Creepy and unpleasant. The paper is extremely NSFW btw.I wanted to understand how my research participants experience sexual pleasure when reading shota, a Japanese genre of self-published erotic comics that features young boy characters. I therefore started reading the comics in the same way as my research participants had told me that they did it: while m.st.rbating. In this research note, I will recount how I set up an experimental method of m.st.rbating to shota comics, and how this participant observation of my own desire not only gave me a more embodied understanding of the topic for my research but also made me think about loneliness and ways to combat it as driving forces of the culture of self-published erotic comics.
w.nking as ethnographic field method
- Bird on a Fire
- Princess POW
- Posts: 10142
- Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
- Location: Portugal
w.nking as ethnographic field method
Absolute car crash of a paper https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/1 ... 1221096600
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.
Re: w.nking as ethnographic field method
Jebus! I can't even. WTF???? Argh. (plus other strangled noises of incomprehension).Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Wed Aug 10, 2022 1:57 pmAbsolute car crash of a paper https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/1 ... 1221096600
Creepy and unpleasant. The paper is extremely NSFW btw.I wanted to understand how my research participants experience sexual pleasure when reading shota, a Japanese genre of self-published erotic comics that features young boy characters. I therefore started reading the comics in the same way as my research participants had told me that they did it: while m.st.rbating. In this research note, I will recount how I set up an experimental method of m.st.rbating to shota comics, and how this participant observation of my own desire not only gave me a more embodied understanding of the topic for my research but also made me think about loneliness and ways to combat it as driving forces of the culture of self-published erotic comics.
- Woodchopper
- Princess POW
- Posts: 7144
- Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am
Re: w.nking as ethnographic field method
w.nking as a research method is unorthodox.
But waking to sexualized images of young children is way beyond any thing that should be acceptable in academia. I have no idea how it could have got through peer review.
According to Twitter its not a hoax, and apparently the author made a YouTube video in which he complained that he had not received ethical approval.
But waking to sexualized images of young children is way beyond any thing that should be acceptable in academia. I have no idea how it could have got through peer review.
According to Twitter its not a hoax, and apparently the author made a YouTube video in which he complained that he had not received ethical approval.
-
- Sindis Poop
- Posts: 60
- Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2020 10:07 am
Re: w.nking as ethnographic field method
I wouldn't diss it so readily. He's got Foucault in his references, so he must be a serious scholar.
I'm wondering if he didn't just mishear Grounded Theory as Pounded Theory somewhere along the line.
I'm wondering if he didn't just mishear Grounded Theory as Pounded Theory somewhere along the line.
- EACLucifer
- Stummy Beige
- Posts: 4177
- Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
- Location: In Sumerian Haze
Re: w.nking as ethnographic field method
IIRC such material is illegal in the UK.Woodchopper wrote: ↑Wed Aug 10, 2022 2:33 pmw.nking as a research method is unorthodox.
But waking to sexualized images of young children is way beyond any thing that should be acceptable in academia. I have no idea how it could have got through peer review.
According to Twitter its not a hoax, and apparently the author made a YouTube video in which he complained that he had not received ethical approval.
Re: w.nking as ethnographic field method
Manchester University and the Journal are rightly doing investigations into this.
I suspect no one at Manchester knew what this guy was up to - seems a bit odd to me to have a student get a paper published without their supervisor as an author, though I do not know the norms of the field. That might mean the supervisor wasn't involved, and I hope that's the case.
The Journal and it's reviewers should have noticed the wrongness of it though. The only excuse they could have is if they weren't doing their jobs by not reading it before publishing.
I suspect no one at Manchester knew what this guy was up to - seems a bit odd to me to have a student get a paper published without their supervisor as an author, though I do not know the norms of the field. That might mean the supervisor wasn't involved, and I hope that's the case.
The Journal and it's reviewers should have noticed the wrongness of it though. The only excuse they could have is if they weren't doing their jobs by not reading it before publishing.
- Woodchopper
- Princess POW
- Posts: 7144
- Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am
Re: w.nking as ethnographic field method
Yes, if it’s correct that he didn’t get ethical approval from the University then he may have decided to just go ahead anyway and not mention the university research programme in the article. But someone can’t (or shouldn’t) get away with that.
As for the supervisor, as far as I know in anthropology it wouldn’t be normal for a supervisor to be a coauthor.
It’s possible that in the journal none of the editors or reviewers actually read the article. If so they must be desperate for submissions. That’s nicer to think about than the alternative.
As for the supervisor, as far as I know in anthropology it wouldn’t be normal for a supervisor to be a coauthor.
It’s possible that in the journal none of the editors or reviewers actually read the article. If so they must be desperate for submissions. That’s nicer to think about than the alternative.
-
- Sindis Poop
- Posts: 60
- Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2020 10:07 am
Re: w.nking as ethnographic field method
They wouldn't have had to read far. Just the title alone encapsulates the problem.Woodchopper wrote: ↑Wed Aug 10, 2022 6:36 pm
It’s possible that in the journal none of the editors or reviewers actually read the article.
Mumsnet has a rigorous response to the entire issue: "The whole university should be shut down. Obviously not an academic institution.".
-
- Clardic Fug
- Posts: 200
- Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:14 pm
- Location: Coventry
Re: w.nking as ethnographic field method
@DrPetra wrote a good (twitter) thread on this - link
Re: w.nking as ethnographic field method
For those whose view of the thread is:insignificant wrote: ↑Wed Aug 10, 2022 7:20 pm@DrPetra wrote a good (twitter) thread on this - link
can it be summarised, please?
Re: w.nking as ethnographic field method
A little background on Mr. Andersson's other activities regarding shota.
https://thecritic.co.uk/oh-the-humanities/
I wonder where he conducts his research. He'd better not be w.nking at work, that's all I'm saying.
https://thecritic.co.uk/oh-the-humanities/
I wonder where he conducts his research. He'd better not be w.nking at work, that's all I'm saying.
It's what happens when they try to apply IATBMCTT with their willies...
-
- Clardic Fug
- Posts: 200
- Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:14 pm
- Location: Coventry
Re: w.nking as ethnographic field method
“don’t let your scramble to be part of an exciting drama mean you amplify problems or act unethically yourself.”
“What is an unethical response to the discovery of unethical research?”
Are two key quotes.
“What is an unethical response to the discovery of unethical research?”
Are two key quotes.
where once I used to scintillate
now I sin till ten past three
now I sin till ten past three
- bob sterman
- Dorkwood
- Posts: 1143
- Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 10:25 pm
- Location: Location Location
Re: w.nking as ethnographic field method
Absolutely! And what did the author think he would achieve by publishing this??? Aside from creeping everyone out.
However, when it comes to n=1 self-experimentation without institutional approval - at the one end you've got this sleazy dumpster fire. And at the other end you've got - Barry Marshall.
And there still isn't consensus about the need for institutional ethics committee approval for self-experimentation.
Review of Scientific Self-Experimentation: Ethics History, Regulation, Scenarios, and Views Among Ethics Committees and Prominent Scientists
https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/rej.2018.2059
- bob sterman
- Dorkwood
- Posts: 1143
- Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 10:25 pm
- Location: Location Location
Re: w.nking as ethnographic field method
She made lots of good points but the "don't amplify" message was part of a series of 30-40 tweets sent to 18,000+ followers.
- Bird on a Fire
- Princess POW
- Posts: 10142
- Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
- Location: Portugal
Re: w.nking as ethnographic field method
Although, crucially, without linking to the paper. Though it wasn't hard to find as it's the journal's most read article.bob sterman wrote: ↑Wed Aug 10, 2022 9:42 pmShe made lots of good points but the "don't amplify" message was part of a series of 30-40 tweets sent to 18,000+ followers.
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.
- Bird on a Fire
- Princess POW
- Posts: 10142
- Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
- Location: Portugal
Re: w.nking as ethnographic field method
Part of the issue here is that the nature of the imagery relates to child abuse, so while victims weren't directly experimented upon they are still impacted. Which is an argument that probably applies to any erotic genre in such circumstances.bob sterman wrote: ↑Wed Aug 10, 2022 9:31 pmAbsolutely! And what did the author think he would achieve by publishing this??? Aside from creeping everyone out.
However, when it comes to n=1 self-experimentation without institutional approval - at the one end you've got this sleazy dumpster fire. And at the other end you've got - Barry Marshall.
And there still isn't consensus about the need for institutional ethics committee approval for self-experimentation.
Review of Scientific Self-Experimentation: Ethics History, Regulation, Scenarios, and Views Among Ethics Committees and Prominent Scientists
https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/rej.2018.2059
Just bizarre that anybody thought this a good idea to publish.
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.
- bob sterman
- Dorkwood
- Posts: 1143
- Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 10:25 pm
- Location: Location Location
Re: w.nking as ethnographic field method
Indeed - it's unfathomable.Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Wed Aug 10, 2022 10:26 pmJust bizarre that anybody thought this a good idea to publish.
The remit of the journal...
Qualitative Research is a peer-reviewed international journal that has been leading debates about qualitative methods for over 20 years. The journal provides a forum for the discussion and development of qualitative methods across disciplines, publishing high quality articles that contribute to the ways in which we think about and practice the craft of qualitative research.
- Woodchopper
- Princess POW
- Posts: 7144
- Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am
Re: w.nking as ethnographic field method
If we assume that the editor did read the article there is an obvious rationale.bob sterman wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 5:56 amIndeed - it's unfathomable.Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Wed Aug 10, 2022 10:26 pmJust bizarre that anybody thought this a good idea to publish.
The remit of the journal...
Qualitative Research is a peer-reviewed international journal that has been leading debates about qualitative methods for over 20 years. The journal provides a forum for the discussion and development of qualitative methods across disciplines, publishing high quality articles that contribute to the ways in which we think about and practice the craft of qualitative research.
Journals are desperate for citations to improve their rankings. So they have an incentive to publish controversial articles that will get a lot of attention. If it doesn’t get retracted this article could become one of the journal’s most highly cited, solely by people criticising it.
However editors can misjudge and get much more controversy than they expect. Which leads to retractions and resignations from the journal. But the editor will probably keep their job.
Re: w.nking as ethnographic field method
This will play well with the “universities are full of Marxist academics doing pointless research” crowd.
- Stephanie
- Stummy Beige
- Posts: 2902
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:38 pm
- Location: clinging tenaciously to your buttocks
Re: w.nking as ethnographic field method
She didn't QT the paper, or link to it, as is the norm for amplifying content on Twitter. She merely took it as an example for how to deal with such content. That's ok, I think.bob sterman wrote: ↑Wed Aug 10, 2022 9:42 pmShe made lots of good points but the "don't amplify" message was part of a series of 30-40 tweets sent to 18,000+ followers.
"I got a flu virus named after me 'cause I kissed a bat on a dare."
Re: w.nking as ethnographic field method
A few academic made idiots of themselves yesterday by pretending that the uproar was just some culture war nonsense. One has since apologised once he actually saw what he had defended.
I did read Tweets from an academic stating that the gentleman in question was self-funding his PhD, but according to his Twitter bio he is funded by his university department. It's a bit odd that some academics immediately assume that this stuff would never get funded or past peer review and that it must be some right-wing ploy to make them look bad.
It's what happens when they try to apply IATBMCTT with their willies...
Re: w.nking as ethnographic field method
I have been thinking for a bit whether I should chime in, I suppose not making a snap judgement is a good call on this issue, unlike some other people's experiences. But I have to admit, when I first saw this, I also genuinely thought the issue is one of the usual culture war bollocks. That MP's tweet talked about an article on m.st.rbation, questioned whether tax payers money should go on this, and concluded that funding to all non STEM disciplines should be cut (or something like that). No mention of the nature of the p.rn being looked at. Given just that an initial reaction of "oh f.ck here we go again" by some academics was warranted. But of course one should look at the text being criticised first before tweeting. But maybe they did - I certainly did. But I must confess the nature of the p.rn didn't immediately jump out at me either - the title iirc, and I'm not going to go back to that piece, only mentioned the genre name, not what it is - maybe I'm naive or culturally uneducated, but I've never heard of this before and assumed it's something fairly innocuous. The abstract and then the text itself mentions young boys, but without giving specifics of the ages, I admit I assumed the word boy was used in the sense of young adult (in the same way that my girlfriend still calls me her boyfriend even though we're both in our 40s). It was only after I read some of the commentary that the penny dropped. Again I was naive, but I'm not the only one who fell for it.
QR is a well respected journal, so maybe an unconscious cue was there that I wouldn't assume that sort of material to be published there (a friend of mine is part of the editorial team, he specialism is something completely different so he wouldn't have been involved in this, but I can imagine that his summer holiday is now completely ruined).
I can well imagine that the review process was similar - editor didn't spot this, reviewers neither. The review would have been blind, so the reviewers would not have been able to benefit from googling the author's past history; the reviewers may have been experts in autoethnography, or sexuality research, but not on Japanese p.rn genres. I frequently get asked to review papers that are relevant to my expertise in one respect, but not in others. Should they have at least googled the genre? Yes of course, but tbh usually I'm lucky if I get to spend more than half a day reviewing a paper, because I've got a full time job and I'm basically doing this sh.t pro bono, so I can well imagine that some corners were cut (I have three on the go at the moment, when I return from AL next week I basically have Monday to do it, the rest of the week I'm booked up already). I also think I have a bit of a right to expect that papers I receive have been vetted by an ethics board first. And so do the editors. The peer review system is close to cracking at the moment, because academic workloads have tripled, editors get sent more papers (because we all have to publish more now) and get more refusals from people they approach for review, because the relevant experts are too busy writing their own papers. I had a paper sitting on the editor's desk recently for more than three months before they could find someone to review it. It's not like people haven't been warning about the collapse of peer review for ages.
So this rush to judgement disquiets me a bit (not the judgement on the author, but on the journal and the initial commentators). Idiotic and naive, yes, but saying people "pretended" it was only about the culture war is unfair. Some people f.ck up, it doesn't have to be with bad intentions. Those that I've seen giving a quick culture war take at first have apologised (certainly more than just one).
NB, I've also once been the reviewer of a paper that became embroiled in culture war bollocks - I stand by it, but the experience wasn't pleasant even though I remained anonymous. A colleague of mine had nasty comments written on her in the Mail because she dared to use taxpayers money on researching the Kardashians as a cultural phenomenon. Similarly for another colleague who writes on disparaging humour (daring to criticise the practice of making any jokes you want also summons the culture war brigade). The Times publishes a front page b.llsh.t story about how us updating our reading lists once in a while is basically leftwing censorship. And this week's education secretary tweets that this means our universities should be in for another round of special measures or something. So yes non-STEM academics are jumpy at the moment.
QR is a well respected journal, so maybe an unconscious cue was there that I wouldn't assume that sort of material to be published there (a friend of mine is part of the editorial team, he specialism is something completely different so he wouldn't have been involved in this, but I can imagine that his summer holiday is now completely ruined).
I can well imagine that the review process was similar - editor didn't spot this, reviewers neither. The review would have been blind, so the reviewers would not have been able to benefit from googling the author's past history; the reviewers may have been experts in autoethnography, or sexuality research, but not on Japanese p.rn genres. I frequently get asked to review papers that are relevant to my expertise in one respect, but not in others. Should they have at least googled the genre? Yes of course, but tbh usually I'm lucky if I get to spend more than half a day reviewing a paper, because I've got a full time job and I'm basically doing this sh.t pro bono, so I can well imagine that some corners were cut (I have three on the go at the moment, when I return from AL next week I basically have Monday to do it, the rest of the week I'm booked up already). I also think I have a bit of a right to expect that papers I receive have been vetted by an ethics board first. And so do the editors. The peer review system is close to cracking at the moment, because academic workloads have tripled, editors get sent more papers (because we all have to publish more now) and get more refusals from people they approach for review, because the relevant experts are too busy writing their own papers. I had a paper sitting on the editor's desk recently for more than three months before they could find someone to review it. It's not like people haven't been warning about the collapse of peer review for ages.
So this rush to judgement disquiets me a bit (not the judgement on the author, but on the journal and the initial commentators). Idiotic and naive, yes, but saying people "pretended" it was only about the culture war is unfair. Some people f.ck up, it doesn't have to be with bad intentions. Those that I've seen giving a quick culture war take at first have apologised (certainly more than just one).
NB, I've also once been the reviewer of a paper that became embroiled in culture war bollocks - I stand by it, but the experience wasn't pleasant even though I remained anonymous. A colleague of mine had nasty comments written on her in the Mail because she dared to use taxpayers money on researching the Kardashians as a cultural phenomenon. Similarly for another colleague who writes on disparaging humour (daring to criticise the practice of making any jokes you want also summons the culture war brigade). The Times publishes a front page b.llsh.t story about how us updating our reading lists once in a while is basically leftwing censorship. And this week's education secretary tweets that this means our universities should be in for another round of special measures or something. So yes non-STEM academics are jumpy at the moment.
I've never had a signature, and it never did me any harm
Re: w.nking as ethnographic field method
Thanks for that perspective Warumich.
I have to admit that were I in the academic loop when the controversy over this paper started. I would have almost certainly thought "culture war bollocks" too.
Just goes to show that reading before defending is every bit as important as reading before criticising.
I have to admit that were I in the academic loop when the controversy over this paper started. I would have almost certainly thought "culture war bollocks" too.
Just goes to show that reading before defending is every bit as important as reading before criticising.
And remember that if you botch the exit, the carnival of reaction may be coming to a town near you.
Fintan O'Toole
Fintan O'Toole