This guy is the researcher cited: https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/seas/people/academic-staff/david-tobin
At first glance, he seems somewhat legit, but I’ve never heard of him before. What do we know about this guy, his research, and what’s the best way to understand these claims?
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.zip/post/863212
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.zip/post/863209
Archived version: https://archive.ph/5Ok1c
Archived version: https://web.archive.org/web/20230731013125/https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-66337328
The researcher himself is definitely more qualified than Zenz himself, doesn’t mean he is not doing his grift now.
I read the intro of the study. The sample of people who were interviewed is not big, like 50 people.
Not bad though, better than 8, and on a smaller population. Though the study doesn’t mention anything about the fact that maybe Uyghurs in exile in the UK do have a specific background.
In terms of biais, well, the acknowledgement section is very funny. They say their conclusions are independent from the agenda of the orgs that financed them obviously. They had funds from the UK govt that specifically called for research on the subject. They also got money from Freedom House lmao. And most hilariously they “thank for their useful feedback” a shit ton of orgs like all the orgs you find if you type “Uyghur” in the NED website, and also Radio Free Asia lol.
Finally they mention that they used an unspecified network of activists to distribute the anonymous written survey to the diaspora… Hmmm I wonder what kind of people would get the surveys if they are distributed by the NED financed groups
That in itself is propaganda and weak scholarship. It’s called begging the question—using the conclusion as a premise in the argument. Tobin is assuming (or pretending to assume) that his respondents will be threatened by the CPC if he goes out with a fully public call. There’s nothing wrong with snow balling in empirical research or of using existing networks to get appropriate participants. In this case it’s a methodological failing. It’s a suprise this got past the ethics committee.
There’s also a question of how the researcher can be sure that:
Maybe these are addressed in the paper. I wouldn’t build a project with these flaws in the first place. But then, I’d be concerned with the truth, not propaganda.
As for the funding – lmao. Funders don’t give you money unless you’re project fits their goals. This is funding applications 101: write a proposal that the funder will want to fund. Not to mention that the funder tells you in advance what they want you to study; dissidents need not apply.
A western government is hardly going to give money to someone who says in advance that they want to uncover the truth about how well Muslims in China are treated. It doesn’t matter whether the funder got involved afterwards (looks like they did, here, still).
It got past the ethics committee because no doubt, it’s still FIVE-EYES lackeys on the ethics committee, who ethics be damned, want to pillory China til the cows come home and the fat lady’s hitting her low notes.
Seems like the easiest goddamn job in the world. You just find like, a dozen people willing to take a payment to agree with whatever you want, then pretend those things represent millions of people (and rake in millions of dollars yourself.)
I’ve heard that ex-communists make the best capitalists, because they understand the best way to exploit the system.