A PhD student who was booted off his course after writing a paper describing how he masturbated to sexualised images of young boys has accused his university and publisher of surrendering to an online pile-on.
Karl Andersson was expelled by the University of Manchester and his 2022 article – subtitled “Using masturbation as an ethnographic method in research on shota subculture in Japan” – was retracted after his exploration of a manga comic genre depicting sexual encounters involving children was condemned as “morally offensive”.
The Swedish researcher has never spoken publicly about the saga, but in a new book, Impossibly Cute Boys: The Healing Power of Shota Comics in Japan, he claims that he had received nothing but praise for his paper prior to publication.
The convener of a PhD course in “queer autoethnography” where the paper was drafted praised it as a “wonderfully written, reflective, analytical and intriguing essay on masturbation ‘in the field’”, adding: “This is already very publishable, should you so desire. Bravo,” Mr Andersson recounts.
He says that his own supervisor praised it as “pretty damn good”, describing it as his “best piece of writing”, while it was positively received on submission to the Sage journal Qualitative Research, with one reviewer stating that the rationale for using masturbation as a method was “well justified”, adding: “The author has conducted provocative research by use of a highly bold and innovative application of autoethnography. Best of all, the author has done this extremely well.”
However, after the published paper made headlines around the world, it was pulled by Sage, which said it “legitimises sexual activity involving sexually graphic illustrated images of children” and had “potential to cause significant harm”, while Manchester – which had funded Mr Andersson’s PhD – expelled him after ruling that he had caused “significant reputational harm” to the university.
Mr Andersson, who writes that he is now an independent researcher, claims that he fell victim to “ill-willed and homophobic reports” by the media and accusations from “the mob” on social media, with “otherwise rational academics” joining in as an act of “groupthink”.
But Michelle Shipworth, an associate professor in UCL’s Energy Institute who was an early critic of the paper, said it was concerning – and telling – that nobody had challenged Mr Andersson’s research topic or methods.
“Academia is becoming more attitudinally homogenous and, at the same time, more censorious, making it increasingly dangerous for academics to argue against a view they believe is widely held,” she said. “This creates a risky environment vulnerable to both accidents and exploitation.”
Manchester said that it had conducted a “robust” investigation into the “significant concerns” around Mr Andersson’s work.
A Sage spokesperson said: “Together with the editors of the journal, we retracted the article after an investigation determined that there was a lack of institutional ethical oversight and a lack of adequate and appropriate ethical review ahead of publication.”
