In reply to Cameron Neylon.

You split hairs.

She destroyed ALL (not part; not via some discipline-sanctioned criterion for "which is and is not" useful data to keep). She obliterated all.

She did not simply "discard" (as you put it) following some "reasonable" period (as is required of scholarly research). She dumped it all and within a very brief period. Perhaps this kosher in ethnography -- and perhaps even more so when the output is placed in a book rather than an academic outlet. But then fiction, of evidential (or lack thereof) necessity, becomes a live question.

As for the Stapel "argument" --of course anyone can fabricate. BUT, that is a separate issue and, at best, a "look over there" argument. The bottom line is that elimination of all data is (at least in scientific venues) is explicitly prohibited for at least several years. Maybe she could have fabricated ala Stapel, but that is a different concern and tangential to the question of or or justification for total removal (not just redaction) of all her "evidence". Two "wrongs" typically do not join to make a "right".

One can rationalize all s/he wants, but it cannot make one empirically demonstrable, unplesant fact go away -- a fact that calls into question Goffman's credibility.