AIBU to think we should be funding this BS?

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.

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

I think for some academics if what they write is not unintelligible to any normal person they have failed.

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.

More up to date stats

https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2024-12-16/20298

Overall Rate: Out of the 245 transgender prisoners in this legal male cohort, 61.6% were convicted of a sexual offence. This incorporates both contact and non-contact sexual offences.

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.

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?

It doesn’t matter.

This kind of academic research exists to be rigoursly debated, tested and analysed. That’s what happens in academia.

However, we do know that academics and students who’ve challenged this narrative have been severely affected, shut down and silenced. So normal rigour doesn’t exist.

Its a massive straw man.

The paper is entirely pointless. If they’d chosen a different topic where academic debate is still freely discussed, it may have had more purpose.

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.

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.

Yes, actually I agree with your first point because clearly not every paper is published so yes, there do have to be criteria in that regard. But I also think there's value in "bad research"; as you say, it enables further thought, discussion and study. As for art though... I still believe that is subjective!

Sorry, silly to criticise what?

This particular paper. The poor quality of work in academia generally.

It's even in the sciences, it's a massive problem.

I disagree that it's a banal observation, and I disagree that the paper would have got off the starting blocks, so to speak, if it were purely aimed at demonstrating that algorithms were biased.

In fact, you know what? Since neither of us has read the paper and since, by reading the abstract, we have wildly differing opinions on what it may be about, shall we agree that it's not a great foundation for a reasoned argument?

Well I don't believe I said that at all!

This is the exact point - there’s a point to bad research as it can be dissected.

Except that with this particular subject it can’t on a level playing field.

I don't understand your point.

Very well said. If we only care about things in terms of how much money they generate then most art, music, books and films would never exist.

You’re probably not funding it…

Yes as Ive got older Ive realised what a load of old balderdash it is and taken so seriously as well.

Ask yourself where the anti-intellectual argument logically concludes, and whose interests that serves.

@TidyRose I am an academic who supervises PhD students in a similar area/ academic discipline to Jason Arday.
Not one of them is publicly funded. They all pay for their own fees.
Hope that makes you feel a tad better.

“It is crucial to emphasise that this study looks only at those who
have undergone hormonal and surgical transition, which is a much tighter group than
individuals who self- identify as transgender”

The group studied is only post op, male to female trans people, so the findings cannot be extrapolated out to all transpeople.

“It compared the likelihood of a person having one or more criminal convictions, and convictions for violent crime (defined as “homicide and attempted homicide, aggravated assault and assault, robbery, threatening behaviour, harassment, arson, or any sexual offense”

The data isn’t confined to sexual assault crimes, but any violent crime. That means you can’t say that all the people studied were sex offenders, crimes like arson, robbery and even murder are not necessarily sexual in nature.

The statistics of 76 out 129 offenders were convicted of sex crimes only refers to transwomen.

Could it be autocorrect? I have had to edit so many posts and WhatsApp messages because of it!
(Yet it can still be useful so I haven't disabled it).

You can all unclench on the funding as the guy’s profile clearly identifies he is funded by the Cambridge Trust. It’s a multi source funding body however it is not government money so not from ‘you’. Before anyone says alL Cambridge money originates from the state, that is not correct. Cambridge
and certain specific colleges who also fund the Cambridge Trust, are spectacularly well endowed going back centuries. your eyes will pop.