988)

How familiar the tune, if not the words, of this reprise on the census of 1790. Two centuries later, as final preparations were being made for the 1990 decennial census dress rehearsal, the United States Office of Management and Budget [OMB] concluded that justification provided for much of the content was inadequate. Proposing that virtually all of the housing items be eliminated or moved to the sample questionnaire, and that several sample items related to employment, commuting, migration, and fertility be removed altogether, OMB stated in part:

We believe that the length of the questionnaires and the sensitivity of some questions may contribute to respondent resistance. . This research strongly suggests that counting the population in large cities is complicated by suspicions engendered by questions not related to the population count. (Gramm 1987)

The burdens that information collections may impose- not the benefits to be derived from the data produced- framed much of the orientation to the federal role in statistical work during recent decades. While hardly a new concern on the part of federal decision makers-indeed, such considerations underlay the passage and implementation of the Federal Reports Act of 1942-the essential balance between the burdens and benefits of statistical information seemed to many in the professional community to have become increasingly lopsided. Arguing the essential "wrong-headed- ness" of casting surveys and censuses as a burden on the public, Richard Rockwell expressed most poignantly the alternative view:

Imagine a nation with no interviews and no questionnaires. How would the people be able to speak to their government about their condition? How would the government be able to learn from the people how well it is doing and what the people's problems are? How would appropriate policies be formulated and evaluated, and how would the government respond to changes in the society and the economy? Such a government would have little account- ability to the people and no responsibility to relate its programs and policies to reality.... The people have a right to be heard through the data they can provide to the federal statistical agencies. (Rockwell 1987)

Yet there are burdens-associated not so much with the volume of data collected, but rather with potential misuses of the information provided and misgivings about the value of statistical data-that are perceived by those from whom we need to hear. My second example illustrates the impact of such respondent concerns on society's ability to acquire critically needed statistics.

In September 1987 the U.S. Centers for Disease Control announced plans to conduct a national survey to determine the extent of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection in the general population. The proposed survey was to be

one component of a national HIV surveillance system de- signed in response to President Reagan's call for "a comprehensive program to determine the nationwide incidence of the human immunodeficiepcy virus and to predict its future occurrence and to initiate epidemiologic studies to determine the extent to which HIV has penetrated the various segments of our society" (Hurley and Pinder 1992). Despite the operational and quality challenges such an undertaking posed, there was consensus that the survey strategy had suf- ficient merit to be tested. Key among the practical and ethical considerations to be explored in the feasibility study was a test of the willingness of people to participate if they were promised confidentiality.

Reflecting on events that transpired as the field test of the survey proceeded, Peter Hurley and Glenn Pinder of the National Center for Health Statistics observe:

We were to find that any study focusing on AIDS and HIV infection would have to deal not only with the legacy of this epidemic but with the whole history of gay and minority groups' negative experience with the health care system.. . . There was also spec- ulation that CDC's decision to move forward with this survey was motivated more by White House pressure than by scientific need. We were to experience how suspicions deriving from many sources affect all our efforts to gain and to disseminate knowledge about the HIV epidemic.. . . We began this project with a general awareness of the sensitivity of the topic but were not prepared for the extent to which the broader community's fears and concerns would influence almost everything we would do.

Describing the fatal flaws in the approach to the first field test of the survey, Hurley and Pinder highlight the problems that resulted from the proposal to stratify the sample by some measure of HIV risk status. Despite the scientific merit of this methodology, and even though no personal identifiers would have been required, the procedure was viewed as tar- geting particular groups and individuals, with implications of malevolent redlining. Unable to appreciate the social and political ramifications seen by others, the survey sponsors did not speak to these in their explanations to community leaders. Learning from this experience, survey sponsors- through extensive and expensive consultations-were successful at a subsequent test site in allaying fears about survey participation leading to identification and discrimination. But another theme-that we already know enough about the AIDS/HIV problem and that further study was wasting money that should be spent on a cure-emerged. Issues regarding how the survey was conducted became secondary to the essential question of whether the survey was needed at all.

In the end, lacking a clear consensus on the scientific merit of a national survey, and absent enthusiasm from any rele- vant constituency for its conduct, the Director of the National Center for Health Statistics recommended to the Director of CDC that the national survey not proceed. But the ex- periences of the field trials underscore the fact that understanding the perceptions of our respondents concerning the potential burdens we may impose must be given at least as much attention as we devote to the rigor of our statistical methods. As the leaders of the Household HIV Seropreva- lence Survey team conclude



Wallman: Enhancing Statistical Literacy 3

Survey scientists who accept the challenge of gathering data on sensitive issues must at times face up to the task of building a climate of acceptance for their work and of developing efficient ways of doing so. They must communicate the methods of science better to the public. [Emphasis added.] (Hurley and Pinder 1992)

THE CHANGING CONTEXT FOR THE STATISTICIANS' WORK

As a society, we face many issues. Securing our global competitiveness, increasing quality and productivity, adapt- ing to the changing composition of the workforce, overcom- ing pollution and other threats to the environment, addressing the needs of an aging population, and determining when to release new treatments for diseases are but a sample of those already before us. These and other difficult problems stand to benefit from the contributions that statisticians can make to our understanding, and from increased statistical literacy on the part of both policy makers and the public.

The terms of reference for interaction between statisticians, policy makers, and the public have changed markedly since the days when members of our profession were largely concerned with "coding, tabulation, and recognition and cor- rection of obvious errors in data collection" (Anderson 1988). Whether we as statisticians like it or not, we are faced with what Jim Bonnen has described as a "growing, intimate embrace between statistics and public policy decision making" which "has greatly increased the significance and decision value of the statistics we produce" (Bonnen 1983).

To this audience, the examples have become familiar over the past several years: the use of statistics in allocating billions of dollars under legislatively prescribed formulas; the use of statistics in establishing regulatory priorities in areas such as energy, the environment, and transportation; the use of statistics in setting standards for affirmative action and school desegregation. Most fundamentally, federal statistics have come to affect directly the lives of millions of individuals: Statistics govern cost-of-living adjustments for many wage earners, and Social Security payments for retirees; they define who qualifies for food stamps and school lunches; and they determine where services, such as schools and hospitals, will be provided. As William Alonso and Paul Starr observed in the Introduction to their volume The Politics of Numbers,

So well institutionalized are statistics such as the unemployment rate, the money supply, and various price indices that the date and even the hour of their release are regular events in the political and economic calendar, setting off debates on the performance of administration policy and influencing both stock markets and elections. (Alonso and Starr 1987)

The front page of the July 3, 1992, issue of the New York Times bears witness to this contention. In the upper right corner-the space traditionally reserved by journalists for the day's most important story-the headline read "Unem- ployment Up Sharply, Prompting Federal Reserve to Cut Its Key Lending Rate"; the subtitle, "Blow to President."

But even as statistics have become so pervasive in our lives, both policy makers and the public have raised issues that focus not so much on the scientific merit of our method but rather on matters that attend the collection and use of statistical information. The misunderstandings, mispercep-

tions, mistrust, and misgivings that frequent our stage challenge our repertoire.

To be sure, there are and have long been those in the policy arena who understand the value of statistical information. To wit: In 1849, as Congress was considering leg- islation to create a Census Board composed of the secretaries of State and Interior and the postmaster general that would be responsible for " [preparing] a bill which the statistics of the country will require," Senator Robert M. T. Hunter of Virginia encouraged this plan since it was "especially . . . important for the American statesman to obtain a full and accurate view of all the parts of that vast society whose ma- chinery he directs. He should have all possible facilities for studying our progress, and tracing the connection between cause and effect" (Anderson 1988). More recently, in his announcement of a series of hearings on "America's Chang- ing Profile," Representative Tom Sawyer of Ohio advised:

It is important for policymakers to assess the needs of a changing and growing population, as well as to anticipate the demands on public services. We want to lay the groundwork for policies and programs that are sensitive to demographic forces.. . . We need to explore the juncture where information and policy meet. The composition and age structure of the population will present new and enormous challenges for educators, employers, public officials, and social service providers.. . . Sound and fiscally-prudent policies must be responsive to the demands of a growing and changing population. (Sawyer 1992)

As well, there are among those responsible for the education of our citizens many who understand fully the importance of promoting statistical literacy. I think of Dean Hubbard, President of Northwest Missouri State University, who is working to establish a "statistics for the common man" course as a requirement of the university's core undergraduate curriculum. Most of all, I think of the teachers in our nation's elementary and secondary schools who are working so hard to bring quantitative literacy to their students.

Without question, there are others in the halls of Congress and around our country who share these perspectives. But the obverse is also true, and, I fear, far more prevalent. The oft-told anecdote comes from a Congressional hearing in the late 1960s, when a congressman was questioning statisticians from the Census Bureau about the projected scope and costs of the 1970 census. The tenor of his questions was highly critical. Why did the bureau need to ask so many questions? Did not the projected questions constitute an invasion of individual privacy by the government? And why did the census cost so much? Bureau officials responded patiently to each question, although it was clear that the congressman was unconvinced. Why did the federal government have to get so involved in collecting statistics in the first place, the congressman asked. After all, he continued, whenever he needed statistical information, he just went and looked it up in an almanac (Anderson 1988).

The lack of statistical literacy extends as well to industrial settings. Brian Joiner, interviewed for an article that appeared in The Washington Post last year put it this way:

It's difficult to overestimate it as a problem for us . . . It's just as bad in the executive suites as it is on the factory floor ... there's ignorance of variation . . . how to learn from data. Every




week, managers get data that all fall within [normal ranges of error] so they end up reacting to noise instead of statistically sig- nificant information.

"A basic knowledge of statistics would make it easier," the author of the Post article argued, "for people to learn more from market research data, scientific research, customer services feedback and all the other information that organiza- tions relentlessly insist on gathering. . . . Despite the fact that our lives are increasingly surrounded by risks and un- certainty, we have an educational system that virtually ig- nores any appreciation of statistics and probability" (Schrage 1991).

Most vexing of all is the problem faced by our citizens, who encounter statistics at every turn in their daily lives, yet often are unequipped with the statistical literacy required to evaluate the information. The "rationale for teaching statistics," set forth in ASA's GUIDELINES for the Teaching of Statistics K-12 Mathematics Curriculum (1991), elaborates this encounter between citizen and quantitative information:

Raw data, graphs, charts, rates, percentages, probabilities, averages, forecasts, and trend lines are an inescapable part of our everyday lives. They affect decisions on health, citizenship, parenthood, employment, financial concerns, sports, and many other matters. . . . Informed citizens should understand the latest news polls, the consumer price indices, and unemployment rates. (p. 3)

"A public unable to reason with figures," writes Lynn Arthur Steen, "is an electorate unable to discriminate between ra- tional and reckless claims in public policy. Debates about acceptable levels of suspected carcinogens, about the efficacy of high-risk medical procedures, and about regulation of hazardous waste all hinge on sophisticated understanding of quantitative issues involving data, chance, and statistical in- ference" (Steen 1990). Ironic-and at times frightening-is the fact that the same public who has little knowledge about the analysis and interpretation of social and economic data has simultaneously vastly increased access to statistical data and to computing tools that enable virtually anyone to ma- nipulate information.

PATHWAYS TO ENHANCING STATISTICAL LITERACY

Numerous pathways-some already being traveled, others awaiting our footsteps-may be taken as we work both within the ASA and with colleagues in other disciplines and profes- sions to enhance our citizens' statistical literacy. I want to highlight three avenues that I believe we have begun to tra- verse, each of which holds promise for our further explora- tion. These are the federal statistical system, our nation's schools, and the popular media.

ASA AND THE FEDERAL STATISTICAL SYSTEM

The bond between the American Statistical Association and the federal statistical system is fundamental and enduring. The history of our organization, as chronicled in the presidential address of Ray Bowman, bespeaks the fundamental ties between ASA and federal statistics. "Certainly in the period before World War I," Bowman remarked, "the Association was largely concerned with improvements and use of official statistics, with considerable emphasis on vital

statistics. . . . [ASA] worked with the States-particularly Massachusetts-and with the Federal Government-particularly the Census and the Treasury-for 'improving the sources of statistical knowledge' " (Bowman 1964).

The enduring nature of the relationship between ASA and the federal statistical system is perhaps most directly illus- trated by the record of our association in creating and maintaining advisory committees that have served both the system as a whole and individual agencies during the present century. In 1918 the joint Census Advisory Committee of the Amer- ican Statistical Association and the American Economic As- sociation was created. In 1933, upon her appointment as Secretary of Labor, Frances Perkins called upon ASA to establish a committee to provide advice "regarding the methods, adequacy, usefulness and general program of the Bureau of Labor Statistics" (Goldberg and Moye 1985). Later that year, "on the basis of an understanding with the secretaries of the federal departments concerned, the American Statis- tical Association and the Social Science Research Council jointly organized a Committee on Government Statistics and Information Services" to serve the statistical needs of the Agriculture, Commerce, Labor and Interior departments (Bowman 1964). In 1975 ASA played the lead role in con- vening the Joint Ad Hoc Committee on Government Sta- tistics (JAHCOGS) "to consider all aspects of federal statistics to determine what areas should be studied further and what action should be taken by the joint endeavor of this committee, its extension and the associations supporting it." At the end of that decade, in light of the findings of JAHCOGS, ASA was the key actor in the proposal to found and establish the Council of Professional Associations on Federal Statistics, which opened its doors in 1980 under the leadership of former ASA president Bill Shaw. Meanwhile, advisory committees to serve needs of newer federal statistical programs have been established in areas such as justice, energy and, within the very recent past, the environment.

But even as our members have served and continue to serve individual statistical agencies by providing advice on methodological issues related to particular areas of inquiry, the problems confronting the federal statistical system have taken new directions. Often the issues encountered by the agencies are less of a technical nature and more rooted in public perception and understanding-or misperceptions and misunderstandings.

Concerns about respondent burden and the cost of data collection-both to the federal government and to the re- sponding population-frame a great deal of current thinking about future statistical activities. The debate about the content and sample size for the 1990 decennial census vividly demonstrated how dominant these issues have become. While that census ultimately captured virtually all of the information data users have come to rely on, the concerns that were laid on the table in 1987 continue to engage the attention of decision makers in the Administration and the Congress. Indeed, in the array of design alternatives now being considered for the year 2000 census, there are a number of options geared at reducing burden and cost either by sharply truncating the content of the census or by turning to administrative records as alternative data sources.



Waliman: Enhancing Statistical Literacy 5

The use of administrative records as a means to generate what have been called "general-purpose statistics" holds great appeal for those who would cut cost and burden. It is also fraught with problems-some clearly technical in nature, but others that go far beyond our traditional store of methodological solutions. Proposing "the fullest possible exploi- tation of sources that can be used as an alternative to direct collection," Ross Eckler contended in his 1969 address to this association:

For government agencies this means that maximum use should be made of administrative records where suitable arrangements are possible. Respondents are especially likely to object to supplying data which they believe are already available in other government sources.

While Eckler recognized the "substantial efforts [that] must be put into coordinating and standardizing administrative records before the potential savings in using these sources can be realized" (Eckler 1970), his consideration of the issues did not extend to nontechnical barriers statistical agencies face. Such barriers are exemplified by the June 1992 testimony of the American Civil Liberties Union [ACLU], which voiced "strenuous objection" to proposals that would "supplement or replace the 2000 census by developing, in effect, a federal agency clearinghouse of personal information currently held by government agencies." Urging that the administrative records proposal be abandoned early in the decade, the ACLU recommended that the Congress amend the Privacy Act of 1974 to prohibit the use of personal information held by the federal government to supplement or replace the census (Goldman 1992). Thus, it is clear that our efforts to foster new approaches to maintaining and improving the quality of our statistical information base must embrace attention to public perceptions of our proposed solutions.

My second example of a cross-cutting issue ripe for greater involvement by members of our profession concerns what I believe is the thorniest-and potentially most consequen- tial-issue facing the federal statistical system. This is the growing tension between the need to protect the confidentiality of individual responses and the desire to provide the broadest possible access to information. Many researchers find access to government data increasingly desirable. The newer data bases are more comprehensive, of better quality, and-with improved data base management techniques- better structured.

At the same time, the individuals and institutions that provide the data residing on government data bases-as well as the agencies that sponsor the collection of such information-are becoming increasingly aware that the same technologies that extend analytical capabilities also furnish the tools that threaten the confidentiality of data records. Factors that give rise to these concerns about the growing capability to identify individual records include the existence of greater numbers of microdata files, the increasing use of identification, the growing desire and capability to match statistical and administrative records, the greater conse- quences of disclosure, the possible increase in motivations for identifying individual records, and the fact that microdata files are harder to disguise. The vignette of the Household

HIV Seroprevalence Survey illustrates many of these concerns.

Our federal statistical system derives its mandate for data collection and dissemination from a citizenry that demands at once both quality information to drive public policy and protection of the individual respondent from privacy invasion and administrative harm. In response to these cross- pressures, agencies are actively pursuing various approaches. Data encryption techniques are being employed in some cases; licensing agreements that extend responsibility for confidentiality protection to the data user are being imple- mented in others. Striking the proper balance between per- mitting access to accomplish compelling and legitimate research goals, and incurring the risk, however remote, of inadvertent revelation of individual information is, I believe, a fundamental issue and challenge for all of us. Through the recent publication of its "Surveys and Privacy" brochure, our Committee on Privacy and Confidentiality has made an excellent start on improving communication with respondents about the meaning of confidentiality pledges and questions they may wish to ask survey sponsors. As we look to the future, the members of our association must lend their expertise to developing and implementing creative solutions that embrace the technical, legal, and ethical considerations inherent in ensuring confidentiality while enhancing data access.

ASA AND OUR NATION'S SCHOOLS

Since the inauguration of its quantitative literacy program in 1984, the ASA has been a major force in developing and delivering, in cooperation with the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, a model inservice workshop for secondary school teachers in the area of elementary statistics and probability and has published curriculum units necessary for effective teaching of basic statistical concepts. During the last several years we have mounted 25 five-day workshops in 15 states; this summer nine workshops, from Idaho to Puerto Rico, are being conducted. Through these workshops, coupled with numerous two-day awareness sessions, we have reached more than 2,500 teachers and, in turn, some 350,000 young people.

More recently, as you have no doubt read in Amstat News, the opportunity to further the scope and success of the QL program has been afforded through the award of two additional grants from the National Science Foundation: One is supporting the development of a data-driven curriculum strand for high school mathematics, and the second is supporting the development of a QL workshop model for the elementary mathematics curriculum. Looking ahead, ASA has been examining the possible expansion of QL efforts to include joint ventures with the National Science Teachers Association and the National Council for Social Studies.

The success of the Quantitative Literacy Program has been in no small measure attributable to the willingness of statisticians around the country, through the local chapters, to participate in the summer institutes and in-service training activities that are fundamental to the program. With the establishment of ASA's Center for Statistical Education, and




the cooperation of ASA's chapters, the benefits of this program can be extended throughout the country. In my view, these educational efforts beginning at the earliest levels, and future initiatives that would integrate concepts of statistics and probability into learning in the physical and social sciences, offer an invaluable opportunity to introduce statistical thinking into the perspective each of our citizens brings to bear on his or her public and private decisions.

As is so often the case, the success of an undertaking brings with it demands for extending its reach. Thus, for example, we hear pleas for improving our dissemination of what has been termed good practice. We are confronted with questions about how the educational system can be changed to embrace QL standards. We are asked if similar curricula could be developed for "statistics for the common man" courses at the undergraduate level. We are queried about strategies for integrating statistical thinking into coursework in the physical and social sciences. Most fundamentally, we are challenged to spread our efforts to those who are out of the educational system, particularly to the current workforce. Not long ago, for example, I received a call from a colleague at the Envi- ronmental Protection Agency. Having read the announcement of our "QL in Action" session at these meetings, he wondered if we could consider giving such a workshop for the staff of EPA. At the ASA Winter Conference earlier this year, Fred Mosteller lamented the fact that our good efforts did not yet embrace those currently involved in business and industrial settings. All of these suggestions-and others I have not enumerated-merit our attention and action.

ASA AND THE POPULAR MEDIA

"A professional organization [of statisticians] needs . . . to provide the public through the press, lecture platform, and radio with reliable information about the science of statistics and its contributions . . ." In his 1960 presidential address, Morris Hansen reminded us of Walter Shewhart's 1945 admonition to the association (Hansen 1961). In the decades since, the avenues for media presentation of our work, and the proclivity of the press to report statistics, have grown immeasurably.

Unfortunately, public awareness and comprehension of statistical approaches lag far behind the pervasive presentation of data in our popular media. Forty years ago, Aryness Joy Wickens told members of this association:

We owe the public . . . a clear description of the general nature and limitations of statistics, with a simple measure of their accuracy, if it can be measured and a warning if it cannot. We cannot, and we should not, try to explain every technical detail, or to make statisticians of everyone . . . (Wickens 1953).

We still owe the public this debt in 1992. Our principal route to the public, I believe, is that same

avenue that brings to them our data-the popular media. To be sure, much progress has been made in this arena since 1952. In particular, we now find in much of our newspaper reporting, notably with respect to polls, a box that explains "how the poll was conducted." Credit for the institution of this practice belongs to our colleagues in the statistical profession.

And there are other encouraging developments. For example, a few years ago Washington Post science and medical reporter Victor Cohn prepared, with what I understand was considerable guidance from Fred Mosteller and others at the Harvard School of Public Health, a guide to reporting statistical claims and controversies in health and related fields. Directed principally at reporters, News & Numbers urges a description of statistical methods used in news stories and poses questions that should be asked to ascertain the credi- bility of "statistical" claims: How do you know? Have you done a study? What kind? What numbers lead you to your conclusions? How valid, how reliable, how probable are they? Compared with what? (Cohn 1989). More recently, the Na- tional Council on Public Polls has published a brochure setting forth "Twenty Questions a Journalist Should Ask About Poll Results" before reporting them in the media.

As with quantitative literacy, our success in working with the media brings additional challenges. Toward the end of June, David Sylwester shared with me his joy that the local television station, in reporting the results of the latest Bush/ Clinton/Perot poll, had included some description of how the poll was conducted. Grabbing the New York Times, the source of that poll, I told David of the elaborate description of the methodology that was included in the newspaper report. As I neared the end of the jargon-free description, I read, "The potential sampling error for smaller subgroups is larger." "Oh no," David cried, "did they really say 'sampling error'?" Progress is not without its attendant challenges for the members of our profession.

To advance our citizens' statistical literacy, I would ad- vocate further development of clear, simple, meaningful ter- minology and notation that could be promoted and used by our popular media in their reporting of statistical information. On a broader level, I believe we must accept the challenge set forth by the Focus Group on Quantitative Literacy

We . . . should be more forceful in making the media do a better job of handling quantitative information, and calling them on it when they do a poor job. We should simply not stand for some of the things we see in advertising, or the misuse of polls, or the incorrect interpretation of medical studies. (Sons 1992)

In the three years since its establishment, the ASA Office of Scientific and Public Affairs has made progress in meeting some of our objectives to promote among policy makers and the public an improved understanding of the need for and importance of high quality statistical work. We are, for example, more aggressively publicizing to the media sessions at these meetings that will hold interest for the public. We have set up facilities to enhance the dialogue between members of our profession and reporters-to make our work more accessible and user-friendly.

Much of the promise of our initiatives in scientific and public affairs has yet to be realized. To foster progress in this area, we have established an advisory committee for OSPA, similar to those that guide each of the other major functions of the ASA office. We are looking to that committee to assist us in assessing how far we have come and in charting strategies for future directions. Whatever those next steps, I believe the effectiveness of our scientific and public affairs efforts ultimately will rest on the willingness of our members around



Waliman: Enhancing Statistical Literacy 7

the country, individually and through our sections and chapters, to lend their talents and expertise. Those of you who are out in the real world are in the best position to inform the fundamental question, "How can statistics be of use to our citizens?" You will be our key to working with the popular media-and thus to enhancing our citizens' statistical literacy.

ENRICHING OUR SOCIETY

I deliver this presidential address to you as a minority. I refer in this instance not to what I presume to be the visually apparent-though that minority status does provide the oc- casion to share a final anecdote from Margo Anderson's history of the census. She writes:

[In defense of his "extravagance"-assembling a staff of 170 people to process the 1850 census-Secretary of the Interior Joseph Kennedy] wrote that during his administration "no pains have been spared to secure perspicuity of arrangement and accuracy of execution in the census." Such "perfect work . . . required that all the calculations and classifications should be made by responsible clerks in office, instead of being confided to females and other persons having no interest on the subject, as has been done on former occasions." (Anderson 1988)

The minority status I refer to in this instance is my membership in the category of ASA's constituents who do not have advanced degrees [ 15 percent of our members, according to data presented by Barbara Bailar in her 1987 presidential address] and my membership in the category of ASA's constituents who do not work in academic, industrial, or government settings [10 percent of our members in 1987] (Bailar 1988).

A decade ago, I engaged then executive director Fred Leone in a conversation about what to me had been a puz- zling circumstance. Why, I asked, do we not have more state and local government statisticians among our members? Fred's answer was instructive: "You forget," he said, "that ASA traditionally has been a 'learned society'."

I believe that ASA continues to hold its respect and rep- utation as the learned society for our profession. But I believe that we are, as well, "a society that learns." In recent years, we have come to recognize the need to enhance our society by embracing in our membership those who engage in "statistical thinking." In turn, we have, for example, expanded our range of publications to address the needs of a more varied audience: three years ago, we started to publish our student magazine STA TS; this year, the Board of Directors voted to acquire CHANCE, thereby allowing us to offer a general readership magazine. Most notably, with prodding and persistence from our past-president Arnold Zellner, ASA has mounted an aggressive campaign to attract new members-and it is working! Within this year, our membership numbers have swelled from our previously stagnant level of 15,000 to an almost amazing 17,000 plus!

This success brings with it attendant challenges: We must consider how to maintain the traditional services and activities that support our scientific mission while fostering new programs that will engage a more broadly based membership. I do not yet have updated information to determine the training and occupational pursuits of our new members- our new computer will, at last, enable us to have statistics

on our own-but I would hazard a guess that, as we continue to expand, many of our new members will represent less traditional "statisticians." In turn, we will need to examine more proactively the mix of services and activities ASA pro- vides, and should provide, to its increasingly diverse membership. I think it is noteworthy that as the Board of Directors has approached the selection of topics for our planning ini- tiative, the areas that were given highest priority included two that are more traditional-membership and publications-and two that are more recent additions to our port- folio-quantitative literacy and the promotion of statistical thinking. Our success in addressing the concerns of the membership will rest heavily on your participation-both in framing our focus for the future and in implementing the resultant initiatives.

A decade and a half ago I participated in the ASA/ ISI Conference on the Transfer of Methodology Between Aca- demic and Practicing Statisticians. At the time-the latter half of the 1970s-that theme suggested heightened sensitivity to the need to blend theory and real-world applications more aggressively-but our audience was more or less limited to "statisticians."

In more recent years, I believe we have begun to cast our net more broadly-but I believe we still have far to go. For example, while I fully understood the impetus for ISI's cre- ation of a Committee to Promote the Role of Statisticians- a committee on which I served-I was truly concerned about what might be perceived as a rather self-serving mission. It seemed to me that our more important mission would be to "promote the role of statistical thinking." I am pleased that the report of the ISI committee speaks to that need; and I am further pleased to note that ISI's newly created Inter- national Association for Statistical Education recognizes the need to embrace statistical education as it extends to secondary and elementary schools, to the workplace, and to government and industry.

In his 1990 presidential address to the Royal Statistical Society, Peter Moore suggested that we need to nurture the preparation of "statistically minded" individuals, and that we need to facilitate the more effective use of statistical thinking within all departments of an organization. A major theme of his address, as I read it, was that we must educate the consumer-and the potential consumer-to better understand statistics and, more fundamentally, statistical thinking-to add "statistical literacy" to his or her skills (Moore 1990). In their 1992 ASA Winter Conference paper "Training to Promote the Role of Statisticians: Learning to Overcome Our Feelings of Inferiority," Kenneth Bryson and Larry Hartke advocated educating the statisticians to better understand-and address-what the consumer of our science wants and needs (Bryson and Hartke 1992). I believe both of these strategies demand our attention.

If we wish to continue to heed the mandate of our found- ers-"to be of service to science and society"-we must heed the needs of the customers both in our professional society- the ASA-and in the larger society we seek to serve-our customers in government and industry, whether they are on the front line or in the computer room; our customers in the educational system, whether they are college presidents,




classroom teachers or students; and our customers in the media, who most often bring our work to our ultimate customers-our fellow citizens. It is these audiences to whom we must bring statistical literacy-and these audiences who will determine whether statistical thinking makes a difference in their personal and professional pursuits.

It is a tradition-or at least a strong tendency-for those about to prepare their ASA presidential addresses to embark on this task by reviewing speeches of their predecessors. Having done so, I incorporated in my closing paragraph se- lected words of wisdom from our past presidents. A few days later, I shared an admittedly too long draft with colleagues for their constructive criticism. With considerable concern, Alison Stern-Dunyak delivered to my desk an E-mail response. A single line stood out: "Kill all the presidents- except Hogg!" It was Bob Hogg, you may recall, who told this association "How to Hope With Statistics." If I might paraphrase a bit, I would like to put my bet on hoping with the statisticians. As we endeavor to enhance statistical literacy, I believe we will enrich both our professional society, the American Statistical Association, and the society in which we live.

REFERENCES

Alonso, W., and Starr, P. (eds.) (1987), The Politics of Numbers, New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

American Statistical Association (1991), GUIDELINES for the Teaching of Statistics K-12 Mathematics Curriculum, Alexandria, VA: Author.

Anderson, M. J. (1988), TheAmerican Census: A Social History, New Haven and New London: Yale University Press.

Bailar, B. A. (1988), "Statistical Practice and Research: The Essential In- teractions," Journal of the American Statistical Association, 83, 1-8.

Bonnen, J. T. (1983), "Federal Statistical Coordination Today: A Disaster or a Disgrace," The American Statistician, 37, 179-192.

Bowman, R. T. (1964), "The American Statistical Association and Federal Statistics," Journal of the American Statistical Association, 59, 1-17.

Bryson, K. R., and Hartke, L. W. (1992), "Training to Promote the Role of Statisticians: Learning to Overcome Our Feelings of Inferiority," un- published paper presented at the 1992 ASA Winter Conference, Louisville, January 3-5.

Cohn, V. (1989), News and Numbers, Ames: Iowa University Press. Eckler, A. R. (1970), "Statisticians and Shoemakers ('Who is Worse Shod

Than the Shoemaker's Wife,' from Heywood's Proverbs)," Journal of the American Statistical Association, 65, 9-21.

Goldberg, J. P., and Moye, W. T. (1985), The First Hundred Years of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Goldman, J. (1992), Testimony at a hearing on "Planning the Next Census: Getting the Most for Our Money in the 2000 Census," Washington, DC: Senate Subcommittee on Government Information and Regulation.

Gramm, W. L. (1987), Letter to Katherine M. Bulow denying approval for the 1990 Census dress rehearsal, September 16, 1987.

Hansen, M. H. (1961), "Cooperation Among Statistical and Other Societies," Journal of the American Statistical Association, 56, 1-10.

Hurley, P., and Pinder, G. (1992), "Ethics, Social Forces, and Politics in AIDS-Related Research: Experience in Planning and Implementing a Household HIV Seroprevalence Survey," The Milbank Quarterly, 70,605- 628.

Kruskal, W. H., and Wallman, K. K. (1982), "Federal Statistics and You," Amstat News, Number 85, 3-4.

Moore, P. G. (1990), The Skills Challenge of the Nineties, London: Royal Statistical Society.

Rockwell, R. C. (1987), "It's No Burden, It's Our Right," in Annual Report, Alexandria, VA: Council of Professional Associations on Federal Statistics.

Sawyer, T. C. (1992), Press release announcing a series of hearings on "America's Changing Profile," Washington, DC: House Subcommittee on Census and Population.

Schrage, M. (1991), "If Statistics Are the Key to Quality, Our Students Need Some Chance Encounters," The Washington Post, March 15, 1991, D3.

Sons, L. R. (1992), "Reaching for Quantitative Literacy," in Heeding the Call for Change: Suggestions for Curricular Action, Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America, pp. 95-118.

Steen, L. A. (1990), "Numeracy," Daedalus, Spring 1990, 211-222. Wickens, A. J. (1953), "Statistics and the Public Interest," Journal of the

American Statistical Association, 48, 1-14.



Documents

Enhancing Statistical Literacy: Enriching Our Society