AIBU to think we should be funding this BS?

I don't understand your question. This particular paper is crappy because it's a banal observation hidden in obscure language. It's a massive nothing-burger, and there are no insights there.

To say " power structures could be a worthwhile topic" is not offering anything mitigating. It's like saying giraffes could be worthwhile to study.

The OP did not tell us what research is supposed to have supported it so it's difficult to comment specifically. But a lot of sociology research on topics like this is pretty poor. If you look at the Arday thesis, it's thin as a blister. That's not unusual.

Sorry, silly to criticise what?

Then why are you saying people are silly to criticize and it's not objective?

I mean, really, the whole point of academia is meant to be rigorous critical response to new ideas.

Are there objective criteria we can apply?

I would argue there are. Otherwise how would any of these subject areas ever be assessed?

Also, broadly speaking (perhaps very broadly), people with a little bit of knowledge can recognise good art from bad art and good research from bad research. Look at how Kathleen Stock and others meticulously take apart some of Jason Arday's work.

I'm obviously not saying that subjectivity doesn't exist, either in academia or elsewhere. Perhaps it's a sliding scale?

I don't think I've denied that there are issues in academia? That's surely the basis for the thread - if it hadn't been for the Arday scandal, I doubt this thread would exist.

I'm not aware I've claimed to be an academic so hopefully that will lay your doubt to rest.

What has research quality to do with research topic? Any researcher is going to consider issues of epistemology, ontology, reflexivity, positionality - do you think research papers are published willy nilly? You may not like the research topic personally, you may feel it's unnecessary, you may even ignore the broader aims of doing research, above and beyond the topic in hand. But you can't sensibly argue that your opinion on individual research constitutes evidence of poor quality research! I think you're confusing two entirely different things.

What's your involvement in academia? I'd really like to understand the basis on which your view rests.

I haven't read further than the abstract but that alone will tell you that the paper isn't about whether or not algorithms are biased, at all.

Saying that the value in academic research is subjective is a standalone statement in itself. I mean, it's illustrated on this very thread. Some people call it word salad created by publicly funded researchers in the "soft subjects". Others argue that it contributes to human understanding, that it resists the creep of technology with its attendant decrease in attention span and ability to concentrate, that it exposes historical power structures that are relevant today, and so on. Whose view is correct? Are there objective criteria we can apply?

Why wouldn't all art criticism be valid? Creators of art, as with anything else, don't have the final say on how its audience reads and interprets that art.

Lots of smart people can work in shops. But academics are meant to be the best thinkers we have.

I am thinking you are not an academic, because I don't know any who are unaware of the serious problems in academia now.

Some major issues are the idea that something like 50% of people should go, the push to publish which has been a disaster, the degradation of public schooling generally and grade inflation at all levels, some accessibility schemes are seriously dangerous, the reliance on fees and over growth of expensive to maintain university infrastructure, academic publishing is in very serious trouble which is a whole separate subject.

I think the university sector is already failing and it's going to get worse. There will be many institutions that fail. Cambridge won't be one but they are going to have some difficult decisions to make

As an earlier pp said, any teen could tell us today that algorithms are biased! They know exactly how to ride an algorithmic wave and generate viral bias

Rather snobbish! Why are shop workers the epitome of dimness?

Could you explain why you think academic disciplines such as sociology are currently in a parlous state? Where did the rot - as you see it - set in?

It isn't really. There is such a thing as bad quality research. And the humanities is full of it currently. Sociology, and education, are some of the worst.

If it really was subjective there would be little point in awarding degrees.

This is a crises in universities. Non reproducible results, even in the hard sciences. Issues around publishing and peer review. Gobbledegood crap.

This scandal with Arday is resonating not only because it's so over the top. It's because it's showing what many already new or suspected, which universities are desperate to keep a lid on - the system is rotten. Across various institutions, it is about maintaining a claim of knowledge and scholarship when the reality is empty.

I assumed the op had chosen this paper randomly rather than using it to make a specific point, although perhaps not. However, to address your point, I don't think it's about "the trans debate", whatever that may be. I think it's an examination of the power structures inherent in imposing binarism - of all or any kind - on peoples, encompassing the colonial roots of that forced distinction. But that's just my subjective view based on the abstract!

There’s two things going on here; science v social culture and stereotyping. The latter is pretending to be the former.

It’s a common lazy habit or deliberate obfuscation (take your subjective pick) to conflate well recognised power / rights issues with the trans debate.

Do you have a source for your claim that over half of trans people jn prison are there for sex crimes, please?

Again though, that's subjective.

It's interesting how the author links modern day classifications to binary distinctions imposed by colonialist/colonialism. That's another way of looking at how western - what we might now call global North - ideals and norms were imposed on other cultures and societies, something which resonates to this day. Do you think AI poses a risk to academic exclusivity?

I had to put that through chat gtp to understand it; my response is that trans is over represented in pride news etc on the bbc and the media do not have a correct social representation at all, and he ahoo be careful what he wishes for.

As, for example, well over half of trans people in prison are convicted of sexual abuse/ assault crimes. That definitely doesn’t come through on algorithms. If anything it’s the opposite.

By creating that research article and forming the false conclusion it has, it’s contributing to the algorithm that says trans people are poorly rep represented in the media.

chat gtp response below:

In layman’s terms, it’s basically saying:
Algorithms aren’t as neutral or objective as we often assume. They can inherit and reproduce society’s old ways of categorising people—especially the idea that everyone must fit neatly into “male” or “female.” For trans people, this can lead to being misclassified, monitored, excluded, or treated as a problem by digital systems.
A few of the more academic phrases mean:

• “Critical genealogy” → Looking back at the history of an idea to understand where it came from and how it developed.
• “Colonial classificatory violence of binarity” → The historical practice, particularly through colonialism, of forcing people into rigid categories, such as male/female, and treating people who don’t fit those categories as abnormal or inferior.
• “Bureaucratic administrative violence” → Governments and institutions turning those categories into official systems: passports, IDs, forms, databases, healthcare records, etc.
• “Automation in contemporary algorithmic violence” → Computers and algorithms now automatically making decisions based on those same categories.
• “Technooptimist ‘objectivity’” → The belief that technology and algorithms are naturally neutral, fair, and objective simply because they’re mathematical/computerised.
• “Necropolitical” → A complicated term referring to systems of power that determine whose lives are protected, valued, or allowed to flourish and whose lives are exposed to harm, neglect, or even death.
• “Cisnormative” → Assuming that being cisgender (identifying with the sex/gender assigned at birth) is the normal or default state.
• “Trans body is classified and translated as information” → A person’s identity gets reduced to data fields and categories in a computer system.
• “Marked-as-different” → The system identifies someone as outside the assumed norm.
• “Binary valorisation of life itself” → Society treats the male/female binary as the legitimate or preferred way of organising and understanding human life.

I mean, that's something a 15 year old could tell you, isn't it. It's only the obscure language that makes it seem complicated, it's totally banal.

I do, ultimately, believe in the idea of academia. But at the moment, and particularly in areas like sociology, it is filled with garbage, and rather dim people who should be working in a shop.

Not only should it not be funded, it's not sustainable, and will collapse.

I had to put that through chat gtp to understand it; my response is that trans is over represented in pride news etc on the bbc and the media do not have a correct social representation at all, and he ahoo be careful what he wishes for.

As, for example, well over half of trans people in prison are convicted of sexual abuse/ assault crimes. That definitely doesn’t come through on algorithms. If anything it’s the opposite.

By creating that research article and forming the false conclusion it has, it’s contributing to the algorithm that says trans people are poorly rep represented in the media.

chat gtp response below:

In layman’s terms, it’s basically saying:
Algorithms aren’t as neutral or objective as we often assume. They can inherit and reproduce society’s old ways of categorising people—especially the idea that everyone must fit neatly into “male” or “female.” For trans people, this can lead to being misclassified, monitored, excluded, or treated as a problem by digital systems.
A few of the more academic phrases mean:

• “Critical genealogy” → Looking back at the history of an idea to understand where it came from and how it developed.
• “Colonial classificatory violence of binarity” → The historical practice, particularly through colonialism, of forcing people into rigid categories, such as male/female, and treating people who don’t fit those categories as abnormal or inferior.
• “Bureaucratic administrative violence” → Governments and institutions turning those categories into official systems: passports, IDs, forms, databases, healthcare records, etc.
• “Automation in contemporary algorithmic violence” → Computers and algorithms now automatically making decisions based on those same categories.
• “Technooptimist ‘objectivity’” → The belief that technology and algorithms are naturally neutral, fair, and objective simply because they’re mathematical/computerised.
• “Necropolitical” → A complicated term referring to systems of power that determine whose lives are protected, valued, or allowed to flourish and whose lives are exposed to harm, neglect, or even death.
• “Cisnormative” → Assuming that being cisgender (identifying with the sex/gender assigned at birth) is the normal or default state.
• “Trans body is classified and translated as information” → A person’s identity gets reduced to data fields and categories in a computer system.
• “Marked-as-different” → The system identifies someone as outside the assumed norm.
• “Binary valorisation of life itself” → Society treats the male/female binary as the legitimate or preferred way of organising and understanding human life.