You've just asked - and answered - one of the questions our team is MOST interested in! And you've identified nearly all of the pitfalls we're experiencing in trying to answer it =P It's difficult, because, as you mention, people who leave the fandom are hard to get ahold of, and social psychological research has suggested that people are notoriously difficult at being able to predict how they'll feel years down the road (e.g. to be able to answer a question like "how long are you in the fandom for? The long haul, or just for a bit?)
It's a bit easier to identify when people are "in" the fandom: they're "in" it when they decide they are. If that means, for them, associating with other furs, then that's what's important. If, instead, they call that point when they went to their first con, then that's what we use. It's like calling oneself a Republican or a Democrat: there's no dotted line you sign that makes you one "officially" - it's a matter of when you decide to start identifying as one, for whatever reason.
One possibility that we're looking into is a longitudinal study: tracking a group of furries over a period of time, and seeing what happens to them (watching how their attitudes change, and, ultimately, keeping tabs on them when/ if they leave the fandom). It does make ethics a bit sticky, because we have to collect a bit of personal data (an e-mail address or some kind of contact information), and, even though we don't attach it to any particular set of data (we won't, for example, say "oh, this is John Smith's data" (everything will be via assigned ID number), we will have to be able to say "this is participant #410's data from last year, let's compare it to this year"). Anyway, it's a work in progress, and a question that we're definitely interested in pursuing!
You've just asked - and answered - one of the questions our team is MOST interested in! And you've identified nearly all of the pitfalls we're experiencing in trying to answer it =P It's difficult, because, as you mention, people who leave the fandom are hard to get ahold of, and social psychological research has suggested that people are notoriously difficult at being able to predict how they'll feel years down the road (e.g. to be able to answer a question like "how long are you in the fandom for? The long haul, or just for a bit?)
It's a bit easier to identify when people are "in" the fandom: they're "in" it when they decide they are. If that means, for them, associating with other furs, then that's what's important. If, instead, they call that point when they went to their first con, then that's what we use. It's like calling oneself a Republican or a Democrat: there's no dotted line you sign that makes you one "officially" - it's a matter of when you decide to start identifying as one, for whatever reason.
One possibility that we're looking into is a longitudinal study: tracking a group of furries over a period of time, and seeing what happens to them (watching how their attitudes change, and, ultimately, keeping tabs on them when/ if they leave the fandom). It does make ethics a bit sticky, because we have to collect a bit of personal data (an e-mail address or some kind of contact information), and, even though we don't attach it to any particular set of data (we won't, for example, say "oh, this is John Smith's data" (everything will be via assigned ID number), we will have to be able to say "this is participant #410's data from last year, let's compare it to this year"). Anyway, it's a work in progress, and a question that we're definitely interested in pursuing!