|
|
Post by Emma on Jul 25, 2020 2:11:37 GMT -5
I came across this questionnaire on an Amputees and Devotees FB group. I haven’t looked into it too much but it seems like someone is doing some research about devs. I took the survey and a lot of it is geared towards BIID and gender identity questions, especially ones primarily directed towards males but there are some questions geared towards straight Dev females. For those of you who have time to look into it I’m curious if this looks legit. weinberg.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_3w2fleILCqd5Uvr |
|
|
|
Post by devogirl on Jul 25, 2020 3:20:42 GMT -5
Ugh, this nonsense! Soooo, many months ago, just before the pandemic started, Lee and I were contacted by this same person and asked if we could post a link to the survey here. Actually it was the clueless grad student assistant who contacted us. I made them show their credentials and did finally hear back from the primary investigator. It is a legit academic study, but I still don't recommend participating. The guy doing the study is expanding on earlier work he did on gender dysphoria among males considering transition to female. He clearly thinks devs are a subset of this type of man--everything in the survey is leading to this conclusion. The survey questions were bullshit, all stemming from the assumption that all devs are men into amputees who also secretly want to become amputees themselves. I told him that his study is flawed and he needs to do more research on who devs actually are. I also said I would not post a link here until he revised his survey questions to reflect the demographic on this site, namely female devs into every kind of disability, not just amputees.
I got back a one line email saying thanks for the input, we'll consider it and get back to you. Anyway I'm sure like every other researcher, his study was at least somewhat interrupted by the pandemic. But I was super pissed off about this whole thing. We desperately need better research into devs but this is not it. In his earlier studies, this guy always wrote about underprivileged, inarticulate populations IMHO in a very patronizing, condescending way. He clearly wasn't accustomed to a research subject who can speak back and tell him where he's making wrong assumptions.
|
|
|
|
Post by Amee on Jul 25, 2020 5:37:27 GMT -5
It directly states on the very first page:
I'm extremely interested in the "science of devness" and would love to see some proper research being done, but I agree with devogirl, this doesn't sound great. I mean, I suppose it's fine to do research into men with BIID specifically, but then it doesn't make any sense to have women take the survey. I don't understand what the point in having a few questions for women in there is, when the purpose of the research is to learn about men. Devogirl is probably right, that it just comes from the assumption that all/the majority of devs are male. And that tells us quite a bit about the researcher, if he starts the study with such an assumption.
|
|
|
|
Post by robbb on Jul 25, 2020 6:59:36 GMT -5
It's never good for research to start from the point of a preconception.
When I read the imtroduction I was curious about the differentiation between "amputee admirers" and "devotees".
R.
|
|
|
|
Post by devogirl on Jul 25, 2020 7:31:30 GMT -5
When I read the introduction I was curious about the differentiation between "amputee admirers" and "devotees". There is no distinction in the research study, obviously that's one of the problems. This was one of the things I mentioned to them. The survey they sent me never once used the term devotee, and I asked why not.
The grad student assistant replied:
"there are variations of terminologies going around (e.g. xenomelia, apotemnophilia) which not everyone may conceptualize in the same way depending on the forum. So, to ensure everyone is on the same page, I pushed for using descriptors [i.e., amputee admirer] rather than categorical labels."
I wrote back:
"Terms such as acrotomophilia are mainly used by researchers or other outsiders, at least in English language forums. Devotee is widely used and understood by members of the online communities, that is, people with this attraction who are self-aware. Pushing for a descriptor which excludes a significant portion of the group (attraction to amputees, when many devotees are attracted to other disabilities) does not put everyone on the same page. It actually creates more confusion. When dealing with a marginalized, stigmatized group, the more respectful approach is to use the term that group uses for itself, rather than imposing something from the outside as a researcher."
No reply from them on that issue, like I said, just a general "we'll confer and get back to you" then nothing.
It also drives me crazy that he assumes most devs are amputee wannabes. The survey questions seem very much to be leading to that conclusion--there are so many questions about staring at yourself in the mirror and imagining a missing limb.
|
|
|
|
Post by robbb on Jul 25, 2020 12:22:10 GMT -5
When I read the introduction I was curious about the differentiation between "amputee admirers" and "devotees". There is no distinction in the research study, obviously that's one of the problems. This was one of the things I mentioned to them. The survey they sent me never once used the term devotee, and I asked why not. The grad student assistant replied:
"there are variations of terminologies going around (e.g. xenomelia, apotemnophilia) which not everyone may conceptualize in the same way depending on the forum. So, to ensure everyone is on the same page, I pushed for using descriptors [i.e., amputee admirer] rather than categorical labels."
I wrote back:
"Terms such as acrotomophilia are mainly used by researchers or other outsiders, at least in English language forums. Devotee is widely used and understood by members of the online communities, that is, people with this attraction who are self-aware. Pushing for a descriptor which excludes a significant portion of the group (attraction to amputees, when many devotees are attracted to other disabilities) does not put everyone on the same page. It actually creates more confusion. When dealing with a marginalized, stigmatized group, the more respectful approach is to use the term that group uses for itself, rather than imposing something from the outside as a researcher." No reply from them on that issue, like I said, just a general "we'll confer and get back to you" then nothing. It also drives me crazy that he assumes most devs are amputee wannabes. The survey questions seem very much to be leading to that conclusion--there are so many questions about staring at yourself in the mirror and imagining a missing limb.
Agree with everything you say there. Initially I thought the implication was that someone attracted to amputees was an "admirer" and any other disability a "devotee". Now I realise it's just sloppy research and writing which doesn't bode well for the actual survey. While I have met devotees that also identify as wannabes they are very few and far between. In my experience they are generally very different things. R. |
|
|
|
Post by Emma on Jul 25, 2020 17:02:32 GMT -5
Agreed the questions clearly had a LOT of assumptions but I think it’s important to share with them that there are plenty of people who will say No/Never/zero for 90% of the questions.
|
|
|
|
Post by devogirl on Jul 26, 2020 4:45:57 GMT -5
Maybe, but that is assuming that he would adjust his conclusions based on the survey data, and I'm not certain that would happen. Of course that's how it SHOULD be, but the fact that he was so dismissive to me doesn't give me a lot of hope that he would alter his argument. Survey data can always be massaged or contextualized to support the researcher's initial assumptions even when the findings seem to contradict those assumptions.
|
|
