Whee - just what we need, another voice in this conversation!
For those who don't know, I'm Dr. Courtney "Nuka" Plante - a researcher with the IARP (and, I suppose, that puts me in the "Dr. Gerbasi" camp to which you're all referring above!)
I don't claim to have any more knowledge about events than anyone else here has. In fact, you all seem to have done your homework on this, and know far more about the issue than do I. I can only really speak to my own experience with this whole debacle. I suppose my hope is to ask for everyone on all sides to calm down just a bit!
I'll begin by defending my colleague, Dr. Gerbasi (and, by extension, the rest of the IARP) - we're exceptionally proud of the work we've done on furries. Moreover, we're exceptionally proud of the fact that we've been allowed to do research on furries at conventions and on furry websites all over North America (and, indeed, we've had furries from all over the world complete our surveys!) Part of this means doing our damnedest to ensure we get it right - making sure we use language that won't offend furries (and being self-critical enough to correct ourselves when someone points out that we do), going out of our way to be completely transparent with furries every step of the way, letting furries into the research process by letting them propose questions for us to pursue, making our findings publicly available to furries after we find them, informing furries, at the start of studies, about just what the study's about, and, most importantly, going through an ethics board to make sure that an independent board considers our research both humane and to have scientific merit.
One thing we've always worried about in the fandom is our image in it. Not because we're politicians, or because we're seeking any kind of "power", but because image is everything when it comes to this research. We're known by a lot of furries, but usually as "those folks who study furries". It's why we've pushed so hard to create a recognizable logo, consistent set of faces representing us, and a consistent website and name. Even so, we have, in the past, been approached by furries demanding that we account for the work of others, or insisting that we MUST have been the researchers who put up survey X or who did study Y. The fact is, people will easily mistake us for other researchers, and vice versa. Which wouldn't be problem if it was a simple issue of mistaken identity.
It becomes worrisome, however, if a researcher comes along and ruins the image of scientists studying furries in the fandom. Now, granted, I'm not saying that's what Kevin Hsu has done (more on this in a second). What concerned Dr. Gerbasi, right out of the gate, was the lack of informed consent on the first page. In psychological research, this is a clear and definite, absolute "NO!" and anyone who tells you otherwise is unfamiliar with the ethics process and why it's considered essential in psychological research (namely to protect participants from harm and as a first line of defense against dodgy, unfounded, baseless research). As such, if we see a study without an informed consent, there's a knee-jerk reaction to report it to an ethics board.
Was the reporting some kind of rivalry? Absolutely not. The IARP has worked alongside (and has even helped) other researchers doing research on furry in the past (Debra Soh's work was mentioned earlier - I sat down and gave her an interview at Furry Fiesta for her work, and I still keep in touch with Debra via e-mail, as she will attest). At Furry Fiesta 2015, we sat two tables down from another grad student who was doing a study on furries. Everyone at our table took a copy of her survey to help out (and it seems that, if anything, she benefited from our established credibility - it seemed people thought she was with us, and took her survey assuming it was ours, which ended up reducing our participant numbers a bit - something that disappointed us a tad, but certainly wasn't enough to make us lament her presence!)
So, I'll argue, we don't have a rivalry with other researchers. Do we have a vested interest in watching what other researchers are doing in the fandom, and ensuring they're not breaking rules? Absolutely, unabashedly and honestly yes. As I mentioned above, we get mistaken for other researchers all the time (and, in fact, I've had several e-mails asking me if Hsu was one of our researchers). Whether we like it or not, whether it's true or not, the actions of any one researcher studying furries will be projected on all researchers studying furries. If one researcher acts unethically or does something to offend furries, we may lose the trust of furries who no longer want to be a part of any research, assuming it will be more of the same. This is why Dr. Gerbasi went after the study - not to take down a "possible rival", but because the study's lack of an informed consent raised a big red flag for her, and because we have to be particularly vigilant about how furries see researchers studying them.
Which brings us, at last, to Hsu - I've been asked by more than a few people what I think of the study itself and whether I think there's something fishy going on. Frankly, I've reserved judgment. I've made mistakes as a graduate student before, not out of malice, but out of ignorance, and I'll extend that same consideration to Hsu. I think it was a bad call to not include an informed consent page on the study, and in that regard, he should have his knuckles rapped for that. But, beyond that, I'll assume he's a graduate student attempting to answer a question that's interesting to him.
Do I agree with his ETLE hypothesis? Not really - I think it's a gross overgeneralization of furries that lacks an appreciation of the subtlety of their interests or the myriad of motivational factors contributing to furries joining the fandom. That said, sure, I'll buy that the argument may have merit for at least some proportion of the fandom - though I would contend it's worth asking what this proportion is, and whether it might be worth pulling back a bit on claims that this might somehow explain "all" or even "most" furries. I also feel, in some ways, it's a study that's not likely to answer his question, because of desirable responding. It's one reason the IARP has generally avoided the topic of zoophilia in the fandom - not because we don't think it's a topic worth studying, but because, really, it's hard to get honest answers from people. If we were to ask people "are you a zoophile", a few things likely happen - people don't know what it means, or they know what it means and they react negatively to our even asking it, or they know what it means, identify as one, but deny it on paper, or they know what it means, identify as one, and are happy to indicate as much on a paper. In the end, there's no way of knowing if the number we end up with is a valid assessment of the prevalence of zoophilia, or if it's simply a measure of how many people are openly zoophiles, and trying to make any claims about the prevalence of zoophilia from these numbers would be ignoring these important validity issues.
Which brings me to my final point: did Hsu have any business asking these questions in the first place? In a single, unambiguous word: Yes. Absolutely yes. I don't believe any topic about furries is beyond study. There are, of course, topics I feel more comfortable studying and some I feel less comfortable studying, for a multitude of reasons (e.g., background understanding of the topic, personal interest in topic, anticipated blowback from fandom). In the end, though, if a researcher wants to address a question, they're welcome to do so, and my only concerns will be whether their methodology is up to snuff and valid for answering the question, and whether their doing so will have consequences for my own ability to study the fandom. I may disagree with the application of ETLE to furries, and hypothesize the opposite of what Hsu does, but, in the end, it's an empirical question. No furry, no matter how long they've been in the fandom or no matter how many furries they know, can claim to know, a priori, what, exactly, the findings of the study will be. It's empirical. We won't know the answer unless the data are collected. In other words, if furries truly believe, in their heart of hearts, that the hypothesis is wrong, the best thing they can do is let the study run its course, and let the data speak for themselves.
Now, it becomes a bigger problem if, once the data are collected, they're misrepresented or blown out of proportion. But you deal with that issue if and when it comes up.
tl;dr: the IARP have no interest in a "turf war" or "rivalry" with other researchers, I disagree with Hsu's hypothesis, but see no problem with him asking the question, though I disagree with his failure to include an informed consent on his study. I don't know enough about Hsu, beyond hearsay, to make any other strong statements.
Whee - just what we need, another voice in this conversation!
For those who don't know, I'm Dr. Courtney "Nuka" Plante - a researcher with the IARP (and, I suppose, that puts me in the "Dr. Gerbasi" camp to which you're all referring above!)
I don't claim to have any more knowledge about events than anyone else here has. In fact, you all seem to have done your homework on this, and know far more about the issue than do I. I can only really speak to my own experience with this whole debacle. I suppose my hope is to ask for everyone on all sides to calm down just a bit!
I'll begin by defending my colleague, Dr. Gerbasi (and, by extension, the rest of the IARP) - we're exceptionally proud of the work we've done on furries. Moreover, we're exceptionally proud of the fact that we've been allowed to do research on furries at conventions and on furry websites all over North America (and, indeed, we've had furries from all over the world complete our surveys!) Part of this means doing our damnedest to ensure we get it right - making sure we use language that won't offend furries (and being self-critical enough to correct ourselves when someone points out that we do), going out of our way to be completely transparent with furries every step of the way, letting furries into the research process by letting them propose questions for us to pursue, making our findings publicly available to furries after we find them, informing furries, at the start of studies, about just what the study's about, and, most importantly, going through an ethics board to make sure that an independent board considers our research both humane and to have scientific merit.
One thing we've always worried about in the fandom is our image in it. Not because we're politicians, or because we're seeking any kind of "power", but because image is everything when it comes to this research. We're known by a lot of furries, but usually as "those folks who study furries". It's why we've pushed so hard to create a recognizable logo, consistent set of faces representing us, and a consistent website and name. Even so, we have, in the past, been approached by furries demanding that we account for the work of others, or insisting that we MUST have been the researchers who put up survey X or who did study Y. The fact is, people will easily mistake us for other researchers, and vice versa. Which wouldn't be problem if it was a simple issue of mistaken identity.
It becomes worrisome, however, if a researcher comes along and ruins the image of scientists studying furries in the fandom. Now, granted, I'm not saying that's what Kevin Hsu has done (more on this in a second). What concerned Dr. Gerbasi, right out of the gate, was the lack of informed consent on the first page. In psychological research, this is a clear and definite, absolute "NO!" and anyone who tells you otherwise is unfamiliar with the ethics process and why it's considered essential in psychological research (namely to protect participants from harm and as a first line of defense against dodgy, unfounded, baseless research). As such, if we see a study without an informed consent, there's a knee-jerk reaction to report it to an ethics board.
Was the reporting some kind of rivalry? Absolutely not. The IARP has worked alongside (and has even helped) other researchers doing research on furry in the past (Debra Soh's work was mentioned earlier - I sat down and gave her an interview at Furry Fiesta for her work, and I still keep in touch with Debra via e-mail, as she will attest). At Furry Fiesta 2015, we sat two tables down from another grad student who was doing a study on furries. Everyone at our table took a copy of her survey to help out (and it seems that, if anything, she benefited from our established credibility - it seemed people thought she was with us, and took her survey assuming it was ours, which ended up reducing our participant numbers a bit - something that disappointed us a tad, but certainly wasn't enough to make us lament her presence!)
So, I'll argue, we don't have a rivalry with other researchers. Do we have a vested interest in watching what other researchers are doing in the fandom, and ensuring they're not breaking rules? Absolutely, unabashedly and honestly yes. As I mentioned above, we get mistaken for other researchers all the time (and, in fact, I've had several e-mails asking me if Hsu was one of our researchers). Whether we like it or not, whether it's true or not, the actions of any one researcher studying furries will be projected on all researchers studying furries. If one researcher acts unethically or does something to offend furries, we may lose the trust of furries who no longer want to be a part of any research, assuming it will be more of the same. This is why Dr. Gerbasi went after the study - not to take down a "possible rival", but because the study's lack of an informed consent raised a big red flag for her, and because we have to be particularly vigilant about how furries see researchers studying them.
Which brings us, at last, to Hsu - I've been asked by more than a few people what I think of the study itself and whether I think there's something fishy going on. Frankly, I've reserved judgment. I've made mistakes as a graduate student before, not out of malice, but out of ignorance, and I'll extend that same consideration to Hsu. I think it was a bad call to not include an informed consent page on the study, and in that regard, he should have his knuckles rapped for that. But, beyond that, I'll assume he's a graduate student attempting to answer a question that's interesting to him.
Do I agree with his ETLE hypothesis? Not really - I think it's a gross overgeneralization of furries that lacks an appreciation of the subtlety of their interests or the myriad of motivational factors contributing to furries joining the fandom. That said, sure, I'll buy that the argument may have merit for at least some proportion of the fandom - though I would contend it's worth asking what this proportion is, and whether it might be worth pulling back a bit on claims that this might somehow explain "all" or even "most" furries. I also feel, in some ways, it's a study that's not likely to answer his question, because of desirable responding. It's one reason the IARP has generally avoided the topic of zoophilia in the fandom - not because we don't think it's a topic worth studying, but because, really, it's hard to get honest answers from people. If we were to ask people "are you a zoophile", a few things likely happen - people don't know what it means, or they know what it means and they react negatively to our even asking it, or they know what it means, identify as one, but deny it on paper, or they know what it means, identify as one, and are happy to indicate as much on a paper. In the end, there's no way of knowing if the number we end up with is a valid assessment of the prevalence of zoophilia, or if it's simply a measure of how many people are openly zoophiles, and trying to make any claims about the prevalence of zoophilia from these numbers would be ignoring these important validity issues.
Which brings me to my final point: did Hsu have any business asking these questions in the first place? In a single, unambiguous word: Yes. Absolutely yes. I don't believe any topic about furries is beyond study. There are, of course, topics I feel more comfortable studying and some I feel less comfortable studying, for a multitude of reasons (e.g., background understanding of the topic, personal interest in topic, anticipated blowback from fandom). In the end, though, if a researcher wants to address a question, they're welcome to do so, and my only concerns will be whether their methodology is up to snuff and valid for answering the question, and whether their doing so will have consequences for my own ability to study the fandom. I may disagree with the application of ETLE to furries, and hypothesize the opposite of what Hsu does, but, in the end, it's an empirical question. No furry, no matter how long they've been in the fandom or no matter how many furries they know, can claim to know, a priori, what, exactly, the findings of the study will be. It's empirical. We won't know the answer unless the data are collected. In other words, if furries truly believe, in their heart of hearts, that the hypothesis is wrong, the best thing they can do is let the study run its course, and let the data speak for themselves.
Now, it becomes a bigger problem if, once the data are collected, they're misrepresented or blown out of proportion. But you deal with that issue if and when it comes up.
tl;dr: the IARP have no interest in a "turf war" or "rivalry" with other researchers, I disagree with Hsu's hypothesis, but see no problem with him asking the question, though I disagree with his failure to include an informed consent on his study. I don't know enough about Hsu, beyond hearsay, to make any other strong statements.