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

‘Wanking is not a research method; it is just wanking.’

What a woman!

I think you're right @MaryBlighthouse - queer studies has caused a real shift in the Overton window. It has normalised the abnormal/morally dubious in such a way that it can't be SEEN anymore by those who've absorbed it. 🤷‍♀️

Times Higher Education tend to stay away from gender politics, but even they have covered this:

www.timeshighereducation.com/news/manchester-investigates-phd-students-masturbation-paper

Good quote from Alice Sullivan: "“Wanking is not a research method; it is just wanking."

I don’t think this is a failure of processes. The paper was clearly about a man wanking to sexual images of young boys.

That paper got published because of a culture that has grown in academic humanities research, which means senior people in that field can no longer see that paper is utterly unacceptable, on multiple levels.

That is what needs addressing. That is what is disturbing. This is not a process issue, it’s a culture issue.

From Fladdermus "I know one journal editor, not connected with this in anyway, who is reviewing all their procedures to ensure nothing like this ever makes it through their door."
It says right there, "reviewing all their procedures to ensure nothing like this ever makes it through their door"
It could mean the previous assumptions that editors aren't idiots may be wrong and that a new process that can deal with some idiots needs to be put in place. It probably means more oversight and review by more and different sets of eyes before anything is published. In the specific example this thread is about there may be certain conditions under which protocol was not followed (e.g. too busy/not enough staff). The review Fladdermus is on about may decide I don't care how busy we are, proper procedure must be followed.
The intent and motive are clearly stated.

I assumed they mean putting in place extra checks and balances as it's quite clear that the current ones aren't enough.

As I said.. "Changing procedures" would surely just meanmaking sure the editors for your journal aren't idiots/do a basic aspect of their job?!

Which peer-reviewed journals don't use this process?

"I'm baffled by this because when you submit somwhere an editor will first review your paper to check it fits with the journal/isn't complete nonsense. Then it's passed to peer reviewers."

You are assuming what the process is, and that the process works as intended. There is evidence to the contrary.

I know one journal editor, not connected with this in anyway, who is reviewing all their procedures to ensure nothing like this ever makes it through their door

I'm baffled by this because when you submit somwhere an editor will first review your paper to check it fits with the journal/isn't complete nonsense. Then it's passed to peer reviewers.

"Changing procedures" would surely just meanmaking sure the editors for your journal aren't idiots/do a basic aspect of their job?!

I expect this is going to have an effect on academia as a whole. It's certainly making the academics I know sit up and review their own attitudes and processes. Even those with extremely liberal views are horrified at this. I know one journal editor, not connected with this in anyway, who is reviewing all their procedures to ensure nothing like this ever makes it through their door.

This couldn’t be more serious. The University of Manchester should seriously consider police involvement if they haven’t already.

My old boss has a PhD in philosophy (or something like that) and another in Education.

Some research studies you hear off (‘do spiders dream’ or ‘how biscuits fall apart when dunked’) do have some ‘useful’ basis…

But this??? How can anyone have the bare faced cheek to put this into the world and have his name/face attacked???

There ARE good PhDs in the humanities though. It is valuable (albeit in different ways to climate research or medical research).

The issue here is a bit separate. It’s about socially irresponsible research and PhDs being used to legitimise problematic political endeavours.

Yes it is. My DH is a nuclear chemist and the calmest person you'll ever meet but he's absolutely furious about this. It makes a mockery of them of them all. His PhD students who are working their socks off developing processes for handling nuclear waste for the betterment of all our futures get lumped in with degenerates like this.

Wales has institutionalized queer theory in all its most glorious harm causing batshittery.
Well done Mark Drakeford!

Isn't this debasing all other doctorates, so that serious and valuable research can be met with the Pythons' "Nudge, nudge, wink, wink," and be ignored, while wildfires spread like, well, wildfires, the Great Barrier Reef collapses, Liz Truss thinks that deregulation from EU rules will solve the water crisis - a selection from this morning. And no-one needs take any notice of experts, because who knows what their expertise is in.

Is this another of those situations where male sex predators of the "academic" class are considered to have "amusing peccadilloes"?

This is academia being faced by men who enjoy flashing. And the answer from academia is, "Yes, carry on by all means, we'll give you a PhD." Even when it involves paedophilia? Something badly wrong.

FFS.

In a shock development, this story is reported in the graun. No comments allowed, natch.

WTF have I just read?

How in the anyone's world did this ever receive ethics clearance? Universities can't pretend to be unaware of how serious a potential ethics breach is, particularly one of this gravity. So a few possibilities exist: the ethics (standard requirement for all PhD research) were submitted on a disingenuous basis, approved and then not revised as the research progressed, or were approved in the form the research took (I'd genuinely like to know how) or have somehow slipped through the net, which given the methods of data storage and PhD upgrade approval, shouldn't even be possible.

As for the supervisors' research profile ...

I don't know what the hell our HE system has become. As an academic who was once passionate and committed to my subject and students, I've questioned for a while how I feel about being party to a morally corrupt system that now rewards mediocrity and kissing the right backsides, discourages critical thinking, and in which bullying, discrimination (and worse) is rife, despite the universities' constant, hypocritical virtue signalling. Even the union is as bad. I've lost faith in the sector completely and I know I'm not the only one reconsidering my future.

Honestly it looks like there's a whole long list of people who should have reported him but didn't.

Just read the Vice interview from >5 years ago and it contains so many red flags. Why didn't they escalate it? They question him quite heavily on the ethics of his magazines & websites.

Here's just one quote of many:

"What is it anyways, to "sexualise children" and what’s bad about it? It's not a real argument."

He's on youtube, with videos with titles that imply he's unpacking and discussing material that's illegal in the UK.

I think University of Manchester not picking it up is just the tip of iceberg to be honest.

I seem to recall they just folded the whole NUS at Manchester rather than make any conclusion to the Bradley investigation. But I may be misremembering. Some similar nuclear response.

That was 2018? Jeez that’s the slowest investigation ever.

Yes, and then at the NUS. I never heard the outcome of that whole very sordid affair. www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/jess-bradley-suspended-nus-statement-14972542