Crossaffliction: your concerns are valid ones, and I'll address them point-by-point:
a) Indeed, we divided people into sub-groups based on factors that have been a divisive issue with the group. But doesn't that, if anything, make it a more important issue to look at? If we used typologies that no one disagreed with or had any difference in opinion on, then it wouldn't be nearly as interesting a categorization to use. This type of categorization based on something two people may vehemently disagree on is certainly not new to the psychological literature.
b) With regard to reading about past results before taking the survey: recognize that is a possibility. The past results have been up for a couple of months now, so we were hoping that many furries had already seen them and had a chance to look at them. Additionally: many of the questions that are already up on the website represent questions we've asked about several times in the past, and which we are either not collecting data on anymore or which we are reasonably confident we know what the "usual" response is - we can pick up on significant changes in these responses and any that we notice we can test for social desirability or reactivity as a result of what people may have read on the website.
Our hands were a bit tied on that one: on the one hand, you're right, it would have been preferable to not have the results on the website while furries were doing the survey. On the other hand, furries have a right to see the research that's been conducted in the past and which many of them have been very generous in contributing to for the last five or six years. For many, it's only after they've seen the results and know that we're trying our best to present this research in a value-neutral, "we're not out to make furries look bad" kind of way that they feel they can be truly honest on the survey. So, like all things when conducting research, it is a trade-off between a number of factors.
c) Why are we trying to inform furries about furries? Because some furries are inquisitive and want to know more about their community. While you mention "we kind of already know what we do", I contend that at every talk I've given at a furry convention, there are always many who gasp or are shocked by some of our findings. While many of them are intuitive, and many say "well, duh", there are always findings that make furries go "well jeez, I had no idea!". Additionally: many of the questions on the survey this time around were generated by furries who had questions about the community: furries who wanted to know something. As an academic, I consider it important to not only inform the academic community, but also to always keep in mind the applied nature of my research and to try my best to ensure the work doesn't simply stagnate or disappear into obscurity in some academic journal (that said, we have a number of publications in the works in which, to be sure, we will inform them fully of the nature of our findings, including the fact that there is a website where we disperse the research from past surveys, and the fact that some furries do look at that past research before taking the survey, and the possibility that it may color some of their responses in socially desirable ways).
I do thank you for your concern and your feedback, and it does raise some good points, including how we may better control for this in future surveys!
Crossaffliction: your concerns are valid ones, and I'll address them point-by-point:
a) Indeed, we divided people into sub-groups based on factors that have been a divisive issue with the group. But doesn't that, if anything, make it a more important issue to look at? If we used typologies that no one disagreed with or had any difference in opinion on, then it wouldn't be nearly as interesting a categorization to use. This type of categorization based on something two people may vehemently disagree on is certainly not new to the psychological literature.
b) With regard to reading about past results before taking the survey: recognize that is a possibility. The past results have been up for a couple of months now, so we were hoping that many furries had already seen them and had a chance to look at them. Additionally: many of the questions that are already up on the website represent questions we've asked about several times in the past, and which we are either not collecting data on anymore or which we are reasonably confident we know what the "usual" response is - we can pick up on significant changes in these responses and any that we notice we can test for social desirability or reactivity as a result of what people may have read on the website.
Our hands were a bit tied on that one: on the one hand, you're right, it would have been preferable to not have the results on the website while furries were doing the survey. On the other hand, furries have a right to see the research that's been conducted in the past and which many of them have been very generous in contributing to for the last five or six years. For many, it's only after they've seen the results and know that we're trying our best to present this research in a value-neutral, "we're not out to make furries look bad" kind of way that they feel they can be truly honest on the survey. So, like all things when conducting research, it is a trade-off between a number of factors.
c) Why are we trying to inform furries about furries? Because some furries are inquisitive and want to know more about their community. While you mention "we kind of already know what we do", I contend that at every talk I've given at a furry convention, there are always many who gasp or are shocked by some of our findings. While many of them are intuitive, and many say "well, duh", there are always findings that make furries go "well jeez, I had no idea!". Additionally: many of the questions on the survey this time around were generated by furries who had questions about the community: furries who wanted to know something. As an academic, I consider it important to not only inform the academic community, but also to always keep in mind the applied nature of my research and to try my best to ensure the work doesn't simply stagnate or disappear into obscurity in some academic journal (that said, we have a number of publications in the works in which, to be sure, we will inform them fully of the nature of our findings, including the fact that there is a website where we disperse the research from past surveys, and the fact that some furries do look at that past research before taking the survey, and the possibility that it may color some of their responses in socially desirable ways).
I do thank you for your concern and your feedback, and it does raise some good points, including how we may better control for this in future surveys!