University research on fans' views of racism in the AFL

[dpositive 1,668]

I attempted and was timed out.

My steam driven computer, remote location NBN and general brain dysfunction contributes to this circumstance often.

[Grr-owl 1,221]

4 hours ago, ManDee said:

I would like to know why ask us? Have all clubs been asked the same questions? Have other sports been surveyed? Are we being set up? Okay call me a suspicious sceptic. I will  abstain.

'Cause we can be reasonably categorized as "AFL supporters" given that our participation in this forum constitutes solid evidence of support for an AFL team, and as such may well have gone to the footy where it is possible that we have observed racist behavior.

'Set up' for what? You think a SWAT team is gonna bundle you into the back of a black SUV? This ain't the Middle East.... well, maybe not for you....

 

[Grr-owl 1,221]

3 hours ago, faultydet said:

To base a "paper" on a survey as crude as this one would be an embarrassment.

Everyone's opinion of what constitutes a racist comment is different. If you want to really research, wouldn't you ask much more in-depth questions?

 

Who knows, it could be a graduate student on their first paper.....though it's not, as it clearly states in the Participation Information Sheet.

You would need to understand survey design to come to your conclusion, and survey design is supremely complicated, better thought of as a science in itself. To devise questions that allow reliable conclusions to be drawn is a mighty achievement.

Edited June 9, 2021 by Grr-owl

[Grr-owl 1,221]

 

3 hours ago, Macca said:

Is this person a true academic or did said person stumble across this survey and try their luck here 

Someone trying to waste our time and getting us arguing amongst each other over race? Did they contact the owner of the site or the mods before posting up the questionaire?  If not, why not?

There is a similar thread in the other sports section here on this site

Who has approved this study?

This study has been approved by the Business School ethics committee at the University of South Australia. If you have any ethical concerns about the project or questions about your rights as a participant please contact: [email protected]    

 

Informed consent

By submitting a completed survey you will be giving your informed consent to take part in this study. This will signify that you have read and understood the information above, and that you provide permission for the data collected during this study to be analysed for the sole purpose of advancing academic research on this subject area.

 

Researchers

This research has received no external funding - it is being completed purely for academic purposes by the four researchers listed below: 

 

Chief Investigator: Dr Jamie Cleland (UniSA Business, University of South Australia)

Email: [email protected]

 

Co-Researchers: Professor Ian O’Boyle (UniSA Business, University of South Australia); Associate Professor Daryl Adair (University of Technology Sydney) and Dr Keith Parry (Bournemouth University, UK)

 

Just Google them. Kill the paranoia.

[Grr-owl 1,221]

On 6/8/2021 at 12:27 PM, Cranky Franky said:

I take it from your comments that you don't believe in freedom of speech and support cancel culture.

Can't see that. Instead, I took it from his comments that he finds it interesting that those who rattle on about snowflakes, cancel culture, and freedom of speech are the most thin skinned and defensive and have the largest persecution complex when something is mentioned that remotely and vaguely threatens their world view.? 
 

I also took it that he thinks it's a novel idea, he knows, but perhaps those doubting @theacademic's motives could actually take the survey. Additionally, he thinks that without biasing the results, it actually does give one the chance to outline one's beliefs about racism and whether it exists or not among football fans. ? Just a thought.

Not much about freedom of speech or supporting cancel culture, though....

[Macca 17,007]

Just now, Grr-owl said:

 

Who has approved this study?

This study has been approved by the Business School ethics committee at the University of South Australia. If you have any ethical concerns about the project or questions about your rights as a participant please contact: [email protected]    

 

Informed consent

By submitting a completed survey you will be giving your informed consent to take part in this study. This will signify that you have read and understood the information above, and that you provide permission for the data collected during this study to be analysed for the sole purpose of advancing academic research on this subject area.

 

Researchers

This research has received no external funding - it is being completed purely for academic purposes by the four researchers listed below: 

 

Chief Investigator: Dr Jamie Cleland (UniSA Business, University of South Australia)

Email: [email protected]

 

Co-Researchers: Professor Ian O’Boyle (UniSA Business, University of South Australia); Associate Professor Daryl Adair (University of Technology Sydney) and Dr Keith Parry (Bournemouth University, UK)

 

Just Google them. Kill the paranoia.

Do we need surveys about racism to tell us what we should already know?

It's like having a survey about the common cold in my view.  We already know what it is and what to do about it

In a previous post I highlighted the disgusting behavior aimed at Adam Goodes

And that happened 6 years ago

The AFL should have taken action such as playing the games in front of empty stadiums (as they do with soccer in Europe)

Send a strong & clear message

By the way, I was saying that at the time

So there's no paranoia ... just a realisation that action needs to happen.  Not more surveys

I have experienced and seen racist behavior on a constant basis for my entire life (and I'm no spring chicken) ... not as a victim but nonetheless,  the indelible inprint of racism has been about forever (in my view)

[Dr. Gonzo 24,235]

13 hours ago, faultydet said:

And people wonder why I reckon the University has an agenda here.....

Didn't you post "of course there is racism" - yet you think there is an agenda by these researchers to make out as though there is racism when there isn't despite admitting there is?

[Dr. Gonzo 24,235]

2 hours ago, Macca said:

Fair enough it's probably not a scam in that sense but in terms of changing the thinking with the results, I'm not so sure

As an example ... the mob mentality surrounding Adam Goodes shows us how far we need to go before inherent racism is stamped out

For all the work the AFL does,  it failed spectacularly when it came to being able to handle the Adam Goodes situation

Hounded out of the game and people wonder why he won't accept a hall of fame honour?

If it was me I'd take the same stance.  Accept the award and it's an admission that could easily satisfy those who hounded him out of the sport

 

To me that's the whole point of this research - to have some verifiable data that can be used to put pressure on the AFL to take real action.

Having said that, besides the Adam Goodes incidents (which I only witnessed on tv) the only real racism I can recall witnessing was at a Saints game in the late 90s. This Saints supporter was getting stuck into Farmer making idiotic comments about petrol sniffing etc I called him out on it and asked him if he had forgotten about a guy named Nicky Winmar. We went on to belt them in that game (98 semi) so he was pretty quiet after that anyway.

I generally sit at ground level in the AFL members but I reckon you get more of the idiots sitting in GA or up on level 4 particular those groups of younger guys who go to the footy to get [censored] and mouth off. You probably don't see that as much in the MCC or club reserved members areas.

[Macca 17,007]

Just now, Dr. Gonzo said:

To me that's the whole point of this research - to have some verifiable data that can be used to put pressure on the AFL to take real action.

Having said that, besides the Adam Goodes incidents (which I only witnessed on tv) the only real racism I can recall witnessing was at a Saints game in the late 90s. This Saints supporter was getting stuck into Farmer making idiotic comments about petrol sniffing etc I called him out on it and asked him if he had forgotten about a guy named Nicky Winmar. We went on to belt them in that game (98 semi) so he was pretty quiet after that anyway.

I generally sit at ground level in the AFL members but I reckon you get more of the idiots sitting in GA or up on level 4 particular those groups of younger guys who go to the footy to get [censored] and mouth off. You probably don't see that as much in the MCC or club reserved members areas.

The racism has quietened down a lot when compared to the 70's & 80's but it still exists from time to time ... I'm an AFL member and prefer standing room and when it's crowded in there, that's where you can sometimes still hear it (muffled not loud and not identifiable)

Things have improved a lot with greater education and better policing but the Adam Goodes booing was deplorable.  Shameful in fact.  And it wasn't that long ago.  The mob at work.  So instead of the odd jibe from the odd person it was 10,000 in unison

We've come a long way but my view is that even though we've already got the info in front of us, we still get blinkered views such as 'One white parent' when describing an indigenous prospect (that was by a well known recruiter) King Kong & chimp references etc etc. 

I still see people making references to the indigenous players at their clubs somehow needing other indigenous players at the club as support or as mates ... why? 

[faultydet 7,612]

8 hours ago, Accepting Mediocrity said:

What motive could anyone possibly have to bother doing that? He/ she (or at least a poster also going by 'the academic') was inviting people to complete the survey on bigfooty (and presumably other footy forums) as well. Who knew, it's possible that footy forums are an ideal place to locate a bunch of people with an interest in AFL.

Researcher:

- Completes bachelor of science, achieves grades necessary to enter postgraduate research. 

- Completes honors/ masters thesis, develops expertise in field. Achieves results required to obtain PhD scholarship. 

- Undertakes PhD, commences novel research in field of expertise. 

- Develops expertise in survey design, data analysis, etc relating to field of research.

- Completes PhD thesis, publishes results in peer-reviewed journals.

- Results subject to rigorous and soul-destroying peer review process by rivals in the field.

- Successfully procures funding to undertake further research via competitive grant application process.

- Designs 5 minute survey on racism in the AFL based on well established survey methodology.

 

Coal miner from Queensland who failed year 9 science:

- Bull****!

All of those "qualifications" and yet still can't grasp the fact their are only 2 genders.

 

Game, set, match.

[Youngwilliam 381]

You aren't going to rid the world of racism, sexism and general violence. There is just that <1% who will always think that way.

There will always be people who just think the world is unfair and is out to get them.

[faultydet 7,612]

5 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Didn't you post "of course there is racism" - yet you think there is an agenda by these researchers to make out as though there is racism when there isn't despite admitting there is?

Not smart enough to know there can be more than 1 agenda?

 

[Kent 2,912]

What if the survey result  shows that there is very little recorded racism at the football!

 

 

Edited June 9, 2021 by Kent

[Dr. Gonzo 24,235]

1 hour ago, Kent said:

What if the survey result  shows that there is very little recorded racism at the football!

 

 

It wouldn't really surprise me if that is the case. It's nowhere near what it was in previous eras in large part due to changes in society and the demographic of AFL crowds compared to previous generations.

Edited June 9, 2021 by Dr. Gonzo

[Dr. Gonzo 24,235]

2 hours ago, faultydet said:

Not smart enough to know there can be more than 1 agenda?

 

So what do you think is their agenda?

[Guest]

4 hours ago, faultydet said:

All of those "qualifications" and yet still can't grasp the fact their are only 2 genders.

 

Game, set, match.

There are two biological sexes defined from birth. That is correct. X and Y chromosomes determine that. Your gender as defined by sex is what is referred to as cisgender.

Gender is the identity one chooses to lead their lives in line with. The third option I mostly encounter these days (while still not as ubiquitous as the traditional binary since I live in a pretty homogeneous society) is non-binary. Meaning they refer to themselves as they/them/theirs and choosing to not live according to the traditional male/female roles.
 

You’ll also find a lot of other organizations increasing options available on gender when collecting information. I work at a biological research institute and our upcoming international symposia have four options for gender when entering personal details (male/female/non-binary/other). Most will go with the usual suspects, but just because the numbers are fewer doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

Edited June 9, 2021 by Colin B. Flaubert

[Wrecker46 2,997]

My gender has changed since I completed the survey. Do I need to complete it again?

[ManDee 7,162]

9 hours ago, Grr-owl said:

'Cause we can be reasonably categorized as "AFL supporters" given that our participation in this forum constitutes solid evidence of support for an AFL team, and as such may well have gone to the footy where it is possible that we have observed racist behavior.

'Set up' for what? You think a SWAT team is gonna bundle you into the back of a black SUV? This ain't the Middle East.... well, maybe not for you....

 

I did posit 4 questions. However in reference to set up. Melbourne supporters see racism amongst supporters at their games, according to survey. Melbourne supporters deny racism amongst supporters at their games according to survey. Have all clubs been surveyed? I shall maintain my scepticism.

[faultydet 7,612]

 

24 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

So what do you think is their agenda?

Dr, I'm suspicious of everything that comes out of a University when it comes to the topic of "racism" as they are a bastion of leftism. And leftists absolutely LOVE talking about race, whereas most of the plebs are so tired of it.

Racism is disgusting regardless of who it comes from. But hyping it up endlessly does nobody any favors. And "academics" are guilty of doing just that.

This is one of my favorite vids on YouTube, along with a couple by one of Hollywoods greatest actors, Denzel Washington.

It's important to stare down overtly racist behavior, but i like Freemans thoughts on it.

It is interesting that he is being interviewed by one of the most racist hosts on American television.

 

Edited June 9, 2021 by faultydet

[ManDee 7,162]

16 minutes ago, Colin B. Flaubert said:

There are two biological sexes defined from birth. That is correct. X and Y chromosomes determine that.

Gender is the identity one chooses to lead their lives according to. The third option I mostly encounter these days (while still not as ubiquitous as the traditional binary since I live in a pretty homogeneous society) is non-binary. Meaning they refer to themselves as they/them/theirs and choosing to not live according to the traditional male/female roles.
 

You’ll also find a lot of other organizations increasing options available on gender when collecting information. I work at a biological research institute and our upcoming international symposia have four options for gender when entering personal details (male/female/non-binary/other). Most will go with the usual suspects, but just because the numbers are fewer doesn’t mean 

When I fill in occupation as Jedi Knight I  assume the researchers have a category for smartarz.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, ManDee said:

When I fill in occupation as Jedi Knight I  assume the researchers have a category for smartarz.

You could fill in ‘bad faith actor’ and it would be just as good.

[Youngwilliam 381]

17 minutes ago, Colin B. Flaubert said:

There are two biological sexes defined from birth. That is correct. X and Y chromosomes determine that. Your gender as defined by sex is what is referred to as cisgender.

Gender is the identity one chooses to lead their lives in line with. The third option I mostly encounter these days (while still not as ubiquitous as the traditional binary since I live in a pretty homogeneous society) is non-binary. Meaning they refer to themselves as they/them/theirs and choosing to not live according to the traditional male/female roles.
 

You’ll also find a lot of other organizations increasing options available on gender when collecting information. I work at a biological research institute and our upcoming international symposia have four options for gender when entering personal details (male/female/non-binary/other). Most will go with the usual suspects, but just because the numbers are fewer doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

You can be born a male and lead the rest of your life as a female as much as you want.

Then 1000 years down the track, a team of archaeologists will come along and dig you up and label you a male due to you bone structure. 

[faultydet 7,612]

2 minutes ago, Youngwilliam said:

You can be born a male and lead the rest of your life as a female as much as you want.

Then 1000 years down the track, a team of archaeologists will come along and dig you up and label you a male due to you bone structure. 

Because you can't fossilize feelings.

[ManDee 7,162]

2 minutes ago, Colin B. Flaubert said:

You could fill in ‘bad faith actor’ and it would be just as good.

I shall assume you are not taking a swing. I do like to provide the odd left field answer, it is almost a sport for me. 

[Guest]

16 minutes ago, Youngwilliam said:

You can be born a male and lead the rest of your life as a female as much as you want.

Then 1000 years down the track, a team of archaeologists will come along and dig you up and label you a male due to you bone structure. 

So by extension, you are stating that they should be compelled to live according to a set of behaviors, roles and expectations that you don’t identify with in a modern liberal democracy? 
 

And if that’s the case, what other areas could this be applied to? If someone is born as what has been termed ‘ethnically Jewish’, must they live their lives according to the tenets of Judaism?

Edited June 9, 2021 by Colin B. Flaubert