Polyamory Research Survey

Status
Not open for further replies.
And rest assured we are definitely giving this whole thing a lot of thought in terms of studying those who report non-hierarchical non-monogamy in the future.

That's good to hear. It gets wearisome, watching researcher after researcher coming in here to take surveys on how many ships will fall off the edge of the world. Assumptions about "how things are" affect every aspect of the so-called findings.
 
That's good to hear. It gets wearisome, watching researcher after researcher coming in here to take surveys on how many ships will fall off the edge of the world. Assumptions about "how things are" affect every aspect of the so-called findings.

Oh wow. Yes I can see how that would be VERY wearisome.
 
I am confused. The user who started this thread and linked to the survey was named Research1. Yet, the user named a109 is answering questions about the survey and talking about its purpose.

a109, are you someone working together with Research1 on this survey, or are you the same person who is, for some reason, posting under a different username? Please explain.
 
I am confused. The user who started this thread and linked to the survey was named Research1. Yet, the user named a109 is answering questions about the survey and talking about its purpose.

a109, are you someone working together with Research1 on this survey, or are you the same person who is, for some reason, posting under a different username? Please explain.

Two different people, both on the research team. :)
 
Ok - would have been helpful to identify yourself with your first post to the thread. Thanks for clarifying.

No problem, and I apologize for not explicitly stating that to begin with. I'm wondering if some feel threatened by research - given that as another said here, many researchers come and go in these forums, and people feel misunderstood and like the researchers aren't "getting" them or really understanding. That must be wearisome at best, really frustrating and dismissing, misrepresenting, etc. at worst. We are working hard to make sure we don't repeat some of those mistakes, but we're learning a lot and thank you all for your comments and concerns.
 
Attachment behavioral system

There's no valid criticism of the empirical research that people have an innate, primal, hierarchy among attachment figures. In fact, this wasn't Bowlby's work, but later researchers. It's sound worldwide -- at least among children. And it's not a dismissal of nonhierarchical relationships. This work doesn't suggest that you cannot have a nonhierarchical polyamorous marriage/grouping, just that humans will always think of one person, in particular, in times of trial. It doesn't mean they won't think of other people as well, and it doesn't mean one cannot override the original thought. I am interested, though, in future research, to find a way to explore adult hierarchies (and the possible lack thereof). As we are learning from you all, there are many, many people who feel that their relationships are nonhierarchical, and that's important.
 
Perhaps if researchers would come to the forum and integrate themselves for a period of time your research would be more fruitful. Read the forums, understand the struggles, participate in helping people get opinions and answers, then construct a study. It's the difference between reading about gorillas and then doing research on them vs being like Jane Goodall and really trying to understand and integrate herself within the population.
 
Perhaps if researchers would come to the forum and integrate themselves for a period of time your research would be more fruitful. Read the forums, understand the struggles, participate in helping people get opinions and answers, then construct a study. It's the difference between reading about gorillas and then doing research on them vs being like Jane Goodall and really trying to understand and integrate herself within the population.

Different types of research yield different results, and have different strengths and weaknesses. Integrating oneself in a community has both major pros and cons.
 
I'm wondering if some feel threatened by research - given that as another said here, many researchers come and go in these forums . . .
Nope, I highly doubt anyone here feels "threatened by research." It's an optional activity in which to partake, after all.

Yes, researchers come and go here - from scientists at research organizations, to students in graduate school, community collage, and even high school, and we've seen a wide range of types of surveys. Some have been very well-thought out and some quite poorly designed -- and our members will speak up and give their opinions of the surveys. Do a search for the word "survey" and you will likely find a few of them.

As a Moderator, usually my frustration stems from any lack of identifying themselves. I want to protect our community and make sure people are not visiting some weird site that isn't legit, to input their personal information. Same thing happens with television production companies and interview shows - a lot of them have these anonymous email addresses with free email providers, saying they are casting a show for a major network without identifying the name of their casting company or the production company. I simply think we should know who wants information from us. So, that is always what I am on the lookout for, and that is why I asked you to clarify who was who. I could access your member IDs, IP addresses, etc., behind the scenes, but asked for clarification in the thread because I just want the people who participate to be clear about what is going on here.

EDIT: I did not click on the research link at first because I practice solo poly and do not have a partner, so would not qualify to take the survey, but I just did click on it and am glad to see the transparency there. If anyone wanted to confirm that this survey is legit, then at least they can contact Indiana U. before taking it. But it does help to be transparent in the discussion thread, too.

Thanks!
 
Last edited:
Nope, I highly doubt anyone here feels "threatened by research." It's an optional activity in which to partake, after all.

Well that's good to know. A lot of people in "minority" groups or non-normative groups do indeed feel threatened. Particularly people of color, as research has been used in the past in very harmful ways against their communities. Most of the participants in our study so far though have been white, and from fairly privileged backgrounds, so it makes sense if research per se wasn't threatening at all on this specific forum.
 
After reading your comments I realize I probably messed up by answering. I am not married to my partner, consider real as a "primary" by most people's definition we spend roughly half our non working time together. But he is legally and happily married to someone else.

The push back you are getting is not because people are threatened by surveys it is because so many people come here with surveys and very often these surveys neglect to acknowledge the vast array of experiences.
 
Granted I only skimmed obey the consent and requirement. But I am in a committed primary partner style relationship. And we see other people. Check and check. Didn't read much further than that. If you want to better exclude non legally married folks from your study the questions need to be more specific and explicitly state in bold that the survey is for legally married persons specifically.

Thanks
 
I'm confused. I thought I saw earlier in this thread an insistence upon people being legally married. I know I saw that phrase at least once or twice.
 
I'm confused. I thought I saw earlier in this thread an insistence upon people being legally married. I know I saw that phrase at least once or twice.

Hmm, yes, it is confusing! At first the researchers said it's not necessary to be legally married to take the survey, just that one is in a committed relationship that is non-monogamous:
The researchers are looking for adults over the age of 18, who are married or in a committed relationship with at least one other person, and have been or are now in a consensually non-monogamous relationship.
As you have perceptively noted, this study is dyad-centric.
Then they say that the survey is just about dyads, BUT that one needn't see a partner as a primary as long as one is legally married to that partner. :confused: So, it seems they are saying they will view a legal marriage as primary whether the survey taker considers it a primary relationship or not. However, it isn't clear that non-legally-married people qualify:
A primary partner is not needed to take the survey, if one has a legally married partner - that's enough even without hierarchy. This particular data analysis requires questions about a dyad.
Here, it seems they are saying that a person in one or more committed relationships can only qualify to take the survey if one of those relationships is a legal marriage. Or are they simply repeating that they will rank one's married partner as primary simply based on the legally married aspect of the relationship? Clear as mud:
. . . ranking them is not necessary, as long as you are legally married to one of them.
Now they are back to looking for either married or not married people, as long as those who take the survey are in a dyad and possibly candidates for therapy:
We're hoping it will add a tiny piece to the existing knowledge base on non-monogamy - in this case, specifically those who have dyads that come in to therapy, or legally married partners
However, then they're back to needing a legal marriage to take the survey:
Even in this study, non-hierarchical folks could be included if they're legally married to one of the partners.
Aaaaaand, now it's back to non-married being okay:
No need to be legally married at all.

So, researchers, which is it?
 
Last edited:
The survey begins with some screening questions. If you don't qualify, it won't let you proceed (because that would be silly). If you do, it will. And yay! Thanks much for taking the time.

If you're in a committed relationship or legally married (because the two don't necessarily go together), are over 18, and are in, or have been in, a consensually non-monogamous relationship, you'll qualify.

If you don't qualify, it doesn't mean we think you're bad or wrong or invalid.
 
Exactly - that's what the screening questions are for. If you pass those, it's all good. If not, then this particular survey isn't it, this time. As I stated some pages back now, researchers are of course privy to all sorts of things behind the scenes, e.g. the analysis, methods, measures, screening, etc. The survey and the data collection methods have all been approved after a rigorous IRB process by a major university. If it doesn't make sense, or our ongoing efforts to address questions here is just making things more confusing, that's too bad, but in the end, these things will take care of themselves. Hopefully you've found some enjoyment in this thread though - clearly there are many here who are passionate about the topic or else you wouldn't be responding to all these comments. :)
 
Last edited:
What do you mean, I have not allowed you to express that? You mean on the survey? If so, right - we don't know enough yet (obviously) on non-hierarchical polyamory to include it yet, but we are learning and perhaps we will focus on that in a future study! Even in this study, non-hierarchical folks could be included if they're legally married to one of the partners. We just couldn't make the measurements and analysis work without measuring specific dyads.

And you are right, we do attach to more than one person. You can attach to many. No disagreement there.


The only way I can try and make you understand is by comparing it to a heteronormative survey. Imagine a questionnaire where the researchers claimed they were interested in responses from homosexual people, but the questions were obviously designed for heterosexuals. Things like "does the fact your partner's genitals look remarkably different from yours cause you concern?". Most homosexual couples have genitals that look similar, so it would be a weird and irrelevant question to ask.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top