J Arday Page
I read the work of Prof Arday in exactly the same
way as I read all the other work in this folder,
trying to summarise the arguments and make them
accessible for others, so that students especially
would be encouraged to go off and read the
originals.
However, particular problems arose as I read
Arday's work. I did not specifically seek them
out, but they appeared as I went through. I have
called them, in the most neutral way possible,
'oddities' or 'technical flaws'. They became so
frequent that they dominated my reading, and I
decided I had better contact Prof Arday.
I collected together the ones that had appeared as
I read through, and sent them to him with a
request for clarification. I received a rather
unpromising reply, and a request not to contact
him further. None of his senior colleagues at
Cambridge were very helpful. However, I understand
that he has agreed to modify one of the articles,
although I am not clear what exactly he is
proposing.
Meanwhile, I had written to the editors of some of
the other articles pointing out some problems, and
a colleague had written to the editors of another.
Responses have been received so far, promising to
consider amendments. Obviously, I will bring this
note up-to-date when I receive information about
these amendments.
Meanwhile, these were the sort of problems that I
detected initially, extracted from the email I
sent to Prof Arday, with some alterations,
together with one or two that I have discovered
subsequently. I want to make it clear that I am
just reporting what I have found. I have not made
any definitive judgments about how these problems
came to appear in the work: judgments like that
are not available without the chance to discuss
the issues with Prof. Arday.
The problems.
1. There are two articles, published in 2018 and
2022, which pursued two separate projects,
one researching students and one staff, and
reporting the views of respondents in the form of
verbatim quotations. However, two of the
quotations in each article, seem very similar (not
identical). There is another quotation in one of
Arday's articles which is also very similar to a
quotation in Memon et al. (2016) (1).
As examples:
Arday (2018a)
‘As a
student who is a recent immigrant, my
understanding of English is improving daily.
As a result, sometimes I struggle to
articulate clearly and accurately what I would
like to say to the healthcare professionals
provided at university. For this reason, I
prefer not to discuss my psychological issues
as they will misjudge what I am saying and
then heavily medicate me' (Female, Asian, UG,
4).
Arday (2022a p. 95):
‘As someone
relatively new to the United Kingdom (UK), my
understanding of English is improving daily.
Despite my improvements, I still struggle to
converse and make sense sometimes of what others
are saying… sometimes I struggle to articulate
clearly and accurately what I would like to say
to the healthcare professionals provided at
university. I am aware of the potential
manipulation of my words and meanings… and so
sadly to avoid a wrong diagnosis, I just I
prefer not to discuss my psychological issues,
as my biggest fear is being heavily medicated,
which would mean potentially not being able to
work and having my visa revoked…’ (Female,
Latin-American, Female, [sic] Academic, 38).
Arday (2018a p. 16):
‘Positive,
interpersonal dialogue between service users and
healthcare providers’ (Female, Black, UG, 27)
where the consultation was ‘a reciprocal
dialogue’ (Male, Asian, PG, 25).
This was considered to be an
important factor in facilitating better ethnic
minority engagement with mental health services
at universities and wider society.
Memon et al. (2016) (no
page numbers, but found in the section on Power
and Authority):
The need for a
positive interpersonal connection between
service user and healthcare provider where the
consultation was “a dialogue” (Male D. FG1) was
seen as an important factor in engaging with
mental health services.
2. The descriptions of the methodological
procedures used in several Arday articles are very
similar. They also resemble closely the
descriptions of the procedures used in Memon et
al. (2016).
As examples:
Arday (2018a p.10) has:
...Discussions were
facilitated by the researcher who had experience
in cross-cultural working and qualitative
methods. All focus group sessions and interviews
were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. In
addition to the recorded discussions, written
notes were also taken and flipcharts were
utilized for participants to document patterns
of thought. This facilitated a reflexive
process, which ensured participants’ views were
clearly documented. Each participant was
encouraged to speak and express their own views.
Arday (2022b p.520) has:
...Discussions
were facilitated by the researcher and all
focus group sessions and interviews were
audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. In
addition to the recorded discussions, written
notes were also taken and flipcharts were
utilised for participants to document patterns
of thought regarding their experiences of
precarious work as an academic or professional
member of staff. This facilitated a reflexive
process, which ensured participants’ views were
clearly documented. Each participant was
encouraged to speak and express their own views…
Memon et al. (2016) has:
Discussions were
facilitated by a researcher trained and
experienced in cross cultural working and
qualitative methods (LMM). Each session was
audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. In
addition to the recording of the discussion,
written notes were also taken, using flipcharts,
to allow for a review of the process and to
ensure that participants' views were clearly
documented. Each participant was encouraged to
speak and express their own views and often
conversations among participants enriched the
discussion.
3. I noticed several sentences
that seem to be very similar to those found in
other articles. I would have thought that they
should have been included within quotation marks
with the references to the original articles
clearly given. I have not read Arday's articles
deliberately to detect suspicions of plagiarism,
but I found at least five cases overall where
these problems arose.
An example:
Arday (2022b p.519)
A deductive
approach is useful for centring a particular
aspect of the data or a specific finding that
could best be illuminated or understood in the
context of an existing theory or frame (Kiger
and Varpio 2020).
Kiger and Varpio (2020 p.3) (5)
a deductive
approach is useful for honing in on a particular
aspect of the data or a specific finding that
could be best illuminated or understood in the
context of a pre-existing theory or frame (Braun
and Clarke 2006)
4. The definition of BME used
in several Arday articles, usually in the form of
explanatory notes, resembles that used in Grey et
al. (2013) (2), although with some modifications.
For example Arday (2018a):
... It is important
to acknowledge that the term BME, despite its
widespread use, has severe limitations and
usually follows non-specific quantifiers such as
‘most’ or ‘some’ (Glover and Evison 2009).
Typically, there has been an accepted use of the
term BME, which has been illustrated in research
and Government papers.
Grey et al. (2013 p.147):
The term BME
despite its widespread use, has severe
limitations and usually follows nonspecific
quantifiers, such as “most” or “some.” For
example, a study of ethnic utilization of
newly devised mental health services highlights
the diversity of patterns across different
groups (Glover & Evison,
2009). Given the accepted use of the
term BME and the fact that research and
government papers typically use this term this
article uses it
5. A paragraph is repeated,
except for the last sentence, in two separate
articles published by Arday and Arday and Jones in
2022.
6. Edited collections are not referenced according
to the conventions with which I am familiar,
especially those co-edited by Arday himself,
Alexander and Arday (2015) (3) and Arday and Mirza
(2018) (4). These are frequently cited in the
other works. The conventions I know suggest that
actual contributors to those collections should
also be cited as well as editors. This gives them
credit and increases their citation counts, and
also helps readers find the location of specific
arguments. The Runnymede Trust, who publish
Alexander and Arday (2015), actually say on the
front cover that 'You must give the original
author credit'.
7. Of less significance to me, but of great
significance to some critics, there are plentiful
examples of non-standard English, spelling/typing
mistakes and grammatical errors. In one case,
there are four prominent mistakes very visibly on
display in the Abstract of an Arday article.
The point is that anyone going back to read
these or other articles in the future might
expect to find changes from the versions that I
have summarised here.
Works cited
(1).
Memon, A., Taylor, K., Mohebati, L. M., Sundin,
J., Cooper, M., Scanlon, T., & de Visser, R.
(2016). Perceived barriers to accessing mental
health services among Black and Minority Ethnic
(BME) communities: A qualitative study in
Southeast England. British Medical Journal
Open, 6 (11), e012337.
(2). Grey, T., Shapiro, G., Ashraf, F.
(2013). Mental Health Inequalities Facing UK
Minority Ethnic Populations. Journal of
Psychological Issues in Organizational
Culture. 3(1) Wiley Online Library. DOI:
10.1002/jpoc21080
(3). Alexander, C. & Arday, J. (Eds.)
(2015). Aiming Higher. Race, Inequality and
Diversity in the Academy. Runnymede Trust
Perspectives. www.runnymedetrust.org
(4)
Arday, J. & Mirza, H. (Eds.) (2018). Dismantling
Race in Higher Education. Geweberstrasse:
Palgrave Macmillan Imprint, Springer
International Publishing AG.
(5) Kiger, M., & Varpio, L. (2020). Thematic
Analysis of Qualitative Data: AMEE Guide No.
131. Medical Teacher 42 (8): 846–854.
doi:10.1090/0142159X.2020.1755030
On to the notes on specific articles (and
book). I read these in the order in which I
discovered them. I shall be adding to them:
Arday, J.
(2022a). No one can see me cry:
understanding mental health issues for Black
and minority ethnic staff in higher education
Arday, J.
(2021). Fighting the tide: Understanding
the difficulties facing Black, Asian and
Minority Ethnic (BAME) Doctoral Students' [sic]
pursuing a career in Academia.
Arday,
J. (2018a). Understanding Mental Health:
What Are the Issues for Black and Ethnic
Minority Students at University?
Whigham,
S. & Arday,J. (2021) A response
to 'Seeking equality of educational
outcomes for Black students: a personal
account' — a sociological perspective.
Arday,
J., Belluigi, D. & Thomas, D.
(2021). Attempting to break the
chain: reimagining inclusive pedagogy
and decolonising the curriculum within
the Academy.
Arday, J.
(2022b) 'More to prove and
more to lose': race, racism and precarious
employment in higher education.
Arday,J. (2018 b).
Understanding race and educational
leadership in higher education: Exploring
the Black and ethnic minority (BME)
experience.
Arday, J., Branchu,
C., & Boliver, V. (2021). State
of the Art. What Do We Know About Black and
Minority Ethnic (BAME) Participation in UK
Higher Education?
Arday (2020) Cool
Britannia and
Multi-Ethnic Britain. Uncorking the Champagne
Supernova. Abingdon: Routledge
|
|