Polyamory Research Survey

[MightyMax]

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.

What do you mean by a committed relationship? I'm pretty sure that some versions of commitment that poly people subscribe to aren't what you're looking for from your sample.

 

[nllswing]

While not perfect, the study asks a number of useful quiestions, the answers to which could yield much needed initial information on a topic not much discussed.

I have about 100 acquaintances from the poly/swing/fetish/kink/BDSM community and know a bit closer around 30 of them. Aside from a few who are "solo poly" and one triad, everyone else is in a primary diad.

 

[a109]

What do you mean by a committed relationship? I'm pretty sure that some versions of commitment that poly people subscribe to aren't what you're looking for from your sample.

That is intentionally left open to be described by the individual participant. We are including anyone who would self-report that they are either married and/or in a committed relationship with at least one person. If they, from their own viewpoint, do not report being in a committed relationship, then they wouldn't pass the screening questions. Simple as that. Subjective definition of commitment based on the participant's perception.

 

[a109]

While not perfect, the study asks a number of useful quiestions, the answers to which could yield much needed initial information on a topic not much discussed.

I have about 100 acquaintances from the poly/swing/fetish/kink/BDSM community and know a bit closer around 30 of them. Aside from a few who are "solo poly" and one triad, everyone else is in a primary diad.

Glad to know - you'd think otherwise from this particular thread.

 

[a109]

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.

I'm sorry you feel you have to make me understand. Honestly, I think it may be that we both understand, and we just disagree. That's fine. We have many questions that require either a legal marriage and/or the participant self-reporting being in some sort of committed relationship (however they might define that). Also, the data analysis won't work without this pre-requisite.

So yes, the survey is somewhat "dyad-normative" in that way. There are plenty of non-monogamous people with dyads in their set-up though that are responding, so we're ok. And yes, we are excluding solo-poly folk and anyone who is not married AND not self-reporting being in any sort of committed relationship (self-defined). All surveys exclude people of course, and you and a few others here feel that we're excluding perhaps MOST of the poly community? If that's the case, then we are indeed only studying a very small subset of the population. That hasn't been my experience so far though, as probably a majority of poly folk would at least report either being married to one of the partners, or would self-report some sort of "commitment." I guess we'll need to know really what % of poly folks are married or self-report a committed relationship! Then we'd all probably have more basis for this discussion.

And rest assured, when we write up the results, and hopefully publish them, we of course won't be claiming our study represents the general population of polyamorous, or even non-monogamous people. We will be very clear about this particular population we studied, who they are, how they don't include solo-poly, and etc., so anyone reading will know that doesn't apply. And we could also write about the thought that the questions are "dyad-normative" and how that could be a problem or limitation in the study design.

Anyway, again, if we just disagree, that's fine. Thanks for engaging.

 

[Research1]

Helpful thread

I just want to thank everyone who offered feedback. Despite frustrations, it's really helped us clarify what we will include in our discussion of the limitations of this study.

 

[MightyMax]

I'm sorry you feel you have to make me understand. Honestly, I think it may be that we both understand, and we just disagree. That's fine. We have many questions that require either a legal marriage and/or the participant self-reporting being in some sort of committed relationship (however they might define that). Also, the data analysis won't work without this pre-requisite.

So yes, the survey is somewhat "dyad-normative" in that way. There are plenty of non-monogamous people with dyads in their set-up though that are responding, so we're ok. And yes, we are excluding solo-poly folk and anyone who is not married AND not self-reporting being in any sort of committed relationship (self-defined). All surveys exclude people of course, and you and a few others here feel that we're excluding perhaps MOST of the poly community? If that's the case, then we are indeed only studying a very small subset of the population. That hasn't been my experience so far though, as probably a majority of poly folk would at least report either being married to one of the partners, or would self-report some sort of "commitment." I guess we'll need to know really what % of poly folks are married or self-report a committed relationship! Then we'd all probably have more basis for this discussion.

Anyway, again, if we just disagree, that's fine. Thanks for engaging.

I'm replying to the parts I put in bold here.

So, great, you acknowledge that your research studies a subset of polyamorous people. How are you going to make that clear when you present your findings?

You see, my concern is that you'll generalise your findings to all poly people, or you won't do enough to ensure the reader understands that the data you have gathered is based on that of couple-centric relationships or that people may have been forced to pick the "nearest fit" rather than what is truly representative of their relationships.

About fifteen years ago, I read some research that I heard supported polyamory. Brilliant! I thought. However, when I came to read this supportive and thought provoking piece, I came to find an article that exclusively supported polyfidelity and demonised any other forms. Why did it upset me so? Because I underestimated how traumatic it would be to see someone accept polyamory for all the wrong reasons. Not because it's a valid relationship style, but because "true" polyamory, the good kind' has sexual and romantic exclusivity on some level and that's what makes a "real" relationship.

Yes, the feedback on the article showed that the audience were seeing this relationship style in a new light, but only because they were privy to the experiences of a subset of polyamory which is one step away from monogamy, as well as a bunch of poly fi practitioners who actively rejected other forms of polyamory as slutting around.

Secondly, my doubts aren't about how many poly people feel they have committed relationships. I wonder about how your study is going to reflect the multiple commitments most poly people have.

 

[a109]

I'm replying to the parts I put in bold here.

So, great, you acknowledge that your research studies a subset of polyamorous people. How are you going to make that clear when you present your findings?

You see, my concern is that you'll generalise your findings to all poly people, or you won't do enough to ensure the reader understands that the data you have gathered is based on that of couple-centric relationships or that people may have been forced to pick the "nearest fit" rather than what is truly representative of their relationships.

About fifteen years ago, I read some research that I heard supported polyamory. Brilliant! I thought. However, when I came to read this supportive and thought provoking piece, I came to find an article that exclusively supported polyfidelity and demonised any other forms. Why did it upset me so? Because I underestimated how traumatic it would be to see someone accept polyamory for all the wrong reasons. Not because it's a valid relationship style, but because "true" polyamory, the good kind' has sexual and romantic exclusivity on some level and that's what makes a "real" relationship.

Yes, the feedback on the article showed that the audience were seeing this relationship style in a new light, but only because they were privy to the experiences of a subset of polyamory which is one step away from monogamy, as well as a bunch of poly fi practitioners who actively rejected other forms of polyamory as slutting around.

Secondly, my doubts aren't about how many poly people feel they have committed relationships. I wonder about how your study is going to reflect the multiple commitments most poly people have.

Makes sense Max. Thanks.

 

[FallenAngelina]

I have about 100 acquaintances from the poly/swing/fetish/kink/BDSM community and know a bit closer around 30 of them. Aside from a few who are "solo poly" and one triad, everyone else is in a primary diad.

Swing and kink are not polyamory, even though there is sometimes crossover. Swingers by definition have a strong prohibition against anything approaching emotional intimacy outside the primary relationship. You're claiming acquaintanceship with ~130 people, most of whom have sexual boundaries outside the monogamous and vanilla norm, but are not polyamorous at all, so what your comment has to do with this discussion, I don't know.

Polyamory means many LOVES.

 

[FallenAngelina]

We have many questions that require either a legal marriage and/or the participant self-reporting being in some sort of committed relationship....

The point many of us are trying to make is that a sizable percentage of people in the poly community have several committed relationships. You're equating "married" and "committed" with "one relationship that outranks all others" and that is just not the case for many polyamorous people. It's a very important aspect in understanding the poly mindset.

It's like you're mapmakers who've come into a harbor and are asking all the captains, "Hey, how far out have you sailed before you saw the edge of the world because we want to help other sailors find their way." Some of us respond, "We've actually sailed so far that our boats have come all the way around and we think there is no such thing as the edge and that we in fact live on something that's round!" You map makers reply, "Well, that's cool you claim to have sailed all the way around, but we're interested in knowing how far out the edge of the flat world is, so we only want to talk to sailors who have approached the edge because we want to prevent others from falling off"

No need to reply. It's clear that you only want your data to answer your very specific questions in order to serve a very specific population and you're not really here to interact with or learn much about polyamory. I don't think anyone is threatened at all - just tired of the hubris of academics and researchers who claim to be trying to learn from us, but are actually just serving their own limited interests and narrow views.

 

[a109]

The point many of us are trying to make is that a sizable percentage of people in the poly community have several committed relationships. You're equating "married" and "committed" with "one relationship that outranks all others" and that is just not the case for many polyamorous people. It's a very important aspect in understanding the poly mindset.

It's like you're mapmakers who've come into a harbor and are asking all the captains, "Hey, how far out have you sailed before you saw the edge of the world because we want to help other sailors find their way." Some of us respond, "We've actually sailed so far that our boats have come all the way around and we think there is no such thing as the edge and that we in fact live on something that's round!" You map makers reply, "Well, that's cool you claim to have sailed all the way around, but we're interested in knowing how far out the edge of the flat world is, and we're really only interested in helping sailors not fall off."

No need to reply. It's clear that you only want your data to answer your very specific questions in order to serve a very specific population and you're not really here to interact with or learn much about polyamory. I don't think anyone is threatened at all - just tired of the hubris of academics and researchers who claim to be trying to learn from us, but are actually just serving their own limited interests and narrow views.

That's okay, I like to engage here. Besides, you can't really call me out for hubris and not wanting to learn, and then tell me I don't need to reply.

Re: "very specific questions" and "very specific population" - yes, exactly. This is just one small study to address specific things. It is not a survey on poly overall, or even non-monogamy, overall. It does require either a) a married partner (whether or not there is a 'primary' isn't necessary) OR a committed relationship with at LEAST one other person (could be more than one!), b) being at least 18 years old, and c) being in some sort of non-monogamous relationship now or in the past. Anyone outside that will be screened out, which may indeed be many solo poly folks. We'll be sure to point that out in the paper. Other than solo-poly folks, whom would you say we're not including... perhaps those who say none of their relationships they would describe as "committed"? Anything else we're missing?

Re: "several committed relationships" - that's fine too! You only need one - in the informed consent it says, "at least one committed relationship" - so someone could qualify for the survey if they had say, 2, 3, or 10 committed relationships. And I'm not equating being married to having a relationship that outranks all others. One might be married but that person may not be the primary, or there may not be a primary partner at all.

I'm sad that you feel we're not here to learn. I disagree with your assessment there, but so it goes. Thank you for your feedback though. It does seem you're not convinced that we are understanding your concerns, but I think we do. If not, that's too bad.

 

[a109]

So in a sense, the non-monogamous adults we are excluding are:

1. People who report ZERO committed relationships (according to their own definition/views), in addition to not being legally married to anyone.

That's it, it seems. Prioritizing one relationship over another isn't necessary. We do ask about "primary" partner(s) but it is not necessary to have one to qualify for the survey.

 

[a109]

...I don't think anyone is threatened at all - just tired of the hubris of academics and researchers who claim to be trying to learn from us, but are actually just serving their own limited interests and narrow views.

I'm glad no one here is threatened, but again, many others have been, and have even been harmed by research. So good to know about this forum.

As for the second half there, that's too bad. Yes we have limited and narrow interests and focus. It would be nice to be able to study "all the things." Given our exclusion criteria, however, I disagree that we're excluding as many people as you seem to think we are. I hope it's okay to disagree though and not have that mean hubris or that you or I are not learning from each other.

 

[FallenAngelina]

Prioritizing one relationship over another isn't necessary. We do ask about "primary" partner(s) but it is not necessary to have one to qualify for the survey.

....this study is dyad-centric. By making it so, we necessarily exclude some people and some experiences, particularly those who do not practice hierarchical relationships.

Are you or are you not looking to include the responses of people who have multiple romantic attachments that do not fall into an emotional pecking order?

 

[opalescent]

It wasn't clear at all that a prior committed relationship would have sufficed. I got the impression it was current only committed relationships that were of interest. So I answered in the negative and was screened out. If I had known prior commitments were 'in scope', I could have participated albeit with the same concerns I posted earlier.

As I'm sure you are discovering (both of you) linking legal marriage and committed relationships can tweak a nerve. 'Commitment', like 'primary', is one of those words that can be defined and experienced a bit differently than mainstream. And it is also a word that we have no 'internal' agreement on either. Again, not sure what you can do about this except be willing to listen and learn which you have to my mind.

 

[a109]

Are you or are you not looking to include the responses of people who have multiple romantic attachments that do not fall into an emotional pecking order?

If they pass the screening questions, then yes they are included. My quote above appears to be misleading now. I apologize for that - in our attempts to clarify things it became more confusing. I should have just said, "thank you" and let people self-screen via the screening questions. That's the point of them anyway. The quote from Research1 above should say, "those who practice non-hierarchical relationships AND are not legally married to anyone."

 

[a109]

It wasn't clear at all that a prior committed relationship would have sufficed. I got the impression it was current only committed relationships that were of interest. So I answered in the negative and was screened out. If I had known prior commitments were 'in scope', I could have participated albeit with the same concerns I posted earlier.

As I'm sure you are discovering (both of you) linking legal marriage and committed relationships can tweak a nerve. 'Commitment', like 'primary', is one of those words that can be defined and experienced a bit differently than mainstream. And it is also a word that we have no 'internal' agreement on either. Again, not sure what you can do about this except be willing to listen and learn which you have to my mind.

There has to be a current committed relationship, so you're right, having one in the past wouldn't count.

Re: "legal marriage" - yeah I can see who that makes some uncomfortable (not threatened though, apparently). That and "commitment" do seem to be a difficult aspect of this study.

 

[IndieSolo]

I don't think it is useful for anyone to keep on challenging or scolding the researchers here. They've explained that they are looking for a certain segment of the poly population that they frequently see coming in for therapy at their facilities. So, they've admitted that the survey has its limitations and said they will address those limitations in their conclusion. Yes, there was some confusion about what they are looking for, and no, they aren't here trying to learn about every possible poly configuration. Their scope is narrow, but for a very specific reason - they want information that will assist them in how they conduct therapy for the people who most likely would show up on their doorsteps asking for help. I think we've browbeat them enough. Let's remember they are trying to do some good for polyfolk and not make them feel unwelcome here.

 

[tenK]

For whatever it's worth, I didn't find the questions or the screening procedure weird or academically problematic given the research question. You didn't seem that interested in knowing any details about our partner(s), and all the questions seem orientated in capturing the experience of just the main respondent; if I had multiple primaries, I think it was clear that I could just imagine how I relate to those relationships overall as opposed to each on an individual basis, just as I treated other categories ('friends' 'parents' 'siblings') as collectives rather than specifics ('mum' 'dad' 'best friend'). If that's *not* what you were expecting your participant pool to do, then oops, yeah, that was unclear and you might have to factor in that people might be responding that way. I imagine if I had a really good solid relationship with one committed partner, and a crappy one with another committed partner, I might have overall replied in the 'meh, it's not all rosy' camp. I don't know how you could tease apart responses like that from the people who actually only have one committed relationship, but if your focus is just on how non-monogamy (when in (a) committed relationship(s)) affects a person's attitudes then you'd still be getting an accurate picture. You just wouldn't be able to discern anything more fine-grained than that (like, do people with more than one committed relationship feel better about non-monogamy than those with just one, or none - that would be an interesting follow up in my opinion).

The only part I struggled with was actually labelling what kind of description best fits my particular non-monogamy set-up, and figuring out the number of partners of my partners. Some of the people I see date A LOT - so I restricted my estimate only to THEIR 'committed' relationships. If I'd try to take into account their more casual liaisons I would be properly guessing. As for the shape of my relationship, in the end I went for polycule because my partner and I do date as individuals, in spite of the fact that some of our partners do overlap, triad-style. I would have felt better if some of the nodes in the polycule diagram were showing partnered individuals sharing the same other partner instead of just one long chain with spurs off (or hell, if you could have let us draw our own polycule to explain things - I can't remember if qualtrics lets you embed external code or not though). Anyhow, it seemed to me that you were trying to capture whether there was a normative thing going on ('we only date together' vs. 'we are free to date whomever we like'), so I chose accordingly. That aspect of the study could have been clearer, if so, but that's a relatively minor criticism.

That's my two cents anyway. I'm pleased you chose to focus on this area (and even more pleased you got funding to do so ) and hope you get some interesting results. Share them here when you do, eh?

 

[Dagferi]

I stopped in the middle of taking the survey because I was disgusted that my relationship with Murf was made to seem less important. I handle my relationships with my husband's differently because they are very different men.

Just because I am legally married in the eyes of the government to Butch doesn't mean that Murf is some how the inferior partner. This survey cane from a very hierarchical view point and I wasn't going to support that research.

I haven't managed to balance two separate marriages for YEARS by treating one husband as second class.