This hasn't come to pass yet, but it would be appaling of this shoddy and (arguably) unethical research was rewarded with a PhD at Oxford. What do you think? Link: https://unherd.com/2023/08/the-arrogance-of-fighting-extremism/ "In choosing to do “undercover research”, as she calls it, Ebner is fundamentally and irrevocably at odds with the academic community in which she now finds herself. She is currently doing a PhD at Oxford, where she studies online radicalisation. And deceiving human research subjects is not only frowned upon in academia, but is strictly forbidden and potentially career-ending for the academic who engages in it. It has been this way for some time, certainly since the controversy that engulfed the American sociologist Laud Humphreys, who went undercover for his book on men who visit public restrooms in search of sex with other men. More recently, Peter Boghossian came under trenchant criticism for hoodwinking the editors of several academic journals as part of a hoax intended to expose the intellectual lunacy of grievance studies. Boghossian resigned from Portland State University in September 2021."
What do I think? I think it’s sketchy to draw any conclusions from an essay’s assessment. Generally speaking, however, this is what research ethics committees might review when approving research on human subjects. It can be acceptable to use identity deception to get near groups that would otherwise be inaccessible to the researcher, as long as the deception doesn’t skew the findings.
Rich, I think that she can still redeem herself with the actual dissertation (as opposed to the popular book form), but she is presenting herself as an academic expert on the subject and I find her research deeply problematic on so many levels. You're free to disagree, of course. But activism isn't research. If you are a scholar, you must still present any issue in a fair and objective way. I don't see any evidence of that.
As I said, too little to draw an assessment upon. I’m neither agreeing nor disagreeing in this case, so your argument is yours; I have nothing to do with it. “Fair and objective” are two different concepts. Also “objective” is impossible. What researchers do instead is acknowledge their biases—especially when interpreting data—and control for it. Or, in cases where phenomenology is used, their biases and perspectives can become part of the research. But still, I’m not commenting on that particular case except for what I said about penetrating social groups under false pretenses.
I should have just said 'fair', because the objective quality may not be attainable. But I do believe in the value of what you refer to as bias acknowledgement as well as striving for accuracy. Full agreement there.
The journals had it coming, and Boghossian seems more at home at the University of Austin than he ever could be in Portlandia.
What? That's not true at all. An enormous amount of research - especially in psychology and sociology - involves deceiving participants. You usually have to get IRB approval beforehand and explain what you did to the participants afterwards but frequently if you told someone you were testing their dishonesty or communication skills or whatever, you'd damage the research. https://www.jove.com/v/10051/experimentation-using-a-confederate
