Jason Arday dead

[ThisWiseRobin]

Just putting this out there, but just heared.A sad end to a whole sorry mess.

Not crimes, but huge whoppers within his occupation.

Yes the Guardian reporting made many take notice who otherwise might not have done.

How could they possibly do that? JA lied over and over again. Case would be thrown out

(This doesn’t mean that I think he was a terrible person. I don’t. Sadly, I think that, aside from some of the things that he did exaggerate about to try to raise his profile, he genuinely believed he was making an important groundbreaking academic contribution - no wonder, given what people kept telling him. That doesn’t make it true though, heartbreaking as it must have been for him to have been found out, and unfair as it is for him to be the poster boy for it. I really feel for his family.)

Maybe that's the wrong legal term (IANAL) but I think there's a strong chance they will sue for damages. I'm not saying that in defence of Arday, just that I think it's a likely outcome.

No chance. He was a liar and conman

His family should be ashamed of him IMHO.

On defamation, yes.

ETA, defamation is a no no.

I didn't approve of what he did. I knew about the case but don't think I commented on it. I blame the system in this country that allowed this to happen. But I still think Cambridge had a duty to give support rather than throw him to the wolves.

He had exhausted his use so it was a damage limitation job. Awfully clinical but not surprising.

It wouldn't be about the lies or deception. If they can evidence that Arday had vulnerabilities (mental health or otherwise) and that the university failed in their duty of care in the way they handled this situation then they probably have a case.

I don't know if it would win in court but if they bring one I don't see it getting that far as I think Cambridge would settle.

This is just my opinion, maybe the family won't bring any legal action against anyone.

You are right in your thinking. They can't get the media in defamation but they can go down the vulnerability/duty of care route with both the media and Cambridge. It will take sufficient medical evidence though. Most of which is already in question

I’d argue that’s a different thing. The quality of the methodology (in the pieces I’ve seen) is poor, and I’m surprised it wasn’t picked up by reviewers or editors.

The pp was saying something different, that they were not in a position to comment on the overall findings of his oeuvre. And that’s not an uncommon issue in emerging fields, especially where they are about identity and experience, and in contested or devalued areas. In qualitative work small samples are not all that unusual, but the limitations need to be clear. From what I’ve seen Arday was honest that his samples were sometimes tiny and comprised of people he already knew. There are issues with that (ie I don’t think he can yet be said to be ‘the best in the world’) but on its own it’s not so noteworthy and doesn’t necessarily mean it doesn’t have any merit. As always ‘further research needed’.

I’m guessing you don’t - either that, or our higher education system really is failing!

I agree, which is why I said if they can evidence. I have no idea whether that's how it will play out but I'm sure this will have already occurred to the GLP and other interested parties who may or may not advise his family.

I am sceptical of much of JA's life story but I'll concede I don't know everything. Cambridge, in my opinion, have handled this very badly.

Jesus. Really????

Well let’s hope you don’t have students there that have been impacted by suicide in their familes etc. so much more to this than - plagiarism = suicide.

This isn’t going to happen and quite rightly. We don’t prosecute people for any crimes their spouse has committed.

I agree, I don't think he was a terrible person, and I don't think he was a conman in the way someone like Frank Abagnale was.

I think, tragically, he believed the lies. Because as he told wilder and wilder stories, people kept believing him.
He believed he was a gifted academic because Cambridge University told him he was.
His whole life and identity was a fantasy, which would inevitably unravel when it collided with reality. The unravelling was so public because academics and journalists who should have known better allowed the lie to become so big.

Please don’t do this. You won’t know all your students’ circumstances. And there is no need. I’m sure you are capable of explaining plagiarism without resort to this.

If Lance Armstrong had killed himself after being very publicly exposed for cheating and stripped of all his titles, who would be responsible for this?

I’d have to look again at the articles - which I’m not going to do. But your description, though pejorative, is a valid ethnographic/autoethnographic/phenomeological approach in social science. Especially in areas that are niche, closed off etc - think subcultures, prisons, gangs, terrorism, policing, drugs. There are swathes of texts that have stood the test of time based on similar ways of working. What we can conclude on a larger scale is obviously limited, and I’d have to remind myself of whether JA claimed wider conclusions. And of course the plagiarism and the muddling findings between different samples is unacceptable. But with proper framing of limitations, subjectivity etc, it’s not as alarming as you might think.

Theres no victim narrative around Lance Armstrong so no one would give a shit.

Congratulations on outing yourself as totally unsuitable for FE teaching. Your poor students deserve better.

Possibly.

But they'd have to have a legal basis for a claim stating they knew he was vulnerable and failed to make reasonable adjustments in his employment or in their duty of care to him or failed to do due dillingence in appointing him.

Which is possible, that they failed in due dillingence but the family would have to prove that the institution would have used different mechanisms to assess other employees.

And their duty of care rested on what he was telling them and them supporting him in that.

It would be difficult in these circumstances to prove in a legal case that they should have ignored him and acted differently.

It may very well be true but difficult to prove in court.

"May all those who contributed to his death answer to his blood."

This is the point at which I fear we are getting into the realms of pointless hand wringing and self righteousness. No one contributed to his death, did they? If he died by his own actions, then no one contributed to it. He is responsible. So very sad for his loved ones, he did not need to make that choice.