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
probably not very trustable if he’s praising zenztargeting of Uyghurs
Targeting? What do you mean? Be a little more specific?
Well you see, China’s authoritarian regime has increased persecution of Uyghurs, we believe it could be as high as a 72% increase. They are being targeted by government affiliated agents, according to our anonymous source. Sadly, this is just another in a long line of China’s attempts to squash free speech in their country. After all, remember Tienanmen Square?! I rest my case. China bad.
Literally the bravest thing I’ve seen said today. 🫡 🇺🇲
🫡
This is the bravest thing I’ve seen said today (admittedly, it’s 3:22 a.m.). This brave American is saluting even though half their face has been chopped off. (Apple emoji font for reference)
69% increase. Take it or leave it.
Highlighting this quote from the research paper:
The research for this report was funded by the “China Network’s International Programme (Open Societies) Fund 2022/23 (£68k). The report and all contents reflect the independent work and conclusions of the authors and do not reflect the views or opinions of the funders, the British Embassy Beijing, or the U.K. government. The authors wish to extend their gratitude to the individuals and organisations who supported this research by providing concrete feedback for revisions on the report, offering suggestions and advice at the planning stages, and offering ongoing collaborative and moral support while conducting this research: Elise Anderson, Campaign for Uyghurs, Freedom House, Tim Grose, Ondřej Klimeš, Julie Millsap, David O’Brien, the Rights Practice, Radio Free Asia, Isabella Rodriguez, David Stroup, Hannah Theaker, Emily Upson, the Uyghur Human Rights Project, the Uyghur Transitional Justice Database, the World Uyghur Congress, the Xinjiang Documentation Project, the Xinjiang Victims’ Database, and Adrian Zenz.
China Network’s International Programme (Open Societies) Fund is funded by the UK government and offers research grants for the following:
All projects should aim to support improvements to and/or increase understanding and awareness of contemporary human rights in China. Issues on which we welcome bids include but are not limited to: Freedom of expression, including media freedom and countering disinformation Religious and cultural rights, including for minority groups. Technology and human rights, Criminal justice reform, Civil Society resilience.
And of course, the research is supported by Radio Free Asia, Adrian Zenz, and a bunch of the classic NED funded Uyghur activist groups.
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.
18 in the U.K., 28 in Turkey, and 12 in Thailand.
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
an unspecified network of activists to distribute the anonymous written survey to the diaspora
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:
- The people filling in the form were from China and had ever lived in China;
- That someone in the network didn’t misplace any responses on their way back to the researcher (assuming they didn’t just include a stamped envelope to the researcher); and
- The network wasn’t a network of anti-CPC activists like Falun Gong (it sounds like that’s exactly what it was).
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.
100% it’s another projection.
