Does this kind of poor judgment from the NEJM cast doubt on everything from that source? How long should once storied institutions continue to rest on wilted laurels?
In a sociology PhD, research usually starts with finding a sharp question about how society works—things like inequality, culture, institutions, or social change.
You dig deep into the existing literature, then design a study using methods like interviews, surveys, ethnography, or statistical analysis of large datasets. After that comes collecting and analysing the data, and writing it all up as a dissertation under your supervisor’s guidance.
Most of the real work happens in those middle years once the topic is locked in.
Did Jason Arday do all of this?
Yes. Jason Arday completed a PhD in education in 2015. His thesis looked at peer-mentoring among student teachers and how it supports reflective practice, using action research methods.
He ran a small qualitative study with interviews, workshops, reflective exercises and questionnaires, analysed the data, and wrote it all up as a dissertation—the standard research steps.
How small?
Just four student teachers in the main peer-mentoring part of the study.
There was some wider early data—questionnaires from about two dozen people and a couple of interviews with teacher educators—but the core intervention and findings rested on those four participants.
Isn’t this a poor standard even for sociology?
Small samples are normal in qualitative work, especially action research or in-depth studies of a specific process. The goal is depth, not statistical generalisation, so four people can be acceptable if the analysis is rigorous and the insights are strong.
That said, four is on the very low end even for that approach. Critics have argued the study’s design, limited scope, and the way findings were presented made the overall contribution thin for a doctoral thesis. The later plagiarism allegations only strengthened the view that the standard was poor.
Great takedown of the career of Jason Arday. The leaders of once-trusted institutions should not hype people with thin resumes and questionable claims and promote them to positions of power because they look the part and their story fits a certain political narrative, and attack those that have questions. Now do the career of Natalie Harp. As an oncologist, you might be able to have some real insight there…
The victim fatigue has gotten such that, if I wasn’t paying for Vinay’s Substack, I would just pass on this article. NEJM publishing propaganda like that makes me feel for anyone who ever held the publication in any regard. I’m actually kinda speechless.
The integrity of scientific journalism rests on the same foundation as scientific inquiry: rigorous impartiality. Every observation, dataset and circumstance deserves to be weighed on its own merits-free of political influence. To recognize that these journals are not subscribing to the concept of impartiality makes one recognize that they need to work much harder to gain peoples trust in "the science". Journals that were once considered top-notch such as Nature, Jama, and NEJM) need to be reliable again . Hopefully, its not too late for them to gain back their credibility.
I am skeptical of the “university system” as a whole and the product it turns out to our society. The impact is felt deeply across all industries. As a 58 year old I have seen this morph and be redefined from affirmative action to DEI but for sure it has permanent effects. At the end of the day the experiment has failed and Arday is a victim of the experiment. We live in a fallen world so it will be hard for places like NEJM to have any self reflection. Will the university self reflect??? The behavior all around of the Rector of Ghent would indicate the negative.
Does this kind of poor judgment from the NEJM cast doubt on everything from that source? How long should once storied institutions continue to rest on wilted laurels?
How do you research a sociology phd?
In a sociology PhD, research usually starts with finding a sharp question about how society works—things like inequality, culture, institutions, or social change.
You dig deep into the existing literature, then design a study using methods like interviews, surveys, ethnography, or statistical analysis of large datasets. After that comes collecting and analysing the data, and writing it all up as a dissertation under your supervisor’s guidance.
Most of the real work happens in those middle years once the topic is locked in.
Did Jason Arday do all of this?
Yes. Jason Arday completed a PhD in education in 2015. His thesis looked at peer-mentoring among student teachers and how it supports reflective practice, using action research methods.
He ran a small qualitative study with interviews, workshops, reflective exercises and questionnaires, analysed the data, and wrote it all up as a dissertation—the standard research steps.
How small?
Just four student teachers in the main peer-mentoring part of the study.
There was some wider early data—questionnaires from about two dozen people and a couple of interviews with teacher educators—but the core intervention and findings rested on those four participants.
Isn’t this a poor standard even for sociology?
Small samples are normal in qualitative work, especially action research or in-depth studies of a specific process. The goal is depth, not statistical generalisation, so four people can be acceptable if the analysis is rigorous and the insights are strong.
That said, four is on the very low end even for that approach. Critics have argued the study’s design, limited scope, and the way findings were presented made the overall contribution thin for a doctoral thesis. The later plagiarism allegations only strengthened the view that the standard was poor.
About what you would expect from a PhD in Education. Just as DR. Jill.
Great takedown of the career of Jason Arday. The leaders of once-trusted institutions should not hype people with thin resumes and questionable claims and promote them to positions of power because they look the part and their story fits a certain political narrative, and attack those that have questions. Now do the career of Natalie Harp. As an oncologist, you might be able to have some real insight there…
You're TDS is showing brightly.
The victim fatigue has gotten such that, if I wasn’t paying for Vinay’s Substack, I would just pass on this article. NEJM publishing propaganda like that makes me feel for anyone who ever held the publication in any regard. I’m actually kinda speechless.
The integrity of scientific journalism rests on the same foundation as scientific inquiry: rigorous impartiality. Every observation, dataset and circumstance deserves to be weighed on its own merits-free of political influence. To recognize that these journals are not subscribing to the concept of impartiality makes one recognize that they need to work much harder to gain peoples trust in "the science". Journals that were once considered top-notch such as Nature, Jama, and NEJM) need to be reliable again . Hopefully, its not too late for them to gain back their credibility.
I am skeptical of the “university system” as a whole and the product it turns out to our society. The impact is felt deeply across all industries. As a 58 year old I have seen this morph and be redefined from affirmative action to DEI but for sure it has permanent effects. At the end of the day the experiment has failed and Arday is a victim of the experiment. We live in a fallen world so it will be hard for places like NEJM to have any self reflection. Will the university self reflect??? The behavior all around of the Rector of Ghent would indicate the negative.
Send your kid to an SEC college if you're in state or if the kid earns a scholarship. Paying out-of-state tuition at a SEC school is a bad investment.
I would have said "Send your kid to Grove City College"!
And people still wonder how people like Trump get elected when the institutions are still rife with this disgusting insanity.