an unspecified network of activists to distribute the anonymous written survey to the diaspora

That in itself is propaganda and weak scholarship. It’s called begging the question—using the conclusion as a premise in the argument. Tobin is assuming (or pretending to assume) that his respondents will be threatened by the CPC if he goes out with a fully public call. There’s nothing wrong with snow balling in empirical research or of using existing networks to get appropriate participants. In this case it’s a methodological failing. It’s a suprise this got past the ethics committee.

There’s also a question of how the researcher can be sure that:

1. The people filling in the form were from China and had ever lived in China;
2. That someone in the network didn’t misplace any responses on their way back to the researcher (assuming they didn’t just include a stamped envelope to the researcher); and
3. The network wasn’t a network of anti-CPC activists like Falun Gong (it sounds like that’s exactly what it was).

Maybe these are addressed in the paper. I wouldn’t build a project with these flaws in the first place. But then, I’d be concerned with the truth, not propaganda.

As for the funding – lmao. Funders don’t give you money unless you’re project fits their goals. This is funding applications 101: write a proposal that the funder will want to fund. Not to mention that the funder tells you in advance what they want you to study; dissidents need not apply.

A western government is hardly going to give money to someone who says in advance that they want to uncover the truth about how well Muslims in China are treated. It doesn’t matter whether the funder got involved afterwards (looks like they did, here, still).