One of my psych classes was under a prominent rape researcher at the time. When you hear statistics like, "X% of women in college have been sexually assaulted" that number comes from research produced or reviewed by a handful of people of which she was one. She was a leader on campus for sexual assault survivors and prevention.
Her research was flawed and she was the most misandrist person I've ever encountered. She dripped with contempt for men. This was well known enough that men generally avoided her classes. I took it because it was in a time slot I found convenient. While the class I was taking had nothing to do with her subfield, we did take some time from class to go over her research because she was one of those professors.
The most notable thing about her research to my mind is that she defined rape in an ideological way that did not match how people ordinarily think of rape. When trying to get topline estimates of how many women have experienced rape, she used self-report surveys. I remember one question people were asked in these surveys is if they ever had sex while being above the legal drinking limit. If the answer was yes, then they were raped. If both the man and the woman were above the legal drinking limit and they had sexual relations, then the man ipso facto raped the woman due inherent power differentials between men and women. Now, there are circumstances where a person is so inebriated that they no longer have the capacity to consent and having sex with them in that state is rape. But most people do not regard being tipsy as the point where capacity for consent is gone. Yet, when a newspaper article cites her statistics, they don't also include the fact that the operational definition of rape is radically different from the legal definition or ordinary understanding of it.
Other questions focused on whether a person ever felt emotionally manipulated into sex, including in retrospect. Again, there are circumstances where emotional manipulation can become coercive enough that it is reasonable to think of it as rape. But questions like that could easily capture people who simply felt "led on" and were not raped in the way the law or people ordinarily think of the term. Quick and dirty citing of her statistics miss the fact that it is impregnated with radical ideas about sexual consent.
When criticisms of her research was pointed out to her, she was so mean-spirited and condescending it was unbearable. This experience never left me, and I have a strong natural skepticism of rape research findings unless I get to peak under the hood at the methodology.
On the flipside, estimates of "false allegations of rape" tend to take police department and prosecutor office findings as definitive way to much. Police departments and prosecutors are notorious for handling rape allegations poorly. This includes unfairly concluding alleged victims are making false allegations. For instance, the DoJ report on Baltimore's criminal justice system a few years ago found systemic problems that are infuriating including describing victims with a strong case in terms like "conniving little whore."
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryla ... story.htmlI have no reason to doubt these 8 cases. They seem solid enough, but I suggest a healthy skepticism in police department claims. Remember, while confessions at first seem rock solid, police departments get confessions out of innocent people all the time.