crack_van | For Science!

For Science!

<a href="http://fanficsurvey.appspot.com" target="_blank">
<img src="http://fanficsurvey.appspot.com/images/Banner.jpg"
alt="Fan Fiction Survey" height="256px" width="487px"/></a>

I think this is only

crack_van's 2nd off-topic post in the past six years, and so a word of explanation: Last month the neuroscientists who developed this survey got in touch with me through the comm with the idea of distributing a survey to fandom at large. They wanted to share the final data with fandom and other researchers in a fandom-controlled space, and asked if they could do so here. This research will be groundbreaking in their field, and in all of our many discussions over the past month+ they have been unfailingly respectful of fandom's traditions and concerns, and so I was happy to agree.

There's a FAQ explaining their project HERE, and feedback and discussion is invited over on

ogi_ogas's journal.

Please repost far and wide!

ETA: Please feel free to continue to comment here as desired. I've posted some additional info and my own thoughts here.

ETA 2: I WAS WRONG.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

(deleted comment)

Thanks for the link. My initial reaction to them was similar to eruthos's but we've had many discussions since and I've found them to be really sincere in their desire to understand and respect fandom. I know they're very interested in hearing feedback, as well, and are doing their best to incorporate suggestions into the survey.

That's one of the issues, though. Changing a survey as people are taking it is such a basic violation of good data collection that it calls into question all of their methodology and, in turn, their motives.

Exactly.

Good GOD those graphics are ugly.

...I mean, that's neither here nor there on the survey's merit. I'm just sayin'.

I'm really sorry you posted this here, because I took your good-faith support to mean that this survey was being done by people who understood fandom and were interested in some of the questions we've been discussing internally for years.

I found the survey questions increasingly disturbing and insidious in their underlying assumptions as I progressed through the list. I left several unanswered altogether because they were biased or non-inclusive or just plain offensive. Now I REALLY wish I'd never participated, and I've tried to go back and either eradicate or skew my answers.

Read their explanatory post, people. They're looking to fandom for evidence to support a hypothesis that that males and females are hard-wired differently:

"We're deeply interested in broad-based behavioral data that involves romantic or erotic cognition and evinces a clear distinction between men and women."

It seems to me that what they hope to provoke with this survey are the kind of answers that will fit a preconceived, highly problematic, and culturally regressive premise.

I wish this had been pointed out beforehand. I realize it was my responsibility to read the explanatory notes more closely before taking the survey, but I wouldn't even have been interested if

crack_van hadn't endorsed it. *sigh*

Ditto. I became increasingly disturbed the further I got in the survey, and I eventually went back and replaced my text box answers with, "I object to your methods and assumptions."

My thoughts exactly. I took the survey thinking it was legit and I was disappointed at the ignorant (and offensive) wording of many of the questions.

Absolutely. I went into it with good faith, even though the very first question was messed up, and the gender!fail and race!fail was pretty awful right from the start, and then gave up in disgust before I was halfway through because I couldn't stand the ignorance and bias displayed.

I am quite disappointed that crack_van endorsed this survey and encourages it to be passed around; rather, should have taken a page out of kink bingo's book, with truly exceptional and decisive refusal.

Tell me about the Race!Fail? No one mentioned it to me.

On the "what race are you" kinda question, the only options were white, black, hipanic and asian. There might have been a write in box for Other as well, I can't remember.
But that set all kinds of warnings for me; professional surveys that ask race questions usually have loads of options - I'm was particularly weirded out by them lumping Indian, Arab, Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, Pakastani etc all together under Asian, and I didn't like that you could only select one option, meaning those of mixed race either had to explain in other or pick the one the identified with most.
I mean, it was just one of those things that I picked up on being less than professional standard, and considering I was already kinda annoyed by the gender questions at the beginning, it was adding up even before they started asking about slash or whatever...

Wow. The fucking US census has better race categories than that. There are pretty standardized forms, in the US, for collecting data on race and ethnicity. Multi-racial has been an option on the US Census since 2000 and you can easily find that information on the census website (http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/race/racefactcb.html) or by talking to a Government Documents librarian (BU has one (http://www.bu.edu/library/guides/govdocs/index.html))

Nothing is quite as othering as literally having to select "I am OTHER" on a survey.

Same here. Sexism fail, heterosexism fail, potential triggers, general creepiness, and bad science. Please reconsider, Crack_Van.

Edited 2009-08-31 15:20 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I went throught that survey, and I found it deeply offensive in their assumptions. I didn't find any respect for fandom, but a deep
ignorance about what is fandom, fanfiction and slash.
I don't agree with their tesis, either. I don't believe people fit in little pretty labels.
I just posted into my LJ to advice to not take it.

You can count me as another member (and former crack van driver) who is disturbed both by the survey and by its endorsement here.

I couldn't take the survey but I have read the questions and I will second what Emily and other commenters have said.

Well, this is certainly disappointing. I don't enjoy off-topic advertisements to begin with (especially not ones with such idiotic banners), and when it's for something like this... I really can't believe you'd use this community to endorse it. They're collecting the so called data in order to sell some sleazy and untruthful book -- the proposed title, "What Netporn Teaches Us About The Brain", really says it all.

Initially, I was excited by the survey because I have been in fandom for a long time, and I like to help people out if they are doing an article or something like that. I find it so interesting to see where my readers are from, or where authors are from, and what their backgrounds are.

I took the survey with many hesitations, and afterwards regretted it. My only consolation is that a) they made changes to the questions after getting feedback, which automatically renders their data unscientific and b) internet surveys are horribly inaccurate and susceptible to abuse. That is why politicians don't use them if they want reliable data. Frankly, any publisher that would accept data with so many holes is not to be taken seriously.

My main issue is not necessarily one of academics wanting to write about fandom, but in the sheer idiocy of some of the questions. They were limiting and contained many, many assumptions.

Just my two cents.

This research will be groundbreaking in their field...

Nothing really groundbreaking about bad scientific methods. These people aren't doing research to further understand human sexuality in all its forms and formats and how fandom intersects with that; these people are interested in making a fast buck using titillation and putting people into clearly labeled boxes.

I must say I am disappointed by

crack_van's endorsement of this survey.

The survey is down now. Here's hoping it doesn't go back up, because seriously, the title of the so-called 'book'? The fact that they apparently changed some of the questions halfway through?

So that would be groundbreaking in the field of what precisely? Invalidate Any And All Data Instantly 101 maybe?

Wish I'd known the first two things before being too curious for my own good and taking the damn thing this morning.

My own feeling?

crack_van shouldn't have advertised this, let alone endorsed it.

Edited 2009-08-31 20:40 (UTC)

and edited version of the survey is still available, they just took down the link. http://fanficsurvey.appspot.com/

If you have problems accessing any of the questions, I have pdfs of each page as they stood a few hours ago.

Thanks for the info and the offer, I appreciate it. I think I'll just chalk this one up to experience, and be a tad more wary in future.

Seeing the amazing about of feedback we've received over the past 24 hours, and realizing we can't possibly process and discuss it all in a timely fashion, we've taken the survey offline while we read through all the comments and criticisms in the hope of revamping and improving the survey. It's certainly our hope and intention that the survey not only serve our own research needs, but offer something useful to fandom. With all the comments people have so generously offered, we're optimistic that if we listen carefully we can improve the survey. We still invite further comments, but please understand we're going to first try to dig through all the comments we've already received!

http://ogi-ogas.livejournal.com/3767.html

they have been unfailingly respectful of fandom's traditions and concerns

How is that possible when they're unaware of the most basic facts about fandom and fic? If they don't know that fanfic writers often write novel-length fics and care about wordcount, just to mention one issue that was raised in the comments to the survey's post, I have to doubt that they're all that savvy about our traditions.

Wordcount is included in 99% of all headers and they missed that fact; the traditions aren't listed anywhere on tablets of stone, so how come they're all clued up on them?

(deleted comment)

I'm stunned and a little sad that some people in fandom are endorsing these people. They seem to neither respect or know us.

I'd kind of like the latter state of affairs to stay that way.

I am shocked that this invitation was posted in this fine community. Dr. Ogi Ogas and Dr. Sai Gaddam from the Department of Cognitive and Neural Systems, Boston University have cobbled together a false, poorly researched and prejudicial series of questions designed to serve their own agenda (netporn has evidently warped their brains) insulting fanfiction and fanfiction writers, a subject they know very little about and a subject we, here in this comm, treasure.

I have a lot of issues with the questions as presented in Ogi Ogas's LJ. Asking about whether I believe in True Love? Puh-leeze. The very US based assumptions (the education question) despite the fact that they apparently do seek overseas opinions. The very hetero-normative questions. The fact that they have changed the questions after people have taken the survey just gob-smacks me. What sort of scientific method is that? Their replies to some of the questioners have a regrettably condescending and patronising tone.

They declare their affiliation with Boston University but Mr Ogas doesn't answer questions about the sorts of ethical permissions they've sought. They're conducting this survey for a pre-approved book deal with a 'science-lite' publisher, with 'Netporn' in the title. I don't think I would wish to be associated with this, and I feel very uncomfortable that Crack Van is being used to endorse this survey.

This survey is the shoddiest science imaginable, and it makes assumptions about us as women and as a community that are offensive and plainly wrong. I'm extremely disappointed to see it promoted here.

I have to agree that it was not wise for

crack_van to endorse this survey. So many things are wrong with it, foremost the facts that they do not know the first thing about fanfiction or its authors and that they are very condescending in their responses to those who voiced questions and concerns about the survey questions. Also, if they are writing a book about "netporn" I'm wondering why they would survey fanfiction in the first place. Are they also surveying those who produce actual "netporn" such as sites with erotic photos and webcams, spanking sites, sexual torture sites, underage sites, sites where people can meet for sex? That's what I think of when I hear the term "netporn" -- not fanfiction which can include erotica but is not usually defined as "porn."

What an insult!

Count me as another (now former)

crack_van member who feels that promoting this survey is an inappropriate use of the community. I acknowledge that you are the moderator, and it's your decision, just as it's my decision to unsubscribe.

I question the wisdom of throwing this community's support behind this extremely dodgy project. What you do on your own journal is, of course, entirely your prerogative. However, by placing everything mentioned on this community at their disposal, you've involved members who don't want to be involved with this, and have also drawn attention to fics that have been recced here whose authors might not want to make their work quite such easy prey for people who arguably have heteronormativity, fetishization and (reportedly) large amounts of money in mind rather than good scientific research.

I fall into that category of authors whose work has been recced here, and I don't want my work used in any way for their project. I don't feel that they respect those of us who are interested in slash, and I don't think that their questions or methods are sound.

Catherine

Well, then.

PS: More NCIS recs with emphasis on DiNozzo/McGee would be made of win.

I second your P.S.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

For Science!

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

"Which fictional character is your ideal mate?"

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject