Just when I thought Academia couldn't sink any lower.

I have assumed nothing. Merely stated facts.

I hope both the individual concerned and their supervisor are preparing for a visit from the police. It defies belief that a responsible adult could look at this paedophile promoting "research" and not be raising red flags.
The police are very speedy to announce their visits to ribboners, stickerists and stroppy women speaking out. Hopefully they'll be as quick to respond to the open promotion of paedophilia as appears to have happened here.

My God! I’ve just realized this means that even when the deeply unethical nature of this article was pointed out, they STILL thought it was suitable to be included in their journal. This really is a culture, not a process issue!

To be clear, I have no idea if Kinsella was involved or if you dig into her research it's problematic.

But there's a lot of assuming going on with no evidence, and that does has the potential to be career and life wrecking, even if in retrospect the allegations were false.

Here's a link to the FOI request I mentioned: www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/karl_andersson

That's a term used in the Waterstones synopsis (not written by her), and it's in the context of understanding the "media delight and panic" around this. Whether they mean literal schoolgirls, or the trends around this, I don't know.

Without reading the book and her other publications, you cannot make the assumption that she's saying that children who are sexually abused are "prostitutes". If there is evidence of her sayign this then yes of course it's unacceptable.

Have you read the full thread, or any of the commentary online?

This research was done before he was a PhD student at Manchester & Kinsella isn't listed as an author. If it was published in May it's likely he submitted it 6 months to a year in advance of this. Another academic is specifically thanked in the acknowledgements for commenting on drafts, Kinsella isn't.

When I was a PhD student my supervisor did not have the motivation or time to be involved with any of my publications I'd worked on in previous posts, that she specifically wasn't an author on.

This is why I say I'd be wary of assuming anything. Maybe she did know, maybe she didn't. The FOI requests sent to Manchester will be revealing.

It really depends what he tells her. I’d imagine he hadn’t shared his wanking diaries in supervision meetings, not least as it probably constitutes sexual harassment (and adult women are what he’s interested in harassing).

She may have had limited power to refuse taking him on as a student too. I certainly wouldn’t assume the process was entirely fair or transparent - and pressure free. Not in contemporary HE.

the supervisor is pretty well regarded in the field. I’d hope she’s taken some union advice over this.

it looks like the publishers have told the editors to take it down. They originally left it up and added this correction. Which really wasn’t sufficient. I’d imagine the continued stream of complaints was not going down well with the publisher.

I suppose I don’t really like her use of the term ‘school girl prostitutes’. I agree with one of the social workers who was trying to get action taken in the grooming scandals (by predominantly Muslim men) and was being told by other professionals that the girls were prostitutes. She said, ‘ there are no child prostitutes, what there are are children who are being abused.’

'I would be wary of assuming she shares Anderssons thoughts or that she knew the details of this "research"'

You would be weary of assuming his research supervisor knew what he's researching?

For example, this is a synopsis of her recent book. Trying to understand more about the context and consequences of this phenomenon isn't necessarily problematic @PrimAndProperViperish

www.waterstones.com/book/schoolgirls-money-and-rebellion-in-japan/sharon-kinsella/9780415704113

Their UCU (it would be wouldn't it ) rep has almost certainly advised them to keep their mouths shut.

I would be wary of assuming she shares Anderssons thoughts or that she knew the details of this "research". I had a look at her publications - and besides thinking "what is the point", I didn't see any red flags.

This is what Manchester is looking into.

Do find it weird neither has made any kind of public statement.

As I've said before, his supervisor has written quite extensively on schoolgirl images in Japanese culture.

I wonder what on earth he was asked at his job interview. Because they clearly didn't ask him anything about his previous work, research or interests.

You’re right, it’s wasn’t a guise at all really, was it?

Quite. I want them to publicly explain the thought processes that caused them to think this article was suitable for publication in the first place. And did any readers of the Journal raise concerns with the journal once it was published.

Because if no-one did, that raises serious concerns about the current state of the qualitative research community.

I'm equally scandalised that this record of criminal activity has passed so many layers of scrutiny till it became public this past week.

Small consolation that the journal has withdrawn it "while it investigates". What the hell is there to investigate?

'Due to ethical concerns surrounding this article and the social harm being caused by the publication of this work, the publishers have now agreed with the Journal Editors and have decided to remove the article while this investigation is ongoing in accordance with COPE guidelines.'

Why does it not mention a criminal investigation?

Quick! The horse has bolted better shut the stable doors.

journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/14687941221096600

I cannot imagine how much more blatant anyone could be about what they are interested in and what they are doing. It's not much of a 'guise', really, just completely bald faced statements of fact and intent.

Oh My God. I have just read the English translation of that questionnaire. He appears to be openly trying to gather a community of paedophiles with an interest in young boys. He says ‘let’s build a community’ and that the question about liking real boys is the most important in the questionnaire. And ‘please explain your thoughts in detail’ ( which is presumably to give Karl more wank material as well as finding the men most aligned to his own paedophilia).

I can’t help suspecting that this whole ‘research’ is a guise for him to find and form a paedophile community.

How has this man been allowed to operate in such plain sight? There is something really rotten at the heart of the academic social research community that this has been allowed to happen. Academic humanities depts. need to do some serious soul searching.

Yes @MaryBlighthouse

Someone on twitter translated a questionnaire he had used whilst conducting research in Japan.

In it he asked if people liked the "real life" version too - which he clarifies is not "2D in a book..but real life living boys"

twitter.com/ickoonite/status/1557745305352675328

I really hope there are some updates tomorrow about police getting involved.

Nah. Not buying it. He was having an exhibitionist wank to child porn. His thin attempts to legitimize this as ‘autoehtnography’ should be roundly rejected. Just as his view in vice magazine that ‘man boy love’ should be a legitimate part of gay culture, should be rejected.

All his attempts to legitimize his, and others, paedophilia should be rejected.

A PhD would have to go through several steps just to be accepted on the PhD, including interviews on what exactly he was going to do by senior academics.

He would have to have gone through peer review in the Journal, and acceptance and it is clear in the title how dodgy it is.

Academia needs to have a big wobble of brain cells and question how they allowed something like that to be under the protected umbrella of what should be our trusted, safe, evidence based institutions!