Academia is Broken: a Case-study of Dr Jan Dewar [Part 1]
![Academia is Broken: a Case-study of Dr Jan Dewar [Part 1]](https://cdn.mymidnight.blog/970af30e481057c48f87e101b61e6994/size/w1000/2026/08/Screenshot-2026-08-24-120050.png)
Reading about the controversial and tragic case of Jason Arday in the UK, in particular the failed attempts by journalists to try to expose how broken academia is, mirrors my own experiences. The University of Cambridge is far from unique. I have tried repeatedly, over the thirteen years I've been in New Zealand, just to have a meaningful discussion (even 'off record') with an academic about a topic I am curious and/or knowledgeable about. I cannot recall one successful attempt. In this three-part series of articles, I'll provide yet another example case-study of poor-quality research published by academics who paradoxically appear to seek the media limelight - yet try to avoid legitimate public scrutiny. Why is this?
University: the critic and con-science of society?
In this Part One, I focus on the publication of a highly-problematic peer-reviewed article about the impact of the 'no jab, no job' policy on nurses, published in the New Zealand Journal of Social Sciences Online in March 2025. In Part Two, I'll explain the second stage of my unresolved complaint about this article, sent to the Auckland University of Technology (AUT) Research Ethics Committee, Retired Professor Peter Lineham. In Part Three, I'll conclude with the results of my final attempt to get some acknowledgement about my concerns about the article, which was sent to the NZ Human Rights Commission. So let's start with AUT, where apparently nurses education and 'Knowledge Works' (and Dr Dewar was based):
AUT is one of the leading nursing educators in New Zealand, and our School of Nursing is ranked first in New Zealand and in the top 76-100 worldwide by the prestigious Shanghai Ranking... all our nursing courses are dynamic and evolve with the latest research and needs of the healthcare sector. Our strong links to Health New Zealand, hospitals and private practices ensure that our students gain extensive clinical experience, while our research programmes focus on advancing knowledge to improve patient outcomes and recovery.
Dr Jan Dewar was Head of Nursing at AUT when the problematic article was published. In January 2026 she took up a Assoc Prof role at Victoria University, Wellington (VUW). The article she co-authored was republished in layman's language in all the captured, legacy media outlets, including The Conversation. Here is the PDF of the Open Access academic article, which had a promising title for mandated nurses:
Unfortunately, reading the article reveals how misleading the title is and how flawed that research was. Now Associate Professor in Nursing at VUW, Dewar is co-chair the National Nurse Leaders Group and Kawa Whakaruruhau Wharangi Ruamano (what is that?) And, importantly, she is also a candidate for current elections to become a Member of the Nursing Council of NZ (NCNZ). This could be a significant role, as I explain at the end of this article. For those unaware, AUT was one of the prominent propagandist institutions during the covid era. Like this garbage from Prof Steve Henry (Oct 2021):
I must admit the day I received my first Pfizer vaccine jab, my eyes welled up with tears, not from any pain (for me there was none) but from a feeling of massive relief, and now that I am fully vaccinated, I know I will not get hospitalised or die from this virus. That’s a great feeling. I like analogies and as a keen sailor and I liken vaccination to wearing a lifejacket on a boat. Both are optional choices - you don’t have to wear a life jacket on a boat, and you don’t have to get vaccinated. {source}
Even today, AUT staff try to toe the line by claiming it's links to legacy media are ethical. For instance, see Prof Treadwell's Journalism Matters. Urghh.
Research into impacts of 'No Jab, No Job' policy
When Dewar's article was published, it raised many questions. Whether you read through the actual article, or the short media piece, you'll understand the way the authors try to frame the 'vaccine' mandates in a positive way, spin away potential problems, dismiss any of the legitimate concerns about the vaccine harms, the coercive measures used and the legal matters around informed consent and employment law. In my view, this article misleads, with an abuse of power that comes with the perception of academic 'rigour', that the 'no jab, no job' policies were somehow necessary, ethical and acceptable. No, they were not.
With this in mind, I wrote an email to the corresponding author, Dr Jan Dewar, to ask questions about the problematic aspects of her research. Simultaneously, for additional context, I requested via an Official Information Act (OIA) request, the university's comms and documents related to the research. When I received no response from Dewar, and the OIA evidence revealed even more ethical concerns, I sent this email to the editor of the journal:
17 June 2025
Kia ora Prof Bruce Curtis (Editor) - copied to Dr Jan Dewar,
I emailed Jan a while ago about the above article she co-authored, published in NZ J of SS Online (accepted 4/03/2025). I don't think I got a response? My query at that time was about the confusing and unsubstantiated statements in the article, which needed problematising/citations. Having since collected further information (via OIA), I have decided to make a formal complaint about this article. There are many reasons for my concerns, including:
1 Original Ethics Application provides misleading information (eg that the participants would not suffer ANY emotional distress, when tragically, the article itself clearly states they did - para 3 of 'Findings').
2 Absence of crucial context (eg Behavioural Insights Team (BIT) 'Nudge' messaging; media funding; Employment Relations Act (2000); legal exemptions criteria etc)
3 Citations used that were poor quality and not peer-reviewed texts (eg 'The Conversation')
4 Conflicts of Interest between the funder and the researchers not articulated properly
5 Significant changes to the structure/balance of the research without changes to, or informing the Ethics Committee (ie the 'off-boarding' HR participant group)
6 Misrepresentation/misinterpretation of some of the participants' narratives
7 Contradictions in the theoretical framework of the article, i.e. that the authors adopted a Maori worldview, when the article repeatedly claims that apparently all the authors and ALL participants were 'pro-vaccination' (which obviously clashes with a respect for te rongoa approach).
[...] Kind regards, Nga mihi , Ursula
Soon, I received this short response from the editor:
18th June 2025 Dear Dr Edgington (cc: Associate Professor Jan Dewar),
Thank you for your email. I have reviewed our handling of the submission and published article. The Auckland University of Technology Ethics Committee (AUTEC 23/263) approved this research on 10 March 2023.
The manuscript underwent a double-blind peer review process. Kōtuitui upholds the integrity of the peer review process.
Regards,
Bruce Professor Bruce Curtis Senior Editor, Kōtuitui: New Zealand Journal of Social Sciences Online, Honorary Professor, School of Psychological and Social Sciences, University of Waikato. Lead Researcher, The Integrity Institute.
The response was copied to Dr Jan Dewar, which (finally) prompted her to respond to my initial email, as I received this the following day:
Kia ora Ursula,
Thank you for your email outlining the ethical concerns regarding research on the experiences and burdens on health workers from government-directed, mandated COVID-19 vaccinations, as well as the published article, Hidden behind a cloak of silence and exclusion: A qualitative study of healthcare professionals and mandated COVID-19 vaccinations in Kōtuitui: New Zealand Journal of Social Sciences Online (March 2025).
The Kōtuitui article underwent a rigorous blind peer-review process before its publication. I note that Professor Bruce Curtis, Editor of Kōtuitui, has affirmed the “double-blind peer review process” and the approval by the Auckland University of Technology Ethics Committee (see email dated 18 June 2025).
We apologise for not responding to your earlier email request on 25 March 2025, requesting a reference for the statement in the article published in Kōtuitui: "During the global COVID-19 pandemic, Aotearoa New Zealand (Aotearoa), like many countries, experienced widespread demand for health services that threatened to collapse the health system." Health systems around the world, including those in Aotearoa, were placed under extreme pressure due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This statement reflects the widespread concerns, nationally and globally, about the capacity of health infrastructures, and what was happening globally, where people were dying at great rates. Schipps and Rus (2021) could be used as a reference to this statement – see published article.
To interject her email here, I thought it was very telling that Dewar did not include in this above sentence any link to the "Schipps and Rus" article. So I did a search to try to find what article she was referring to (my suspicion was that this article would not portray what she claimed). She had (deliberately?) misspelt the first surname and actually appears to refer to this article by Schippers and Rus (2021), which has no relevance at all to scientific evidence of (as Dewar claims) 'people dying at great (sic) rates'. Embarrassingly for Dewar, this article actually argues the opposite to her claim e.g. here is a quote from that same article:
Consequently, initially exaggerated pandemic estimates, case fatality rates, projected rates of community spread, and a focus on only a few dimensions or outcomes at the expense of the larger picture (cf., Ioannidis, 2020; Ioannidis et al., 2020), may have led to some wrong assumptions underlying initial pandemic-response policies. Furthermore, these assumptions may not have subsequently been questioned or updated based on newly emerging information. [Open Access Source].
Schippers coauthored research with Ioannidis, who, as many know, was a significant, highly-respected academic voice in 2021, generally countering the narrative view. How bizarre, then, that Dewar does not understand this fact? To be clear, the Schippers & Rus article, published early-on in the covid era hysteria, argues that the initial policy responses (lockdowns etc) were completely inappropriate and damaging, because there was unnecessary fearmongering about the cases and fatality rates etc. Yet paradoxically, this Schippers and Rus article is being cited, four years later in 2025 by an NZ academic claiming that those same 'exaggerated pandemic estimates' were actually correct. You just can't make this sh** up! And Dewar continues to double down on her apparent inability to read the literature as she tries to address the other points in my complaint:
Point One: “Original Ethics Application provides misleading information (eg that the participants would not suffer ANY emotional distress, when tragically, the article itself clearly states they did – para 3 of the findings).”
When embarking on this research, we did not anticipate the level of distress that participants (health professionals) would experience. However, we had indicated in the Participant Information Sheet that all participants would likely experience discomfort and embarrassment. That is, “There may be a risk of some people who feel uncomfortable or embarrassed talking about their decisions or experiences in response to the mandate for vaccination. However, we have designed this research so you will be recruited into either the vaccinated or the not vaccinated cohorts to minimise your feeling uncomfortable or at-risk of judgement.” The distress, as we indicated in the article, was a finding. As reported, this was the first time they had the opportunity to discuss their experiences...
What?! Is it realistic for anyone to claim that being questioned about personal experiences of being unceremoniously sacked from a job that nurses had often spent years in training for, donated their lives to, that hinged on the principle of 'First, Do No Harm' and voluntary informed consent was NOT going to be at all distressing? Dewar claims that this 'distress' was a 'finding' of her research. Is this really the low level of intellect that New Zealand academics are operating at? She continues with my second point from my complaint, which was:
Point Two. “Absence of crucial context (eg BIT ‘Nudge’ messaging; media funding; Employment Relations Act (2000); legal exemptions criteria etc).”
The article focused on communicating the research findings. This “crucial context” was outside the scope and focus of the article published, as well as the word limit set by the journal.
As I have pointed out many times before in published pieces like this:
Ursula Edgington
...and podcasts like this: Interview with Robyn of Relentless - Courage is the Cure: Is Academia Broken?
...the impact of the international BIT or 'Nudge Units' and the capture of all the main legacy media platforms cannot be separated from the outcomes of the coercive and unethical 'no jab, no job' policies. Alongside these issues, are the obvious illegal aspects, not only in the NZ Employment Act that was breached, but also the illegal nature of the 'vaccine' roll-out itself, which was 'resolved' through New Zealand's Government's unprecedented, retrospective changes to our law. See MPs On Record that Pfizer's NZ Provisional Approval was Illegal in May 2021.
To return to Dewar's non-response to my complaint:
Point Three: “Citations used that were poor quality and not peer-reviewed texts (e.g. articles from ‘The Conversation’).”
Almost three-quarters (18 out of the 26) of the citations reference reputable peer-reviewed journals. The remainder references relevant grey literature pertinent to the article. Regarding The Conversation, it is a collaboration between academics and journalists from Australia and New Zealand. The paper referred to in this source, Unintended consequences of NZ’s COVID vaccine mandates must inform future pandemic policy – new research has 28.684 reads and no comments.
My own academic training and background ensures that whenever possible, original sources are used, and that means academic, peer-reviewed publications. Citing one or two articles from a (previously) 'reputable' legacy media outlet, such as the BBC, is acceptable, when no other citations are available. To have eight references out of 26 from obviously biased, propaganda machines, is appalling. The fact that this was not corrected during peer-review processes points to existing prejudices within the journal's editorial team. The article Dewar cites in her comments above is part of the BigPharma funded, Google News Initiative's partner, The Conversation. Unbelievably, this article is actually authored by Dewar and her colleagues (citing your own words from this kind of source, is quite honestly, insulting). Does Dewar not realise that the reason why 'there are no comments' on her article is because commenting requires a subscription to The Conversation, which no-one with a counter-narrative view is likely to have?! Furthermore, is she oblivious to how commenting sections like these are heavily censored and manipulated? (Is she really that naive)?
Point Four: “Conflicts of Interest between the funder and the researchers were not articulated properly.”
We declared that the Ministry of Health funded this project, as outlined in the ethics application, for $150,000. None of the authors worked for or with the Ministry of Health at the time of this project or received any personal financial gain because of this project. Thus, there was no conflict of interest to declare.
Like many healthcare-provider institutions, AUT is heavily funded by, and thereby biased towards BigPharma, as I have published evidence of this aspect of broken academia many times. It is a fact that individuals like Dewar would not be employed without that source of funding, to suggest there are no conflicts of interest is, again, insulting to our intelligence.
Point Five: “Significant changes to the structure/balance of the research without changes to, or informing the Ethics Committee (ie the ‘off-boarding’ HR participant group).”
We did not need to amend the ethics because the off-boarding HR group we had planned did not proceed for the reasons DHBs conveyed. This is indicated in the Participants section of the published article (paragraph 1). However, we will report on this in our final report to the ethics committee.
This is probably the most significant and worrying aspect of Dewar's non-response. Research ethics is a crucial aspect of any academic work, especially when engaging individual participants sharing highly emotive, distressing experiences. Any changes to the research methodology should always be communicated to the institution's research ethics, even if that committee is likely to subsequently decide the ethics approval still stands. It is a matter of academic rigour and professionalism that ethics are upheld, because we all have a duty of care to research participants. In her non-response, Dewar admits that, as I pointed out, there was a significant change to the research because the researchers' original plans to recruit HR personnel into the study, had to be axed. The HR staff did not agree to participate in the interviews. We know why. HR personnel involved in sacking the nurses because of the 'no jab, no job' were often breaking the law, either procedurally, and/or as a result of the illegality of the 'vaccine' roll-out itself. However Government-sanctions lawfare protected them from accountability. As I explained in Lockstep Lawfare & Legal Privilege in NZ.
My suspicion is, that HR staff from hospitals and other healthcare environments were instructed not to participate in this AUT research by MoH and senior management. Maybe that was because those interviews might risk exposing the coercion, manipulation, lack of informed consent and illegalities that are now widely known to have occurred? The non-disclosure of this significant change to the research to the AUT Ethics Committee led to me making another complaint directly to the Chair of the Ethics Committee, Prof Lineham and then to the Human Rights Commission. [I'll expand on this topic soon in Parts Two & Three of this article].
Point Six “Misrepresentation/misinterpretation of some of the participants’ narratives.”
The analysis of the participants’ narratives was done collectively, and where appropriate, we used individual excerpts from the participants' transcripts. We undertook a rigorous process when analysing and interpreting the findings. The findings were checked and re-verified against the collected data. As indicated in the Limitations section of the article, this was a “relatively small qualitative study” and advised caution when applying the findings of this research to other contexts.
Is this ambiguous comment an admission from Dewar that her research conclusions were misinterpreted and misleading?
Point Seven: “Contradictions in the theoretical framework of the article, ie that the authors adopted a Māori worldview, when the article repeatedly claims that apparently all the authors and ALL the participants were ‘pro-vaccination’ (which obviously clashes with a respect for te Rongoa approach).”
Three of the authors identify as Māori and are fully cognizant of rongoā and its role in people’s wellbeing. As reported in the published article, the theoretical framework was Māori-centred and underpinned by cultural values to inform the design of the research and the research process. The focus was on the participants’ experiences of COVID-19 vaccine mandates. No one mentioned rongoā Māori. We are somewhat perplexed by the connection between rongoā Māori and the research design.
Can readers help me make sense of this part of Dewar's non-response? If three of the authors self-identify as Māori, where was their perspective about the tension between that indigenous worldview and the synthetic, experimental, pharmaceutical interventions? Where were the references to our powerful natural immunity or the respect for bodily soverignty and natural health resources? Dewar claims that because 'no-one mentioned' rongoa Māori, that apparently that wasn't relevant to discuss. Isn't what is not said equally important to discuss in these narratives? How can any academic article claiming to be framed within the rongoa Māori perspective not only avoid discussing the tensions between BigPharma interventions and the topic under investigation (the vaccine mandates), but also the authors' own conflicts of interest when salaries are funded by BigPharma? The mind boggles!
I wasn't satisfied with these responses, and I feel an obligation as a professional researcher, to try to raise awareness of the poor quality research and the lack of adherence to formal Research Ethics Guidelines. Some of the distress that Dewar accepts her investigation caused to her research participants could have been avoided if these academics had been sensitive and applied their common sense and critical thinking skills. So I wrote to the Chair of the AUT Research Ethics Committee, Prof Peter Lineham. In Part Two I'll explain what happened next.
Finally - Why is this issue still important?
As I explained at the beginning of this article, Dr Dewar has since been 'promoted' to an Associate Professor role at Victoria University, Wellington. She is also a candidate for the NCNZ Board. Could these positions provide Dewar and other academics an opportunity to further the pro-mandate approach in NCNZ policy? It is worth noting that many nurses mandated out of their jobs, are still excluded today; it is only current, registered nurses who can vote for Council members like Dewar:
Elected members will serve a three-year term and contribute to the governance and strategic direction of the Council. Nurses who were registered with the Council and held a current Annual Practising Certificate (APC) at 5pm on Thursday 9 July 2026 are eligible to vote.
Part Two will follow soon! Please let me know your thoughts about this article and the academics standards of New Zealand.