• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Merged Arday life and death

Vixen said:
So you are not even familiar with the genre. Got it.
Click to expand...
Arday was accredited a Doctor of Philosophy of the Sociology of Education. As a Ph.D. in that field, he should have been contributing new knowledge, based on new research and new findings. Where are his contributions? What did he do to advance the state of the art, the limits of our knowledge, of authethnography, sociology, or education?

Regardless of whether LJMU was right in granting him a doctorate, Cambridge should never have made him a professor until he actually did something significantly new with it. Did he? No. This not only beclowns Cambridge, it also suggests that LJMU erred in conferring the degree to begin with.
 
theprestige said:
But it seems you missed Safe-Keeper's contribution, where he said this concern about qualifications is nothing more than a fig leaf for white supremacy.
Click to expand...
I see Safe-Keeper saying much the same thing as I did: Arday was obviously a fraud AND a lot of racists are using the situation to make a lot of hay.

You'll have to point out where Safe-Keeper said the only reason anyone could have to be concerned with the situation is that they're racist, that discussing his fraud and lies and Cambridge's failings wrt those and Arday in general at all, is racist.

Which was the point I was disagreeing with you on: "Much has been said, both implicitly and explicitly, about how it's racist to talk about his shortcomings as an academic."

Acknowledging that "a lot of racists are suddenly talking about X" is not the same thing as accusing all people who talk about X of being racists. Just like 'a lot of antivaxxers like to talk about the MMR tragedy in Samoa' isn't an accusation that anyone discussing what happened in Samoa in a normal, level headed way is an antivaxxer.
 
theprestige said:
Arday was accredited a Doctor of Philosophy of the Sociology of Education. As a Ph.D. in that field, he should have been contributing new knowledge, based on new research and new findings. Where are his contributions? What did he do to advance the state of the art, the limits of our knowledge, of authethnography, sociology, or education?

Regardless of whether LJMU was right in granting him a doctorate, Cambridge should never have made him a professor until he actually did something significantly new with it. Did he? No. This not only beclowns Cambridge, it also suggests that LJMU erred in conferring the degree to begin with.
Click to expand...

Here's a video that discusses that.

 
Lithrael said:
I see Safe-Keeper saying much the same thing as I did: Arday was obviously a fraud AND a lot of racists are using the situation to make a lot of hay.
Click to expand...
Where is the racist hay being made?

Even your "racists" all seem to be making merit-based arguments in favor of denouncing Arday and Cambridge. The most racist arguments I've seen have been ones accusing Cambridge of race-based hiring instead of merit-based hiring.
 
Lithrael said:
I see Safe-Keeper saying much the same thing as I did: Arday was obviously a fraud AND a lot of racists are using the situation to make a lot of hay.
Click to expand...
Racists, and people who seem to have an ax to grind with topics like sociology for teaching the 'wrong' ideas (and all the bad-faith criticisms of it piled on top of that).

Arday ticked a lot of boxes, all right --black, sociologist (hiss!), various conditions like autism, LGBTQ if I recall correctly, and then he went from poster child to having a great fall. Of course the usual suspects will be all over that, even in faraway countries.
 
Helen said:
Paid lip service? Most certainly not (and i did more than speak my mind in exposing academic fraud in the Macchiarini case.
Click to expand...
The only reason you brought up the Maccahiarini case was to bolster your claim about racism.

Helen said:
I wouldn't have minded more of an outcry over that, it took a long time to bring him down). You apparently think that i haven't said exactly what you feel I should say, but if you are so eager to twist my words into something that fits your view of me, then there is nothing i can do about it, I expect.
Click to expand...
You apparently think I haven't said what you think I actually mean.

I'm agnostic about what you should have said. What you did say, in this thread, was pretty much immediately and exclusively about why people even cared so much about the Arday Affair, and that the answer to that question was racism.

However, if the academic fraud, the race-based hiring practices and lack of quality control in the Cambridge education department, and the school's absolute failure to give Arday the help and protection he needed are what you think are the most important aspects of the Arday Affair, then you probably shouldn't have led with why do people care-because racism, and you should probably correct the incorrect impression that made about what you think is important here.
 
Safe-Keeper said:
Racists, and people who seem to have an ax to grind with topics like sociology for teaching the 'wrong' ideas (and all the bad-faith criticisms of it piled on top of that).

Arday ticked a lot of boxes, all right --black, sociologist (hiss!), various conditions like autism, LGBTQ if I recall correctly, and then he went from poster child to having a great fall. Of course the usual suspects will be all over that, even in faraway countries.
Click to expand...
Ticking all those boxes are what inspired Cambridge to make him a poster child.

It apparently never occurred to them to find a candidate who ticked boxes like academic excellence, pioneering work in the field, etc. There was racism at work here, all right. It just happened all happened to be in places you don't want to look.
 
theprestige said:
Ticking all those boxes are what inspired Cambridge to make him a poster child.

It apparently never occurred to them to find a candidate who ticked boxes like academic excellence, pioneering work in the field, etc. There was racism at work here, all right. It just happened all happened to be in places you don't want to look.
Click to expand...
... and as is now becoming apparent, many of those boxes were ticked incorrectly. Black, young and a Sociologist are likely the only ones correctly ticked. But as @Rolfe points out, maybe as captured by post-modernism as Cambridge Dons are, maybe they didn't really care about the accuracy of the other boxes.
 
To try to get back on track, to the best of my knowledge Arday was not doing autoethnography. He was just copying the data and participant answers from other people's papers. And in fact more than once which is what attracted attention in 2023: the duplication of the same guys saying the same things in more than one paper. At least autoethnography would involve one original respondent: himself. But I guess that would involve some thinking of his own.

So anyway, it seems silly to get derailed into some knee-jerk defending autoethnography just because someone mentioned it in the same thread as Arday.
 
Last edited:
Rolfe said:
He wasn't even a sociologist.
Click to expand...
Which makes the decision to hire him as a professor of sociology even more strange. It's like hiring someone with a degree in the philosophy of medicine (which, yes, is a thing) as a professor of medicine.
 
Last edited:
HansMustermann said:
To try to get back on track, to the best of my knowledge Arday was not doing autoethnography. He was just copying the data and participant answers from other people's papers. And in fact more than once which is what attracted attention in 2023: the duplication of the same guys saying the same things in more than one paper. At least autoethnography would involve one original respondent: himself. But I guess that would involve some thinking of his own.

So anyway, it seems silly to get derailed into some knee-jerk defending autoethnography just because someone mentioned it in the same thread as Arday.
Click to expand...
Even worse, he also duplicated the same identical things by the same persons, in different papers, and attributed them to different people, for example using the exact same verbatim quotes, he first attributed them to a postgraduate student in one paper and then attributed to a "Male, Mixed-Heritage" professional staff member in a separate study,
 
theprestige said:
The only reason you brought up the Maccahiarini case was to bolster your claim about racism.


You apparently think I haven't said what you think I actually mean.

I'm agnostic about what you should have said. What you did say, in this thread, was pretty much immediately and exclusively about why people even cared so much about the Arday Affair, and that the answer to that question was racism.

However, if the academic fraud, the race-based hiring practices and lack of quality control in the Cambridge education department, and the school's absolute failure to give Arday the help and protection he needed are what you think are the most important aspects of the Arday Affair, then you probably shouldn't have led with why do people care-because racism, and you should probably correct the incorrect impression that made about what you think is important here.
Click to expand...
Yes, I brought up that aspect of it, because it interests me; I think academic fraud is underreported, and definitely not discussed as much as I think it should be. This has made me wonder why the whole world seems to be talking about this case, while other cases, where academic fraud has had far worse consequences, go under the radar.

I also brought it up because I have seen it blown out of all proportion in circles that take great delight in using it in the debate about immigration here, but who are not in the least interested in the actual fraud. And I have seen Russian trolls and bots fan the flames.

That interests me. I am not that interested in Arday as such, but surely those aspects of this are also worth discussing? I think they are. You think otherwise, but you are not the arbiter of the discussion.
 
Helen said:
Yes, I brought up that aspect of it, because it interests me; I think academic fraud is underreported, and definitely not discussed as much as I think it should be. This has made me wonder why the whole world seems to be talking about this case, while other cases, where academic fraud has had far worse consequences, go under the radar.
Click to expand...
As I was saying, mostly because people start threads and post videos about how Arday was a victim, and perfectly competent, and totally not a plagiarist, and what not. Go to page 1 and see for yourself how this thread started.

If there had been a similar thread about Maccahiarini, we would have debated him too. But I don't remember seeing one.
 
HansMustermann said:
To try to get back on track, to the best of my knowledge Arday was not doing autoethnography.
Click to expand...
He didn't primarily do autoethnography, but he absolutely did do autoethnography. For example:



These works are both self-described as autoethnography.
 
Rolfe said:
Vixen, this is a public service announcement. The word "theses" is plural. Two or more of the things. The singular form is "thesis".
Click to expand...
Please might I politely suggest you take your impudent 'public service announcement' and stick it delicately up your jumper? I wrote 'theses' because that is what I intended to write.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom