Concerns over conduct of Northwestern sexology researcher

Great comments Patch! I’ll endeavor to answer them, to the best of my ability, point-by-point! =) I’ll also qualify this by stating that my answers are my own, as a co-founder of the IARP, but also as only member of the IARP. I can’t claim to speak on behalf of all of my colleagues!

I agree with you that it’s absolutely critical for scientists to be self-critical and aware of any and all potential biases when conducting research: this includes potential conflicts of interest, being academically dishonest (not just when it comes to obvious things like data fabrication, but also far more subtle things, like setting up intellectual straw men to represent your opponents, or hanging on and defending your position long after it’s been shown to be demonstrably false). One such concern, as you’ve raised, is the issue of “agendas” – though I’d prefer to use less ambiguous terms such as “conflicts of interest” (agendas sound like cloak-and-dagger conspiratorial affairs, which is why I think so many people get immediately defensive at the suggestion that there may be a hidden agenda – something which seems to imply intentionality and insidious intent.)

I concur with you, and think, in the interest of fairness, it’s worth discussing such possible agendas, not only to recognize what they might be, but, in the interest of being proactive, also discussing what can be done to improve the state of affairs (any fool can show that a system is flawed; it takes someone far brighter to suggest a better alternative!)

1) Kage:

“It's interesting that you didn't address the relationship with Kage (Dr. Conway.) He's both given authorship of IARP papers, and he directs the biggest fandom institution, letting you in and barring others at your request. What kind of independence is that?”

I assure you my failure to address Kage had nothing to do with me trying to dodge an issue =) I suppose I was trying to tackle the issue of my thoughts/feelings toward the Hsu incident (which, I admit, were a tad on the rambly side), and I suppose I never got around to addressing it! I’ll try to do so now!

I’ll point out, first and foremost, that his being given authorship on Gerbasi et al., 2008 happened prior to both the IARP’s and to my addition to the furry research team. As such, I am completely unaware of Dr. Gerbasi’s rationale for including him on the paper (were I to guess, I would assume it was in some capacity as an advisor to her regarding the furry fandom, given that, at the time, she was completely new to the furry fandom, and may have felt more comfortable with writing on the subject with a person more immersed in the fandom as a co-author on the paper). Again, I’m only speculating here – I’m not Dr. Gerbasi, nor can I claim to know her rationale. I can say that in the time since the IARP has been founded (the only time which I can speak to), Dr. Conway has not been on any of our papers, nor has there been any discussion about including him on any papers.

Regarding his “letting us in and barring others at our request” – again, I can only speak, here, for myself, and not for my colleagues. I have never made any such request. If, as I’m being led to believe, it was Dr. Gerbasi suggesting to Dr. Conway that Hsu be banned from Anthrocon, I can only infer it is because of her concerns regarding the failure to follow ethics protocols that, as I mentioned above, are of critical importance to psychologists anywhere, and perhaps it’s the case that she’s informing Dr. Conway of something in which he might otherwise not be aware. The IARP certainly has no power or authority at Anthrocon, nor would we ever want that kind of authority. Again, I can only speak for myself, and any further questions you might have about this particular point would have to be directed to Dr. Gerbasi herself, as I honestly can’t give you any information beyond that. I wouldn’t, and didn’t, bring the issue up to Kage; I feel a sense of responsibility, if I see a researcher violating ethics, to report it to their school’s ethics board. The only time I would think to bring it up with a convention organizer is if I felt there was potential for serious ethics violations or potential harm to be done, and, were that the case, I would raise those issues to the convention chair and let them decide for themselves the appropriate course of action.

“Why is there a very close relationship giving research decision-making, to someone who apparently has no professional qualification for social research? He's an experimental chemist, right? Could we get psychoanalysis from a plumber too? It seems the primary role is what you flat out stated - public image, from the top.”

I’m not entirely sure I understand your first sentence here. If you’re suggesting that the IARP has any power over Anthrocon, then I would say you’re vastly overestimating the power of this team of researchers. Again, I can only speak for myself, but I have absolutely no interest in making any sort of decisions for Anthrocon. Each year, we apply to Anthrocon for a table (just like any other vendor would), and we put in a special request to get permission to hand out surveys to folks standing in line for registration. We put in a request for a debriefing panel, just like anyone else does. There is, as far as I know, no special treatment or privileged position of the IARP at Anthrocon. We apply for a table, explain what we’re doing that year, keeping everything above the table so there are no last-minute surprises (e.g., “Surprise! We’re actually going to run around filming people without their consent!), and that’s that. The IARP and our research have no relationship to Anthrocon’s PR, nor do we have any interest in being a branch of Anthrocon’s PR.
In fact, the only thing even remotely close to this is the fact that Dr. Conway, as Chairperson of the convention, gets to say whether or not we get to do research at his convention. It’s true that if we were to propose a study which he decided was inappropriate for his convention, he could, in theory, tell us he did not want us to conduct such a study. In our time at Anthrocon, this has never happened. And, lest you think that the IARP is somehow shying away from “adult topics” in the fandom, I’ll remind you that our most recent research from Furry Fiesta this year (made available on our research website) involved a study that had participants, furry and non-furry alike, look at pornography (furry and non-furry), and rate it.

The rest of your sentence is setting up a straw man – I would completely agree with you that a plumber is not a psychoanalyst (though I would argue that I would generally not seek psychological advice from a largely-antiquated field of psychotherapy, and would recommend seeing cognitive behaviour therapy, as it has a far better track record of empirical validation!) I agree, Kage is a chemist, not a psychologist. Again, I can’t speak directly for Dr. Gerbasi’s reasons for his inclusion on one paper back in 2008 except to suggest that his inclusion might have been for his expertise as a long-time member of the furry fandom, not as a psychologist, but again, you would have to ask her directly!

“It makes me wonder - if one researcher is inappropriate for informally attending a convention as a member of the public - why is it OK for another to RUN the convention?”

The IARP does not run any convention, and, as I’ve stated above, we have no power at Anthrocon. Nor have I made any statement regarding Hsu attending a convention as a member of the public. In fact, I believe I said that I am withholding any and all judgment on that issue because much of the evidence seems to be based on hearsay. If it is true that Dr. Gerbasi spoke to Dr. Conway about Hsu, I imagine it was as a precaution regarding her concern for the seeming breach of ethical practice by not including an informed consent page on his survey. Beyond that speculation, I can’t comment further, as I am neither Dr. Gerbasi, nor have I spoken to Dr. Conway about this issue.

2) Intimate relationships and "science-sonas":

“It's suggested that Kevin is an outsider, while Kage and the IARP work with intimate trust. But there are boundaries for that, right? Researchers aren't supposed to sleep with subjects, for example. From a perspective apart from yours, there's reasons to question the closeness. One is above. There's more we can discuss below, with particular concern about confirmation bias.”

Who is “suggesting” that Kevin is an outsider? Neither I, nor the IARP, as far as I know, have made any claims about Kevin Hsu as an “outsider”, except to make the factual statement that he is not a member of the IARP. The IARP has worked with Anthrocon, with Kage as a point of contact at the con (being the con’s Chairperson), for nearly 7 years, following the same protocol I outlined above: We apply for table space, apply for a panel, and make it clear what our research will entail at the convention to make sure we aren’t violating any rules (e.g., disrupting the attendance line, exposing minors to explicit material, etc…) We have fostered a sense of trust with Anthrocon over the years as a result of demonstrating, time and again, that we a) do what we say we’re going to do when at the convention, b) we don’t go out of our way to publish sensationalistic or unsubstantiated claims about the fandom, and c) we adhere to the principles of doing “good science” – backing up any claims made with empirical evidence in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

You keep going on about Anthrocon and a supposedly cozy arrangement that we have with the convention, but I don’t see why you’ve stopped here. Should you also be questioning the fact that, for the past five years, the staff at Furry Fiesta have allowed us to conduct research there, giving us a table in front of the Dealer’s Den to hand out surveys? What about at Oklacon, where we’ve been allowed to conduct focus groups and give talks for the past three years? Or at Furnal Equinox, where we were given permission to set up a table and conduct focus groups? What about with FurAffinity, where we paid for advertising space that allowed us to launch our 2011 international survey? Or Flayrah, Furry News Network, [adjective] [species], Wikifur, and FurCast, all of which have helped us to disperse our findings and to help us recruit participants. In all of these cases, the IARP has worked with these organizations to establish mutually beneficial arrangements: at conventions, we provide an activity for interested furs (getting to participate in research and putting on panels that many furries find interesting); websites like Flayrah and [adjective][species] benefit because our research generates a number of interesting stories and discussions. Would you similarly argue that we’ve got a bias or vested interest here too? And, more to the point: can you propose an alternative scenario that allows us to conduct research at conventions and disperse our findings online that doesn’t involve establishing a cordial relationship with the administrators of those websites or the chairpersons of those conventions?
It seems like your biggest concern lies in the inclusion of Dr. Conway on a single paper back in 2008 and an exaggerated claim that the IARP has somehow acted to ban someone from attending Anthrocon. But even being charitable and assuming that this represented a demonstrable conflict of interest, the fact remains that the vast majority of our published research involves research conducted not just at Anthrocon, but at other conventions, or through our online surveys. In fact, by my count, based on what’s currently on the IARP website, this would constitute an issue with 5 out of approximately 20 of the IARP’s studies. So, even then, giving you the complete benefit of the doubt, your concern applies to only a fraction of the IARP’s studies. Though, I readily admit, it is worth asking the questions you’re asking, I’m hoping that the IARP’s track record of working with other conventions, making our results, methods, and statistical techniques publicly available for scrutiny by both the furry fandom and by other psychologists, and our continued support by not one but two independent institutional ethics review boards speaks to your concerns.
You also mention confirmation bias, with is an unrelated issue to conflicts of interest, but I’ll address that point when you raise it.

“It's proposed that this is covered by going through an ethics board. A counterpoint can raise criticisms about academia itself - far and above just this tiny social/hobby niche of furry fans - and ways it's politicized towards certain ideology instead of evidence. We could discuss well-known criticisms like the "echo chamber" effect. It's not just speculation that this may come into play. It comes from things you have said.”

It sounds, at this point, like you’re asking me to defend far more than just the IARP’s relationship with Anthrocon, or even the way the IARP does research. You’re not even asking me to defend the field of psychology – you’re asking me to defend the entirety of social research? It seems a bit beyond the scope of this article, but sure! I’ll point out, first and foremost, that an institutional research board is more than just a handful of people who rubber-stamp psychological studies. It consists of experts from a multitude of fields – meaning that we don’t just get reviewed by other psychologists: we get reviewed by ethicists, sociologists, and people whose job it is to make sure the university can’t be sued because of something illegal or unethical that’s been done by a researcher. Put another way, a university has a vested interest in making sure that whatever gets approved by an ethics board is a) ethical, not likely to cause harm to participants, and b) a study that has scientific merit. Ethics boards are independent of the researchers who apply to them, meaning they have no qualms about shutting down a study if it’s crap – it’s their job to do so.

You also seem to take a jab at social research as a whole, implying that it’s focused on ideology instead of evidence. I’m not entirely sure what you define as “evidence” in this case, or if you’ve even read one of the IARP’s papers, but I challenge you to read any of our papers and point to a claim that’s unsubstantiated by evidence. If you can find misuse of statistical methods or baseless claims made without evidence, I will happily cede to your point. Moreover, if you find you are unable to access our papers, feel free to e-mail me ([email protected]), and I would be happy to provide you with a copy of them for your perusal =) I stand proudly behind our work, not just as a “soft social scientist”, but also as a “hard scientist” (my first degree is a Bachelor of Science, with a significant background in biology).

In other words, I would contend that the onus is upon you to demonstrate how the IARP’s published research falls into the category of being an “echo chamber” of ideas, not for me to defend that it’s not.

“In one conversation on social media, there was a topic about what forms the membership of this hobby/social group. I have an impression that Maslow's heirarchy is important in social research - isn't a recreational hobby different from basic needs of life? It would filter people in with all kinds of more basic outside influences. For a stigmatized group, one of those could be bullying. That topic came up, and you assumed it meant bullying INSIDE furry fandom. That's surely very low on the list of places that happens to members, and it was concerning to see this tunnel-vision.”

You would be incorrect to assume that Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is important in social research (it is, in fact, a concept that has been outdated for quite some time now, having been significantly criticized since at least the mid 70s). Moreover, you state “one conversation on social media” – this is rather vague (who was in this conversation? With whom? In what context? Am I now to account for anything ever said on social media about or regarding our research?) If you would kindly point me to this conversation and/or to the argument being made, I’d be happy to speak to it! If this is an attempted jab at social research, however, I will point out that there is a significant difference between what is said on social media and what is published in the scientific literature. I would hardly hold the field of astrophysics accountable for what Neil deGrasse Tyson says on his Twitter feed or based on a joke Stephen Hawking makes in response to questions during a Ted Talk.
“A related topic is the way a lot of gay people congregate here - a difference from general society that may say something about essential character. Yet it's a recreational group with undisputably high acceptance and open boundaries, and free choice of membership. Conclusions about such influences get squishy when there's tunnel-vision closeness to the subject. Then research can turn into something else.”

You’re right, “a lot of gay people congregate here” – in fact, the IARP has quantified and validated estimates of the relative proportion of people in the fandom who self-identify as gay, and have shown it to be significantly higher than the general population (meaning we don’t have to rely upon vague hunches and anecdotal evidence when making such claims!) I would also agree that for many furry is a recreational group that is marked in its acceptance openness to others (again, factors demonstrable in our research). You say that conclusions about such influences get squishy – what sorts of conclusions? You’re being vague here in your assertion! As far as I know, the findings on the IARP website related to these topics have shown pie charts and bar graphs illustrating the relative frequency of gay people in the fandom or the extent to which furries agree that the fandom is an open and accepting place. What people do with that data, once we’ve collected it, and their interpretation of it, is left up to them. When we do publish in academic journals, it’s with regard to testing the validity of a theoretical model, usually involving hypothesis testing that involves statistical techniques like structural equation modelling or multiple regression. Keep in mind that much of what we publish in scientific journals is far more advanced than what we present in talks at conventions or in the data summaries on our website – in part because we attempt to make the data more accessible to the average furry (who doesn’t have a firm grounding in structural equation modelling or a course in research methodology). That said, we have always provided copies of each of our manuscripts to those who request them, and they’re welcome to critique any particular methodology, hypothesis test, or statistical technique. But if you’re going to attack the quality of our research, you need to make a specific challenge (e.g., point to a particular conclusion in a particular paper as an example). It’s insufficient to broadly state that we operate in an echo chamber (especially when we provide objective data and transparent statistical methods to back up any claims we’ve made in scientific papers).

“Objective research, or PR for friends? Science or propaganda? In all of this defense, pride in the work, touting of trust relationships, and being careful to please people and not offend them - it makes suspicion of so much closeness, it's like role-playing a Furry "science-sona”.

PR for what friends? I’m not clear what you mean by “PR” in this case? I fail to see how Anthrocon, Furry Fiesta, or any other convention or website we’ve worked with has benefited from the IARP’s publishing research in academic journals. I fail to see how our publication about biological essentialism in stigmatized minority groups in the British Journal of Social Psychology somehow benefits Furry Fiesta, or how our research testing the Minority Stress Model in the journal Leisure/Loisir provides PR for Anthrocon. The goal of the IARP is, first and foremost, to conduct scientific research on the furry fandom. This involves going to conventions and studying furries who are in attendance. If you can suggest a better way to do this, let me know! And I’m unsure as to which of our academic papers you’re referring to as propaganda. And, if so, propaganda for what? I don’t have any vested interest in promoting the minority stress model (a model which is not my own), in advancing an argument for self-dehumanization as a mediator underlying the relationship between therian identification and concern for animal welfare, or in suggesting that biologically essential beliefs about fandom membership are a strategy employed by furries in response to threats to their identity.

3) "Rivalry" and Kevin Hsu:

“I take at face value what you said about no rivalry with other researchers. Considering the above, the real topic would be protectionism. That comes from lack of perspective - speaking as a biased advocate, and identifying so closely with subjects that people make non-personal things personal.”

Hopefully I’ve addressed some of your previously-rated issues pertaining to “protectionism” – I’m not entirely sure what, exactly, we’re meant to be protecting? Moreover, I’m not sure what you mean by a “lack of perspective”. If you’re referring to the fact that I am a furry conducting furry research, I’ll point out that, up until this year, I was the only member of the IARP who was a furry. Moreover, I’m not sure what you mean by “identifying with subjects that people make non-personal things personal”. Do you mean to say that the IARP lacks perspective because we are passionate and interested in the subject we study (because, if so, I would argue that nearly all researchers are subject to this). You may need to elaborate on this point, as it’s unclear what you mean.

“That's the reaction I sensed from Gerbasi, who seemed to vehemently overreact to what Kevin was doing by calling it "shameful". Rather than Kevin "brushing off Dr. Gerbasi's concerns" as JM claims above, it appears she brushed him off and ignored his invitation to contact him personally - although other IARP members had nice conversation with him.”
Again, I can only speak to my own experience here – As far as I know, Dr. Gerbasi went straight to Kevin’s IRB to raise a concern she had regarding the lack of an informed consent page on his survey. While Kevin maintains in the comment you link to above that clearly displaying an informed consent page is not necessary (as he puts it, “any research study being openly circulated should be assumed to have such approval”), this is problematic for at least two reasons. First, were this the case, there would be absolutely no way to distinguish between a survey thrown together by someone in their basement one evening and research supported by and independently reviewed by a university’s ethical research board. Second, it’s worth taking a gander at this page here: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informed_consent#Research); in short, it summarizes what most psychologists are taught (and, in fact, is something that nearly any research methods textbook, including the one that I use to teach my own research methods course, teaches), and that is that informed consent is a crucial part of research with human participants. Illustrating this, you can see that, according to the Tri-Council Policy Statement (which governs university research conducted in Canada, http://www.pre.ethics.gc.ca/pdf/eng/tcps2/TCPS_2_FINAL_Web.pdf), informed consent is an essential aspect of research with human participants. I WILL concede that some institutions do allow a waiver of such informed consent if the study is deemed to be of minimal risk to participants. That said, it could be argued that a study which involves potentially sensitive or controversial topic such as Kevin’s would, for most IRBs, fall under the category of “more than minimal risk”. At VERY least, I would argue that Dr. Gerbasi was well within her right to approach Kevin’s IRB to ensure that the study itself was following their guidelines.

That said, I will concede that it was wrong of Dr. Gerbasi to call Kevin’s actions “shameful” (though, I don’t personally know of her using these words, if they were said, it would be an overreaction). I do believe, however, that her going to the IRB was the correct thing to do, and, if she genuinely believed that there was an ethical violation happening, I could understand why she would want to make sure that furries (including Kage) were aware of this as a possible issue. From what I know of the situation, she contacted the IRB several times to follow up and find out what became of the concern she raised, but she never heard back from the board itself.

It’s at this point that the story becomes messy and breaks down into he said / she said, and hearsay. Ultimately, I think the whole thing is based on a misunderstanding. As I mentioned earlier, and as you seem to agree, this seems more likely a case of a potential mistake or some misunderstanding, rather than Kevin being out to “ruin furries”. I’ll extend that same courtesy to Dr. Gerbasi: I think it was a genuine misunderstanding on her part: It seems to me like she saw something that would make most psychologists knee-jerk (seeing an online study without an informed consent), and assuming that there was something possibly questionable going on. I do agree that her response was probably overzealous, and I, personally, think that the best course of action would have been to approach the IRB and to have left it at that. I think, if she went to Kage about it, it was with the best of intentions, and not out of any kind of territorial need to protect the IARP’s “turf” or anything like that (in the same way you might warn someone not to talk to that particular reporter if you suspected that they were out to do a particularly bad piece about furries).
Put simply, I’m willing to concede that, if it’s true what Kevin’s said that his IRB doesn’t necessitate the inclusion of an informed consent, I’m a bit baffled by their decision, and disagree with it, but accept it, and acknowledge that, if this is the case, he didn’t do anything wrong. I won’t fault Dr. Gerbasi for her vigilance in going after what seemed to be a potentially dodgy study, though I will state that she should have reserved judgment until after hearing from their IRB (though, as far as I know, they never did get back to her).

“You believed his hypothesis is "a gross overgeneralization of furries". Really, did he? Did he generalize, or simply wonder if something might exist even rarely? JM reports he said "many furries – possibly most – are zoophiles" and so forth. I would be very curious to see a source for this. I suspect that comes from JM. All thanks to him for bringing out the topic in the first place, but his writing often shows extreme, out-of-context, disingenuous mischaracterizing disguised as concern. I'll cite some below.”

I believe that there are a great many people looking to “explain” furry, in one form or another. And I think it’s an endeavor that, in the end, is likely to fail, in part because furry is so complex, idiosyncratic, and multidetermined (as are a great many behaviours). It is my opinion, based on numerous attempts to locate “sources” for what “makes a person a furry”, that there is no one such factor, or even any factors that stand out as statistically significant predictors which explain “why furry” and “why not something else?” That said, I entertain the possibility that I may be wrong – its’ an empirical question. I believe his hypothesis is wrong, yes. I really do. My believing his hypothesis is wrong does NOT mean I’m saying he can’t or even shouldn’t test it. I even said, in my comment, that I think he SHOULD be allowed to test it. Science is built on the idea of two people disagreeing, collecting data, and finding out who’s right. I would be a terrible scientist if I didn’t acknowledge the possibility that he might be right. But I’d also be a terrible scientist if I denied my own hypothesis that he was wrong. In the end, it comes down to what the data say – data I’m more than happy to see for myself (as I said in my post above).

4) "Eliciting response" and an ideology agenda.

In that conversation buried somewhere on social media, you discussed IARP research results that appeared to reveal "sexism" in a way that was heavily biased. Your survey failed to give any operational definition for "sexism", leaving it entirely feeling-based in the eye of the beholder. It fails to define things like "degradation" by pornography - the drawn cartoon kind (really?) - not even allowing that research can't show real (legal) pornography as causing negative influence. You admitted segregating apart your chosen subjects, a group of female furry fans, to "elicit response." Isn't that what PR, advertising and propaganda does?

Ah, here we go – at last we get to the part where you go after our “ideology”. The research you’re referring to (which, I will point out, is an exceptionally small, new, and still very preliminary portion of the IARP’s total research) is based on feedback that the IARP received from numerous women while attending several conventions. A number of these women asked us whether we had ever looked at gender issues in the fandom, to which we replied “no”, we hadn’t. It was a question that interested us: just as the question of “bronies” in the fandom interested us after several bronies raised the issue with us, just as the issue of therians in the fandom interested us after several therians raised the issues with us, and just as the issue of furry species and their possible correlations interested us after questions were raised by several furries about the issue. In short, we tackle two kinds of issues in our research: research inspired by psychological theories/literature, and research inspired by questions furries have asked us.

We approached the issue of sexism in the fandom in a very exploratory way: we put together a focus group at Furry Fiesta in 2014 to try and more systematically assess what variables were of interest to women, to figure out what issues, in particular they were interested in. This is, as you put it, the focus group where we “segregated our chosen subjects”. To put it simply: yes, we did this. We wanted to know what the perspective of women, who constitute a numerical minority in the fandom, thought about the fandom, and some of the issues that interested them. This is something difficult to do if the room consisted mostly of guys (for the same reason that, if a company wants to know how six-year olds will respond to their new toy, they will bring in a group of six years olds, NOT a group of six year olds AND teenagers; it’s the reason why, if we want to know what FURRIES think about something, we ask a bunch of furries at a furry convention, not a bunch of people in the street). We threw a few questions out there and solicited their suggestions for future research on the subject. This research was exceptionally preliminary. Despite the fact that we did not operationally define the term “sexism”, we DID operationalize the specific items we asked women in those groups. This research was NEVER intended to be the last word on the subject, but was, instead, primarily to collect ideas for questions to ask at Furry Fiesta 2015, as you will see if you look in the Furry Fiesta 2015 results on our research website. The issues raised by women in the focus group WERE asked to all participants in the 2015 Furry Survey, and the results of these findings are presented. The data paint an interesting picture: several of the issues raised by women were found to not be unique to the experience of women, but to also be shared by men. Nevertheless, there were also a few issues that seemed to be raised more by women than by men (for example, women seemed less comfortable with the portrayal of women in pornography). Nowhere on the IARP’s website do we make any claims regarding what “ought” to be the case, or what the fandom “ought” to do. We make no strong claims about whether this is “right” or whether pornography is “wrong”. All we point out in the Furry Fiesta 2015 results is what the results of these questions are. We leave it to others to draw their own conclusions. If, in a summary of our results, someone interprets it one way or another, that’s up to them. It’s not failure of our methods or our data.

“It was if they were too weak and fearful to honestly speak for themselves, without being directed to give you the results you already had in mind. The questions prepared the answers by throwing out an undefined term many times before the survey started - like, how much sexism do you feel from the sexists who dominate the sexist culture?“

You’re making pretty strong claims here about our intentions – that we were directing participants to give results we had in mind, especially given that the only example you give of a “loaded” question is one that we didn’t actually ask. As I mention above, the purpose of the 2014 focus group was to find out the issues that women considered to be issues so that we could ask about them in the 2015 study. You’ll note, in our wording in the 2015 study, the questions are asked in gender-neutral ways, to fairly test whether the claims made by women about their experiences in the fandom are unique to them, or whether they’re shared by men as well. The fact is, this was a question we sought out because numerous furries asked us about it, and we make a point of answering questions that furries ask us. Just like the questions we’ve been asked time and time again about personality correlates with fursona species: we, as psychologists, have little interest in whether or not a person who chooses a dog or a cat differs, personality-wise, from a person who chooses, say, a dragon. But it’s an issue that interests furries, and so we went out of our way to give it the fairest test we could. Was the 2014 study qualitative, based on a small sample, and done for purely exploratory purposes? You bet! Was the 2015 study far better in its execution, learning from 2014 and done with the intent of more objectively testing the hypothesis? I like to think it was. But if you have a concern about any of the items or the statistics we used to test the difference in men’s and women’s responses to the questions, I’m all ears!
“That's the advocacy and confirmation bias. Here's the echo chamber effect and disingenous mischaracterizing that follows: http://adjectivespecies.com/2014/05/05/dogpatch-press-on-women/”

That would be a great point against the IARP, except for the fact that neither myself, nor any of my colleagues, were responsible for the writing of the piece. In fact, the only mention of the IARP, from what I can see, is the citing of one of our statistics, showing that the fandom is predominantly male. Surely you don’t think that our methodology for assessing this is flawed? You can’t really go after the IARP if others use our data to make an argument; if the Westboro Baptist Church were to use our statistics to argue that furries were a hotbed of sin and Satanism, would you also accuse us of sharing their ideology?
“Reducing the ideology to it's most absurd basic premise, we learn that "sexism" is the reason for gathering together any group of two or more males. (Gay bars must be the most sexist places on earth!)”

I have no strong opinions one way or another regarding sexism in the fandom – the IARP collected data on the subject, first using a very rough, very exploratory 2014 study (which, I will concede, had poor questions, but was never intended to be published in a scientific journal or to be anything more than just that – a first look at the subject, to get our bearings on what issues were worth asking about), and secondly through a much fairer, gender-neutral assessment of these particular issues with less-charged wording. You have a valid concern regarding the tendency for ideologies to blind people to evidence and to lead to poor methodologies when it comes to collecting and analyzing data. But it’s unclear to me how our 2015 Furry Fiesta study on the subject falls into this category. Please, correct me if I’m wrong, or if you see any egregiously problematic items or errors in our data analysis.

“That article comes from an extreme aversion to evidence and reason, that comes with lots of links in the article being mischaracterized with cheap cherrypicked attacks: http://dogpatchpress.wordpress.com/2014/04/21/all-humans-welcome/”
Not an IARP article.

“Credit to JM for other topics he's good at, but this one is the most stinky piece of rancid bullshit I've ever seen coming from this fandom. It's patronizing, and more than a little toxic towards the existing membership, especially their motivations to join out of free will and positive interest.”

Again, JM is not a member of the IARP, and his views are not the IARP’s views. If you’ve got a problem with his opinions, I suggest you take them up with him!
“Of course, any group of two or more males is not evidence of "sexism". But it's easy to prepare people to get answers you already know, if you treat it like it is. Then, you can go ahead and ignore all the reasons the belief is flawed and wrong, with cultish devotion: https://dogpatchpress.wordpress.com/2014/05/08/nerd-culture/”
Again, not an IARP article – if you’ve got a problem with JM’s opinion, I suggest you take it up with him.

“That brings us to here - there are agendas at work and they need to be disclosed if we want honest conversations.

This agenda is even in loaded words. "Sexism," Degradation, "Male-dominated." Male-populated is not male-"dominated". People's reasons for being here shouldn't be reduced to body parts. There's plenty of apples-and-oranges differences among different kinds of people, and that's not bad. I look forward to when we can honestly discuss that with minimal agendas.”
I’ve been as transparent as possible regarding where the IARP stands on these issues, and I hope I’ve addressed your concerns. The IARP has no strong stance regarding issues of sexism, gender, or pornography in the fandom – we aim to quantify these phenomena as best we can, so others can have these debates. Some of our measures may not be the best, but we work to refine them as best we can. And we encourage you to offer your own items as well: if you think we could have worded our items better, or address the issue in a more neutral or balanced perspective, please, propose a methodology or a set of questions that you think are worth asking!

“Kevin's research seemed to me to depart from that framework and maybe raise questions about biology. ("the fact that men are far, far more likely to develop fetishes than women was always a clue that there was some underlying biological predisposition in the male brain towards developing fetishes." https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/billion-wicked-thoughts/201205/fetishes-do-... )”

I definitely don’t deny the possibility that biology may play a role in the furry fandom and the factors contributing to it. You’ll recall that I strongly advocated that Kevin be allowed to test his hypothesis, despite my seeing several significant flaws in his methodology, and my general belief that it is wrong, based on what I’ve seen from our own attempts to “explain” what leads people to the furry fandom (as opposed to other fandoms). I’m more than happy to be proven wrong (which, in and of itself, should illustrate the fact that I am approaching the issue from a critical, scientific perspective, and not the perspective of an unquestioning ideologue).

“Completely apart from how MUCH this comes into play with furries (or even how good his attempt), I think it's a good reason to encourage more research and not block these questions. I'm glad you seemed to welcome that.”

I didn’t just “seem” to welcome open inquiry and study of the furry fandom: I live and breathe this! I’ve done my best to help and encourage others to study furries, whether for high school science projects, undergrads looking to do reports and research of their own on the fandom, or by helping graduate students to develop projects that involve the furry fandom. I don’t have to agree with the hypothesis of other researchers to nevertheless believe that the very idea of testing those hypotheses are worthwhile, in and of themselves.
Hopefully this long response has adequately addressed the concerns you’ve raised about the IARP! I readily agree that it’s worth having a frank and critical discussion about issues of conflicts of interest, concerns about objectivity, and challenges to methodology. While most of your criticisms seemed to focus more on challenges to our objectivity and possible conflicts of interest (which are valid and worth suggesting), I feel like you could make stronger arguments if you went after the specifics of our methodologies, perhaps by challenging the assertions we make in our published scientific journal articles (the stuff that’s actually peer-reviewed “science”).

Thanks again for your comments and criticism! It’s obvious you put a lot of thought into them, and, above all else, it’s nice to see others who are thinking critically and challenging the things they see/read! =)

I'm afraid I couldn't say! I'm not a fursuiter, nor particularly active in those circles. I did have that story in mind as an example, but also stuff like this (and the related poll, which proved that statistics can be misleading).