Merged Arday life and death

[Vixen]

Autoethnography shouldn't be acceptable in ANY academic discipline at all. Ever.

"For my thesis, I'm going to interview myself as a research participant, and then I'll draw conclusions from my interview of myself about the culture and system as a whole, based entirely on my own interview of myself"

That shouldn't be accepted as a thesis for any field at all.

You seem to have a shallow depth of knowledge as to how Sociology works. Autoethnography in Sociology is not 'self-study'.

 

[malbui]

Autoethnography shouldn't be acceptable in ANY academic discipline at all. Ever.

"For my thesis, I'm going to interview myself as a research participant, and then I'll draw conclusions from my interview of myself about the culture and system as a whole, based entirely on my own interview of myself"

That shouldn't be accepted as a thesis for any field at all.

Many of us in my faculty (Difficult Sums and Computing) believed that that was pretty much what our neighbours over the road in Arts got up to all day.

 

[Ziggurat]

You seem to have a shallow depth of knowledge as to how Sociology works. Autoethnography in Sociology is not 'self-study'.

EC didn't say "self-study". That's your characterization, and it's wrong in the sense that what's supposedly being studied is, as EC said, "the culture and system as a whole". And there's nothing wrong with trying to study culture and society. But doing so based on basically interviewing yourself is farcical. That's what EC said, and that very much is what an autoethnography is.

Autoethnography - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"Autoethnography is a form of ethnographic research in which a researcher connects personal experiences to wider cultural, political, and social meanings and understandings."

Autoethnography: A Deeply Personal Method for Qualitative Research - SJSU | School of Information

Published: October 16, 2024 Autoethnography is a qualitative research method that blends elements of autobiography and ...

ischool.sjsu.edu

"Autoethnography is a qualitative research method that blends elements of autobiography and ethnography to explore the researcher’s personal experiences in relation to broader social and cultural contexts. It goes beyond traditional ethnography by incorporating the researcher’s own reflections as part of the data, thereby revealing how personal stories intersect with larger social issues."

This last one reveals the bull ◊◊◊◊ involved. When you're talking about your own experiences, you aren't going beyond a traditional ethnography. You're doing less than a traditional ethnography, because your sample size is smaller and your biases stronger.

 

[Lithrael]

So, at best, historical context combined with the personal anecdotes of the author? It sounds like an interesting way to make things relatable etc but as a resource it sounds like it'd be 1:1 with a normal autobiography.

 

[theprestige]

So, at best, historical context combined with the personal anecdotes of the author? It sounds like an interesting way to make things relatable etc but as a resource it sounds like it'd be 1:1 with a normal autobiography.

Because it is normal autobiography. Examination of the individual can only tell you about the individual. Pretty much every other discipline understands this and guards against it. Sociology should as well.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Because it is normal autobiography. Examination of the individual can only tell you about the individual. Pretty much every other discipline understands this and guards against it. Sociology should as well.

Actually, I'd question even whether it tells you much about the individual either.

One thing that serious poll companies do is randomise question order and phrasing to compensate for the following effect: people tend to agree with whatever you're asking. So we'll answer yes more than no. (E.g., if you ask a group of people "should we bring back conscription?" vs "should we stick with a voluntary army?" you will get different numbers in favour of conscription.) Or when it's a multi-choice that's not "yes" or "no", we tend to pick the first one more.

So I will say that autoethnography is actually one step worse than just a sample of one. I know what my interlocutor thinks, since it's me, and I'll agree with myself.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Speaking of which, short comedy clip about polls:

And in autoethnography you're actually allowed to include that leading stuff.

 

[smartcooky]

Speaking of which, short comedy clip about polls:

And in autoethnography you're actually allowed to include that leading stuff.

What surprises me most about this is that you describe this video in post #1506, and it only took you three minutes to find it and post it in post #1507

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

What surprises me most about this is that you describe this video in post #1506, and it only took you three minutes to find it and post it in post #1507

Not really talking about the video in #1506. There I was talking just the facts known in polling long before the series existed. Also notice that there I didn't mention the leading questions. Just that it's objectively proven that without any other leading questions, people tend to pick yes more than no, and if it's not yes/no, they'll pick the first option. That's why things are randomised in serious polls (which, again, used to be how sociology worked). Half the forms will say "are you in favour of conscription?" and half the forms will say "are you against conscription?" And in fact, every single question on the form gets its individual coin flip. There are thousands of different versions of each form, based on the combinations of those.

I split the joke into a different post, because #1506 was serious and factual, and I didn't want it to sound like it's all a funny jab at autoethnography. No, my concern about it is entirely serious.

The comedy video does mention one true thing, known to both sociology and anthropology for a long time: we try to be agreeable to the nice man or woman asking the questions. Because we're social beings.

ETA: actually anthropology adds one more thing: people like to think they're good people and good members of their community. Their answers will be massively skewed towards what they think its the most acceptable in their culture or community, regardless of whether they actually think or do that. Like, no matter how you randomise it, if you ask people if they give to charity, a huge chunk of those who say "yes" never gave a cent.

 

[Darat]

Not really talking about the video in #1506. There I was talking just the facts known in polling long before the series existed. Also notice that there I didn't mention the leading questions. Just that it's objectively proven that without any other leading questions, people tend to pick yes more than no, ....snip...

As an aside: which is probably why LLMs do the same.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

As an aside: which is probably why LLMs do the same.

Well, sorta. They do it because they're programmed to. It's more of a business decision than anyone (LLM included) subconsciously wanting to be likeable. But yes, you are right, they are biased towards agreeing with you, especially if you insist.

 

[Vixen]

Heads up. Nazir Afzal, former director of CPS, has launched Part One into his appointment as investigator of Cambridge University's processes in the Arday affair.

Worth mentioning he confirms:

Beyond that, one further point. Professor Arday was autistic, he was Black, and he was under a sustained public attack that included ridicule of his personal history. Any competent review of how an employer supported him has to engage with all three of those facts rather than treating them as context. I have said so explicitly in the scope, because in my experience things that are not written down do not get examined.

Nazir Afzal OBE
Leading Part One

Nazir Afzal OBE launches part one of the independent review following the death of Professor Jason Arday

Mr Afzal has produced a video message which explains, in his words, the purpose of part one and how he intends to carry out his work.

www.cam.ac.uk

So yes, Arday was autistic.

 

[theprestige]

Heads up. Nazir Afzal, former director of CPS, has launched Part One into his appointment as investigator of Cambridge University's processes in the Arday affair.

Worth mentioning he confirms:





So yes, Arday was autistic.

If you believe Afzal. Where did he get his information? Can we get the same information from the same source?

I'm not going to put my faith in an investigator who isn't transparent about where he gets information that is central to how he plans to conduct his investigation, and central to how he will reach his conclusions.

 

[Ziggurat]

If you believe Afzal.

I don't. I want this claim sourced to an actual formal diagnosis, otherwise I have no reason to believe it.

 

[Vixen]

If you believe Afzal. Where did he get his information? Can we get the same information from the same source?

I'm not going to put my faith in an investigator who isn't transparent about where he gets information that is central to how he plans to conduct his investigation, and central to how he will reach his conclusions.

He's only just been appointed so you'll have to await his findings. You can find out more about him here:

Nazir Afzal - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Chief Crown Prosecutor​

In 2011, he was appointed North West Chief Crown Prosecutor covering Greater Manchester, Cumbria and Lancashire. At that point in his career, he made it clear that prosecutors are public figures and should be out there engaging with the people, explaining themselves via the media."[16] As one of the 13 chief crown prosecutors that cover England and Wales, he was responsible for over 100,000 prosecutions a year and managed 800 lawyers and paralegals.

 

[theprestige]

He's only just been appointed so you'll have to await his findings.

He's already "found" that Arday was autistic. What is there to wait for, other than his basis for that finding? Which should have preceded the finding, not be withheld while the finding is made anyway.

 

[Vixen]

I don't. I want this claim sourced to an actual formal diagnosis, otherwise I have no reason to believe it.

You think this highly respected figure (OBE) pulled it out of his arse? However, you prefer to believe tittle tattle by a hack spinning a story in the TIMES* ?

Perhaps you need to critically reevaluate what credibility you give your sources.

*Once a renowned broadsheet, now little more than a tabloid magazine.

 

[Vixen]

He's already "found" that Arday was autistic. What is there to wait for, other than his basis for that finding? Which should have preceded the finding, not be withheld while the finding is made anyway.

Do read the Terms of Reference. You can be sure if a chief prosecutor is the ultimate authority in objectivity and of being factually precise, then this applies to Mr. Afzal,

Terms of Reference​

A note from Nazir Afzal OBE leading the Review​

I have agreed to lead the first part of the University’s review. These are the terms I intend to work to. I have written them in ordinary English, because terms of reference shape the character of a review more than any other single thing and I would rather be held to my own words.

Four things need saying before the formal text begins.

What this review cannot do​

It cannot say why Professor Arday died. That question belongs to the Coroner, who can compel evidence, who sits in public, and who will reach conclusions I have no business anticipating. Anyone reading this in the hope that I will supply that answer should stop now and wait for the inquest.

What I can do is narrower and still worth doing. I can establish what the University knew about his circumstances, when it knew it, what it did, and whether what it did was reasonable on the information in front of it at the time.

Nazir Afzal OBE launches part one of the independent review following the death of Professor Jason Arday

Mr Afzal has produced a video message which explains, in his words, the purpose of part one and how he intends to carry out his work.

www.cam.ac.uk

 

[Ziggurat]

You think this highly respected figure (OBE) pulled it out of his arse?

His own ass? No. But I do think it's very possible that he's just taking Arday's word for it. I'm not sure why you dismiss this possibility.

If Afzal actually tracked down documentation of a formal diagnosis for Arday (or testimony of someone who gave such a formal diagnosis), he should absolutely present that to the public.

Perhaps you need to critically reevaluate what credibility you give your sources.

Bwahahahahahahahahaha!

Oh man, I needed a good laugh today. Thank you.

 

[Ziggurat]

You can be sure if a chief prosecutor is the ultimate authority in objectivity and of being factually precise, then this applies to Mr. Afzal,

"If". But a chief prosecutor is not the ultimate authority in objectivity or of being factually precise.