Thank you nycindie. I hope our efforts to engage here have been encouraging that we're not closed off completely to learning new things.
Polyamory Research Survey
- Thread starter Research1
- Start date
- Status
Thank you nycindie. I hope our efforts to engage here have been encouraging that we're not closed off completely to learning new things.
Hey Dagferi, you're back! I remember Murf and Butch from 100 comments ago.
I hope they're equally doing well. No worries about the disgust - it's a useful emotion, right?!? I'm sincerely glad you've been able to balance two marriages, clearly it is very important to you that not anything make it seem less important, even stupid statistical analyses from surveys that just aren't up to speed to measure triads. Dyadic data analysis is a total beast and most researchers can't handle it. Can you imagine TRIADIC? I'm not sure it's possible, even, at this time. Anyway, no worries about dropping out, we account for that.
IndieSolo
Active member
Dagferi's not in a triad. She's in two dyads. Her two marriages are kept separate, with separate homes, and very little contact between her two husbands.
This kind of arrangement (maintaining equally committed, non-hierarchical dyadic relationsips separate from each other) is becoming more common among polyfolk, it seems to me. When I first started investigating poly only five years ago, I kept reading about big poly "tribes" and larger groups relating and cohabiting with each other, but that doesn't seem so popular anymore.
Last edited:
Right, of course. I was only referring to the madness of trying to do data analysis on three people, because they're connected by the one person. In that case we'd also have to limit the study to only triads or vees.
Dagferi
Well-known member
Hey Dagferi, you're back! I remember Murf and Butch from 100 comments ago.
I am not in a triad. I maintain 2 separate but equal dyad relationships.
I live in 2 homes. For example last week I spent Monday and Tuesday with Murf at that house. I went to the home I share with Butch Wednesday which is 26 miles away from my other home. I had to work Thursday and Friday and that job is closer to the house I share with Murf so the smart thing to do financially is stay there when I am working. (My job is an hour from my home with Butch 20 minutes from Murfs). It was Murf and i's regularly scheduled weekend together since he works every other weekend, so I stayed to Sunday. This weeks I am with Butch Monday and Tuesday. Murf Wednesday and Thursday. I go to the home I share Butch Friday through Sunday. I rotate back and forth between the two houses.
Sometimes my kids come with especially if Butch their biological father is working a rare overnight or double shift. My Rottweiler travels with me.
My husbands do not see each other often. (Holidays and kids events) They get along but have no relationship other than respect.
I have separate retirement accounts, bank accounts etc with each husband. Legal protection in place to protect Murf and give him a say if something were to happen to me.
There's no triad here.
Right - as I mentioned - by "triadic data analysis" I only meant statistical analysis involving three people, not polyamorous triads per se. Just another one of those "learning to communicate with each other" moments on this forum.
Dagferi
Well-known member
Then you are losing a HUGE segment of the poly world.
I can name several people in similar relationships to my own. Bluebird, JaneQSmith, Nadya, Innuendo, Kdt, NorwegianPoly, and I could go on and on. So basically you are only interested in folks who practice hierarchical polyamory and have no interest in folks like myself who are in balanced long term relationships. I have been with one husband 14 yrs and the other 3.5 yrs.
So you are going to publish a paper or data with skewed data which could potentially give a pigeon hole view of poly life.
I can name several people in similar relationships to my own. Bluebird, JaneQSmith, Nadya, Innuendo, Kdt, NorwegianPoly, and I could go on and on. So basically you are only interested in folks who practice hierarchical polyamory and have no interest in folks like myself who are in balanced long term relationships. I have been with one husband 14 yrs and the other 3.5 yrs.
So you are going to publish a paper or data with skewed data which could potentially give a pigeon hole view of poly life.
I think he is trying to say that an analysis of polyamory would be very complex. We have a Vee now with a male, are developing a Vee with a female and I, with my hopes for a future triad. We have had both Vees and triads. In my short time here, it is more complicated than I thought. Let them study this and hopefully see it develop into a bigger study. This can impact our lives as eventually a guideline for therapists. To maybe others understanding us and letting us live our way.
We have found it hard for women to join us in that they don't understand our way of life. We had one go to an unhappy mono-relationship, she thought there was no place for her.
We have found it hard for women to join us in that they don't understand our way of life. We had one go to an unhappy mono-relationship, she thought there was no place for her.
Dagferi, please go back and read the previous comments. We cleared it up that it is not limited to relationships with an emotional hieararchy. We are only excluding solo poly, as far as I'm aware. We are also not going to say we are representing poly on the whole (in fact, we will explicitly state what sorts of people took the survey, demographics, make up of their relationships, etc. so readers can clearly know what we're studying). That was cleared up in previous comments though. Please read those before commenting again. If you just feel disgusted or upset or anything else at us or the study, that is totally fine. We can't help more with that, but you're welcome to feel whatever you do!
We do hope to study those who are a) not married AND b) not in a hierarchical relationship structure, in the future, we just could not figure out how to make that work this time WHILE also studying those who a) are married or if not, are in a hierarchical relationship structure. We couldn't do both groups and run an analysis that would work. It came down to one or the other. It came down to the analysis. It just wouldn't work. Others complained that we weren't studying divorced people. Same problem there - we couldn't accurately measure relationship adjustment for divorced couples and compare that to people who are married with the same measure.
We also had to make this same set of measures and analyses work for people who are swingers, polygamists, DADT, monogamish, etc. so that complicated it even more. Something had to be cut to make it all work.
Last edited:
Thanks, yeah. It is SO complicated. Which makes data analysis near-impossible. Unfortunately things have to be simplified in quantitative research. If the study were qualitative that would be different.
Dagferi, I think I can speak for the other researchers here: Before we understood the scientific method and how to conduct psychological research, it seemed like we should be able to answer larger questions with one study, or more than just a couple questions with one study. We found, after years of education and experience, that to be able to answer a question, it had to be winnowed down to a simple, narrow, essential item. So it's offensive to you that we're not including non-hierarchical relationships who are not married in this study, and maybe it seems like we're being mean ogres who don't care about your personal experience, or worse, want to oppress you or obfuscate your life and relationships. That would be an unfortunate perception, and one that is completely wrong.
We are conducting this study because we *do* care. We're real people who are doing this work using our own resources, who would want to continue asking useful questions about non-monogamy, and it's been odd to receive such "browbeating" exclusively on this board. I'm curious about why only here? I realize that I'm now speaking to all the posters who seemed distressed and antagonistic.
You've made it clear that you aren't represented in the study, and you're right. We aren't studying your relationship, and that's ok. It doesn't make you bad or wrong. Just like all the other lives and relationships we aren't studying aren't bad or wrong. You're ok and your relationships are ok.
I'll reiterate my earlier post: As odd as it's been to stir up such distress on this board, it's ultimately been helpful in clarifying the limitations of our research. For that, I thank you.
We are conducting this study because we *do* care. We're real people who are doing this work using our own resources, who would want to continue asking useful questions about non-monogamy, and it's been odd to receive such "browbeating" exclusively on this board. I'm curious about why only here? I realize that I'm now speaking to all the posters who seemed distressed and antagonistic.
You've made it clear that you aren't represented in the study, and you're right. We aren't studying your relationship, and that's ok. It doesn't make you bad or wrong. Just like all the other lives and relationships we aren't studying aren't bad or wrong. You're ok and your relationships are ok.
I'll reiterate my earlier post: As odd as it's been to stir up such distress on this board, it's ultimately been helpful in clarifying the limitations of our research. For that, I thank you.
Last edited:
Solo poly does not mean you don't have commitments. It usually means that's you're not seeking to climb the relationship ladder with anyone. You're not looking to move in together, or share finances or perhaps not have children either. For that reason, many people who practice solo poly would not have a primary partner so the questions you ask would be either unanswerable or their response will be inaccurate. Although they don't have a primary partner, they would not be screened out because they'd say "yes, I am in at least one committed relationship".
All this research will encourage therapists to do is protect the "legitimate" relationship/partner, even if it means treating other partners poorly.
All this research will encourage therapists to do is protect the "legitimate" relationship/partner, even if it means treating other partners poorly.
Cue NBC music, "THE MORE YOU KNOW!" Thanks MightyMax - I have a lot to learn, particularly about solo poly. So you may be right - some solo poly folk may not be screened out. Looks like we're studying more people than was discussed on this board. As long as people pass the screening questions, they are welcome to complete the survey.
Last edited:
Commitment
MightyMax, while your spin on our research is bizarre (in terms of how to treat secondaries), I can clarify another point: "commitment", for the purposes of our study, means whatever it means to you. If you believe you have a committed relationship, then you have a committed relationship.
MightyMax, while your spin on our research is bizarre (in terms of how to treat secondaries), I can clarify another point: "commitment", for the purposes of our study, means whatever it means to you. If you believe you have a committed relationship, then you have a committed relationship.
I wonder if part of it is that perhaps this board receives more requests for research? IDK. I should ask some of the other places we've talked with people. It has felt oddly cranky here, but of course we are assuming that's for valid reasons. Some of the stuff here has been exhausting by comparison, but I'm sure some of it will be of help in the long run, and as Research1 said, there will be a lot of food for thought for future studies, and in discussing the limitations when we publish.
Reeesearch
Yes, yes, I'm wondering that, too. Requests for research, and participation in research, can feel so impersonal. I mean, it IS impersonal, to some extent. I'm all biased because I'm a geek, and I find it meaningful to participate in research, but as a researcher I likely have a greater sense of esteem and trust in the process. It makes sense that not everyone would feel that way.
Yes, yes, I'm wondering that, too. Requests for research, and participation in research, can feel so impersonal. I mean, it IS impersonal, to some extent. I'm all biased because I'm a geek, and I find it meaningful to participate in research, but as a researcher I likely have a greater sense of esteem and trust in the process. It makes sense that not everyone would feel that way.
No, actually, it isn't impersonal. Especially when you're talking about a minority group. The research that comes out pretty much defines how people perceive that group. Some people's first experience with that group will be vicarious through the researcher. Of course we want research that is actually representative of what we are about.
As a researcher, you should be even more skeptical of the other researchers. You would know how much bad research there is out there and how long the untruths they spread stay out in society. Autism and the MMR? Some people still do not know that research was categorically scrapped by everyone who is anyone in that field.
I find it utterly bizarre that you are surprised by our concerns. I also find it dismissive and bordering on offensive that you imply we must not find it "meaningful" to participate in research because we are questioning your dubious methodology.
Suggesting that we are "distressed" is also a gaslighting tactic, probably due to the fact that we are challenging your academic capabilities. At best, we, or at least I, are/am apprehensive about your intentions and doubt your ability to represent polyamorous people positively or accurately.
Dagferi, I think I can speak for the other researchers here: Before we understood the scientific method and how to conduct psychological research, it seemed like we should be able to answer larger questions with one study, or more than just a couple questions with one study. We found, after years of education and experience, that to be able to answer a question, it had to be winnowed down to a simple, narrow, essential item. So it's offensive to you that we're not including non-hierarchical relationships who are not married in this study, and maybe it seems like we're being mean ogres who don't care about your personal experience, or worse, want to oppress you or obfuscate your life and relationships. That would be an unfortunate perception, and one that is completely wrong.
We are conducting this study because we *do* care. We're real people who are doing this work using our own resources, who would want to continue asking useful questions about non-monogamy, and it's been odd to receive such "browbeating" exclusively on this board. I'm curious about why only here? I realize that I'm now speaking to all the posters who seemed distressed and antagonistic.
You've made it clear that you aren't represented in the study, and you're right. We aren't studying your relationship, and that's ok. It doesn't make you bad or wrong. Just like all the other lives and relationships we aren't studying aren't bad or wrong. You're ok and your relationships are ok.
I'll reiterate my earlier post: As odd as it's been to stir up such distress on this board, it's ultimately been helpful in clarifying the limitations of our research. For that, I thank you.
So just be completely clear, you don't want the experiences of a person in not one, but two committed relationships, one of which is a legal marriage? I thought you wanted the experiences of non monogamous folk who are in a relationship?
The bottom line is that your questions exclude many of the people you actually aimed to study. It's a design flaw.
I see what you're saying, MightyMax. You may not be distressed at all! I'll take your word for it. Others like dagferi said the survey made her feel "disgusted" so there's that.
We welcome your apprehension - no reason to shut that down. Again though, we area not trying to represent the general population of polyamorous people. We are also not trying to represent poly people positively OR negatively.
And we are only surprised by concerns here because it has been, for the most part, limited to some on this board. Would that not be surprising, to post and engage with people on 30-40 forums and groups, and have only 1 be this intense? IDK, that seems valid to me. Why do you think that is? I wondered earlier if it was due to getting so many research requests here like others said earlier. Or, perhaps this board is just more apt to apprehension and doubt, as you said? That's totally fine! I'm just curious what happened here.
Last edited:
Please read the comments above, as we already cleared this up. As I've said before, in our efforts to clarify, we made it more confusing. Our mistake. We should have just said, "take the screening questions and see if you pass." To be in the survey, you need to be:
1. Non-monogamous, now or in the past.
2. In a relationship with at least one other person. If there is more than two in the relationship (e.g. Vee, Triad, or more) then there must EITHER be a legal marriage to one, or a primary partner. This decision was made for statistical analysis purposes. Nothing more, nothing less.
Does that make sense? Did you take the survey and pass the screening questions?
I disagree it's a design flaw - it's just exclusionary criteria. If we were claiming to represent poly folk in general, it would be a MAJOR design flaw, and would kill the study. It would be dead anyway, because we don't have a random sample.
- Status