You’re dumb as hell if you don’t think the person you’re arguing with is motivated by a “righteous anger” that her qual work is more heavily scrutinized by your quant work.
Faking the research
-
Saperstein suffered no repercussions for her documented fabricated research.
Claims that AG's research is fraudulent have never moved beyond being unsubstantiated claims, and they never will because it is very difficult to establish fraud in ethnographic research.
Saperstein model-hacked and used inappropriate data. That is not ?fabricated research?. It?s just bad research. And yet she has high-profile pubs and a HRM tenured gig.
The onus is on AG to support her outlandish claims. Anyone familiar with this kind of research site can see that she made stuff up. She even changed one of her stories entirely when called out.
Saperstein didn't model hack and whther she use "inappropriate data" is neither here nor there. Her results can't be reproduced using the same data she used and she can't explain why her results can't be reproduced, meaning her results fabricated, so, yes, I do know what fabricated mean.
"Anyone familiar with this kind of research site can see that she made stuff up. She even changed one of her stories entirely when called out."
Those are just the kind of unsubstantiated claims that do nothing to establish research fraud.When you change your story entirely, then you are a liar by definition. AG’s claim about where she lived during this research is completely debunked by the evidence. She refuses to name the hospital where she says they let police run visitors. These are far from unsubstantiated claims. Finally, the onus is on AG to substantiate her claims. She cannot do it.
-
You�re dumb as hell if you don�t think the person you�re arguing with is motivated by a �righteous anger� that her qual work is more heavily scrutinized by your quant work.
That's possible, but nothing he/she has said anything but that he/she is obsessed with AG. Also, what do you mean my "your quant work". I do mostly ethnographic work.
-
Saperstein suffered no repercussions for her documented fabricated research.
Claims that AG's research is fraudulent have never moved beyond being unsubstantiated claims, and they never will because it is very difficult to establish fraud in ethnographic research.
Saperstein model-hacked and used inappropriate data. That is not ?fabricated research?. It?s just bad research. And yet she has high-profile pubs and a HRM tenured gig.
The onus is on AG to support her outlandish claims. Anyone familiar with this kind of research site can see that she made stuff up. She even changed one of her stories entirely when called out.
Saperstein didn't model hack and whther she use "inappropriate data" is neither here nor there. Her results can't be reproduced using the same data she used and she can't explain why her results can't be reproduced, meaning her results fabricated, so, yes, I do know what fabricated mean.
"Anyone familiar with this kind of research site can see that she made stuff up. She even changed one of her stories entirely when called out."
Those are just the kind of unsubstantiated claims that do nothing to establish research fraud.
When you change your story entirely, then you are a liar by definition. AG�s claim about where she lived during this research is completely debunked by the evidence. She refuses to name the hospital where she says they let police run visitors. These are far from unsubstantiated claims. Finally, the onus is on AG to substantiate her claims. She cannot do it.As far as AG is concerned, she has substantiated her claims. The onus is on you to provide hard evidence to debunk her claims, which despite your claims, no one has. She has not changed her "story entirely". If you had any experience doing or knowledge of ethnography, you'd know that not identifying research sites is common practice. All you have and ever will have are vacuous claims like that. Give it a rest.
-
Saperstein suffered no repercussions for her documented fabricated research.
Claims that AG's research is fraudulent have never moved beyond being unsubstantiated claims, and they never will because it is very difficult to establish fraud in ethnographic research.
Saperstein model-hacked and used inappropriate data. That is not ?fabricated research?. It?s just bad research. And yet she has high-profile pubs and a HRM tenured gig.
The onus is on AG to support her outlandish claims. Anyone familiar with this kind of research site can see that she made stuff up. She even changed one of her stories entirely when called out.
Saperstein didn't model hack and whther she use "inappropriate data" is neither here nor there. Her results can't be reproduced using the same data she used and she can't explain why her results can't be reproduced, meaning her results fabricated, so, yes, I do know what fabricated mean.
"Anyone familiar with this kind of research site can see that she made stuff up. She even changed one of her stories entirely when called out."
Those are just the kind of unsubstantiated claims that do nothing to establish research fraud.
When you change your story entirely, then you are a liar by definition. AG?s claim about where she lived during this research is completely debunked by the evidence. She refuses to name the hospital where she says they let police run visitors. These are far from unsubstantiated claims. Finally, the onus is on AG to substantiate her claims. She cannot do it.
As far as AG is concerned, she has substantiated her claims. The onus is on you to provide hard evidence to debunk her claims, which despite your claims, no one has. She has not changed her "story entirely". If you had any experience doing or knowledge of ethnography, you'd know that not identifying research sites is common practice. All you have and ever will have are vacuous claims like that. Give it a rest.That’s absurd. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The standard is not “prove me wrong”. Are you even in the academy? It doesn’t sound like it.
-
Saperstein suffered no repercussions for her documented fabricated research.
Claims that AG's research is fraudulent have never moved beyond being unsubstantiated claims, and they never will because it is very difficult to establish fraud in ethnographic research.
Saperstein model-hacked and used inappropriate data. That is not ?fabricated research?. It?s just bad research. And yet she has high-profile pubs and a HRM tenured gig.
The onus is on AG to support her outlandish claims. Anyone familiar with this kind of research site can see that she made stuff up. She even changed one of her stories entirely when called out.
Saperstein didn't model hack and whther she use "inappropriate data" is neither here nor there. Her results can't be reproduced using the same data she used and she can't explain why her results can't be reproduced, meaning her results fabricated, so, yes, I do know what fabricated mean.
"Anyone familiar with this kind of research site can see that she made stuff up. She even changed one of her stories entirely when called out."
Those are just the kind of unsubstantiated claims that do nothing to establish research fraud.
When you change your story entirely, then you are a liar by definition. AG?s claim about where she lived during this research is completely debunked by the evidence. She refuses to name the hospital where she says they let police run visitors. These are far from unsubstantiated claims. Finally, the onus is on AG to substantiate her claims. She cannot do it.
As far as AG is concerned, she has substantiated her claims. The onus is on you to provide hard evidence to debunk her claims, which despite your claims, no one has. She has not changed her "story entirely". If you had any experience doing or knowledge of ethnography, you'd know that not identifying research sites is common practice. All you have and ever will have are vacuous claims like that. Give it a rest.
That�s absurd. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The standard is not �prove me wrong�. Are you even in the academy? It doesn�t sound like it.You don't seem to know how rules of evidence work in the academia. Who decides what qualifies as "extraordinary claims" and as the "extraordinary evidence" required to support them? And if you want to claim that someone's research is fraudulent, then, indeed, the standard is "prove me wrong."
-
She�s already been proven wrong on several counts, several of which I mentioned above. She�s totally changed her story on another count. Why anyone would take her word at this point is beyond me.
No she hasn't been proven wrong on several occasions. You haven't specified one instance where she has been proven wrong. All you have said is:
"Anyone familiar with this kind of research site can see that she made stuff up" (a totally meaningless statement with regards to standards of evidence)."She refuses to name the hospital where she says they let police run visitors" (again, not identifying research sites is common ethnographic practice).
"She’s totally changed her story on another count" (on which "count" has she totally changed her "story" and where was this published?)
-
I mistakenly assumed I was talking to someone who knew the details of the controversy. Sounds like you have some research to do in order to have an informed opinion. Go do your reading, get yourself up to speed, then get back to us.
Condescending to deflect the need to reply to substantive responses. Nice.
-
I mistakenly assumed I was talking to someone who knew the details of the controversy. Sounds like you have some research to do in order to have an informed opinion. Go do your reading, get yourself up to speed, then get back to us.
Condescending to deflect the need to reply to substantive responses. Nice.The criticism is already in print, ya brain surgeon. You really expect me to type it in here? Go do your homework.
-
I mistakenly assumed I was talking to someone who knew the details of the controversy. Sounds like you have some research to do in order to have an informed opinion. Go do your reading, get yourself up to speed, then get back to us.
Condescending to deflect the need to reply to substantive responses. Nice.
The criticism is already in print, ya brain surgeon. You really expect me to type it in here? Go do your homework.Still deflecting in the same way. Just because you ignore that something was written doesn’t disappear it.
-
I mistakenly assumed I was talking to someone who knew the details of the controversy. Sounds like you have some research to do in order to have an informed opinion. Go do your reading, get yourself up to speed, then get back to us.
Condescending to deflect the need to reply to substantive responses. Nice.
The criticism is already in print, ya brain surgeon. You really expect me to type it in here? Go do your homework.
Still deflecting in the same way. Just because you ignore that something was written doesn�t disappear it.No idea what you’re talking about.
-
A quick google search turns up plenty of people who have documented ways in which AG's "research" is filled with unsubstantiated claims, dubious retelling of events, self-contradictions, and outright falsehoods. This is a big part of why her career massively fell apart.