The Previous Research Project - Cyberbrides in America (Planet-Love)

[Admin]

Ada (et al):

Attached is the last "research project" which was conducted on one of the International Relations sites - over at Planet-Love.

Now that I see you are conducting most of the question/answer process through Personal Messages, I admit to feeling somewhat uncomfortable with your approach.

I think it would be more valid if you were to make use of the forum here for your research so that all might have the chance to see it.

Please consider the request.

- Dan

[TexasBoar]

Now that I see you are conducting most of the question/answer process through Personal Messages, I admit to feeling somewhat uncomfortable with your approach.

I can understand your discomfort from a proprietary point of view, Dan, but isn't it likely that people will be more forthcoming and honest if they are able to answer privately, without fear of being taken to task over every syllable, as too often happens on ANY open forum?

~Boar

[Bruno]

I can understand your discomfort from a proprietary point of view, Dan, but isn't it likely that people will be more forthcoming and honest if they are able to answer privately, without fear of being taken to task over every syllable, as too often happens on ANY open forum?

~Boar

Agree with Boar... maybe once the ADA study finish, she can publish a report on these forum... she can in so way refert to reply but keep source anonymous

[smsmsmsm]

Hi Dan,

I am a bit confused by your discomfort. I would like to know more about it. I requested the permission of members to be present on the board and thought it was fine with most of the people. I decided to request permission mainly because I did not want to deceive members and I would like to invite members to question my research project. 

As I stated, what I am interested in is understand people's thoughts, views, and desires. Yes, in addition to the public forum, I have been privately communicating with members on the board. The reason I need that is because I want to and need to contetxualize people's narratives and words. Understanding everyone's background helps me make sense of their words and thus allows me to place their narratives in context. The public forum is definitely useful. However, it is often disconnected from members' backgrounds, thus creating a situation where the words and narratives might be decontextualized. In addition to the contextual issue, I also don't lose out people who do not want to share their views in a public forum and would feel more comfortable sharing their views in private. Using both approaches seem to make more sense to me. 

I haver never harassed any members on the board. I send out an informal or formal request to them and assure them confidentiality and anonymity. They can accept or decline my invitation. Quite a few people have accepted my invitation. Some have also declined my request, which is totally fine with me. It is totally up to members to decide what they want to do. Even if they accept the invitation, they can decline to answer any questions they don't feel comfortable. I have to say that I have learned quite a bit from these private communications. All the information members have shared with me will be confidential and remain anonymous. The first principle of research is do no harm to the participants. And I take that seriously.

Throughout this process, I have been sincere about the purpose of my research and open about my motive. I have been polite and respectful. I don't feel I have anything to hide. As I mentioned to some members, I do intend to let members read the manuscript before I publish it, so you will have a sense of what I write. You can always give me feedback about my text.

I guess what I am trying to say is that I don't intend to use people here. Dan, would you elaborate on your concerns, so I have a better understanding of the issues?

Ada 

[Admin]

Hi Dan,

I am a bit confused by your discomfort. I would like to know more about it. I requested the permission of members to be present on the board and thought it was fine with most of the people. I decided to request permission mainly because I did not want to deceive members and I would like to invite members to question my research project. 

As I stated, what I am interested in is understand people's thoughts, views, and desires. Yes, in addition to the public forum, I have been privately communicating with members on the board. The reason I need that is because I want to and need to contetxualize people's narratives and words. Understanding everyone's background helps me make sense of their words and thus allows me to place their narratives in context. The public forum is definitely useful. However, it is often disconnected from members' backgrounds, thus creating a situation where the words and narratives might be decontextualized. In addition to the contextual issue, I also don't lose out people who do not want to share their views in a public forum and would feel more comfortable sharing their views in private. Using both approaches seem to make more sense to me. 

I haver never harassed any members on the board. I send out an informal or formal request to them and assure them confidentiality and anonymity. They can accept or decline my invitation. Quite a few people have accepted my invitation. Some have also declined my request, which is totally fine with me. It is totally up to members to decide what they want to do. Even if they accept the invitation, they can decline to answer any questions they don't feel comfortable. I have to say that I have learned quite a bit from these private communications. All the information members have shared with me will be confidential and remain anonymous. The first principle of research is do no harm to the participants. And I take that seriously.

Throughout this process, I have been sincere about the purpose of my research and open about my motive. I have been polite and respectful. I don't feel I have anything to hide. As I mentioned to some members, I do intend to let members read the manuscript before I publish it, so you will have a sense of what I write. You can always give me feedback about my text.

I guess what I am trying to say is that I don't intend to use people here. Dan, would you elaborate on your concerns, so I have a better understanding of the issues?

Ada

Ada,

As I told you when you first appeared here - you are far from the first to ask to conduct research on the guys here. I also told you that I have not yet seen a single well-reasoned and balanced result from ANY of those efforts - witness the "research paper" I attached to the opening post.

So long as you are doing things in a way which is not transparent, it is not possible to know if you are fairly and accurately characterizing the inputs you are receiving - and it will not be known until you publish.

Unless, of course, you are willing to pre-publish the piece here and give us full and final rights to edit. Are you willing?

If not, then we have no way of knowing HOW you will characterize what you receive - what selective edits and 'spin' you may choose to apply - and we really have no reason to believe you will be any different than the dozens who have preceeded you.

Do you now understand my discomfort?

- Dan

[Michelangelo]

Ada,

You are a researcher, so surely you realize the more collaboration you have the better and more accurate your research will be?

That's because when one person posts here and others can read it, it extends their thinking and they will say something they would never have said without that "ladder of thought."

[smsmsmsm]

Hi Dan,

I totally understand your discomfort. I am just a bit curious about the timing of your questioning. I came on the board a month ago. I am assuming that you know I have been communicating privately with members for several weeks. Is there something I did these two days that compelled your sudden distrust or concerns? I guess I should not assume that I have allayed your concerns. I thought I had been open all along.

I realize the long-standing frustrations you have with previous researchers. Members on the board have not been represented fairly. Studies after studies have reinforced the stereotypes. Why should you trust me? How do you know that I will be different? I am not sure how I can resolve these questions and addresss your doubt. After all, I am a stranger to you all. I have no solid proof except my words. By then, what makes my words particularly believable? I was hoping that, by presenting myself as a researcher right from the start and gaining permission from members, I will be able to establish certain trust between members and me. I was hoping that the permission I gained from members can legitimize my presence. In my mind, the request for permission was to establish a certain transparency throughout the process. I am not hiding behind any curtains. Instead, I made myself apparent to all for questionings like what we are doing right now.

I think it is important to point out that the article you referred to is not based on in-depth interviews of members here on the board. It is about the representation of the board and the construction of masculinity. It is content analysis of a website. If I want to perpetuate steretypes, I could have gone about doing research the same way. I can go over the archives and debates and depict people a certain way. Voila, a book or an article can be written. It would be transparent since I use "public" information. By then, is that really the transparency you are talking about here? I can abuse public information as well as private information. While transparency is an issue here, the integrity of the researcher seems to be more important.

My research is not about content analysis. What I want is to understand the views and thoughts of people. Views and thoughts that may not be available in the public forum. Narratives and words tend to be fragmented in the public forum. It can easily be decontextualized. While "the ladder of thought" is important, it fragments the flow of thought process. I do in-depth interviews in order to gain more wholistic narratives from the members since it is members themselves who construct their narratives. Private communications serve that purpose. Yes, the words members provide me are subject to readings and reactions from outsiders. Yet, that is the nature of all research studies, regardless of the content. The only way to get around it is not to be studied and known. Is that what members want though?

As I have mentioned, I do intend to share my manuscript with the members before I publish it. I will respect members' feedback and challenges. I will rethink and rewrite my text after much deliberation among us. You want to have the right to edit manuscript, which I can understand. The question is: is there a governing body that represents the members for the final say? You as an administrator? Or shall we reach a concensus among members? Is it even possible sine this is such as a heterogeneous group? Set that aside, I do believe that I, as an author, should have the ultimate authority in writing and editing the text. After all, I am not doing research on behalf of planet love or russianwomendiscussion. I am doing research as an independent scholar. I do believe that an independent research representing members fairly will be more beneficial to the group. If not, the research will simply be seen as a propaganda for planet-love or russianwomendiscussion?

I am not sure if I explained myself well enough. I welcome more thoughts from you as well as members here. I feel very much humbled by your questioning.

Ada 

[Photo Guy]

I would like to participate in Ada's study. I have reservations about the 'context' thing. I take exception to the notion that what I do, what I say, and what interests I have, are all connected with those major 'labels':
Race, gender, age, politics, and economic class.

I refuse to be categorized in that way. Why connect those aspects to the nuances of dating? What purpose would that serve?  Do we want to be defined by those categories?  ...I don't want to be.

Having said that, I would love to assist Ada in understanding the whole 'International dating' phenomenon. Those of us who have frequented this forum for a long time, have seen the lack of connection between those categories and the means and motivations of those individuals who seek Russian wives. -with one exception: Gender. Almost all of us are men seeking women.  I think that is key. Men seek RW, but hardly any western women seek RM. Hint: look at that very closely.

My fear is that I'll see a finished study where the statistics say 61% of guys seeking RW are Republicans. So? How does that provide any insight into the subject of the study?  Drawing a connection between Republicans and International dating, or between age and dating, is often irrelevant.  On the other hand, why not have a question like:  'Does your age play a role in your decision to date foreign women?'  This avoids the ptifalls of placing people in age categories, and focuses on the thinking of an individual, which will lead to greater understanding of the subject. 'What role does politics play in choosing a foreign woman?', may also be a good question.

With this subject, I am completely against the notion that statistical data is significant.
I also don't like being asked if I am a Republican or Democrat, etc. I think we should all rebel
against those categorizations. Rather, we should focus on specific concepts, ideas, and questions that
stir debate - or provide food for thought that helps the reader understand the thinking of men
who pursue Russian women. 

I'd like to know more about Ada's study. For example, -What would the table of contents be? How would the study be organized and structured?  Some of my favorite books about relationships, are structured in this way:
After introducing the subject, the book goes on to be a series of short stories about specific couples.
A section about Lena and Ben, followed by Irina and Harry, and then many more stories about specific couples. This approach can be extremely entertaining and offers the most insight into the subject.
I'd like to know how Ada's study is structured, because it will expose any 'spin'...

[Admin]

Hi Dan,

I totally understand your discomfort. I am just a bit curious about the timing of your questioning. I came on the board a month ago. I am assuming that you know I have been communicating privately with members for several weeks. Is there something I did these two days that compelled your sudden distrust or concerns? I guess I should not assume that I have allayed your concerns. I thought I had been open all along.

I realize the long-standing frustrations you have with previous researchers. Members on the board have not been represented fairly. Studies after studies have reinforced the stereotypes. Why should you trust me? How do you know that I will be different? I am not sure how I can resolve these questions and addresss your doubt. After all, I am a stranger to you all. I have no solid proof except my words. By then, what makes my words particularly believable? I was hoping that, by presenting myself as a researcher right from the start and gaining permission from members, I will be able to establish certain trust between members and me. I was hoping that the permission I gained from members can legitimize my presence. In my mind, the request for permission was to establish a certain transparency throughout the process. I am not hiding behind any curtains. Instead, I made myself apparent to all for questionings like what we are doing right now.

I think it is important to point out that the article you referred to is not based on in-depth interviews of members here on the board. It is about the representation of the board and the construction of masculinity. It is content analysis of a website. If I want to perpetuate steretypes, I could have gone about doing research the same way. I can go over the archives and debates and depict people a certain way. Voila, a book or an article can be written. It would be transparent since I use "public" information. By then, is that really the transparency you are talking about here? I can abuse public information as well as private information. While transparency is an issue here, the integrity of the researcher seems to be more important.

My research is not about content analysis. What I want is to understand the views and thoughts of people. Views and thoughts that may not be available in the public forum. Narratives and words tend to be fragmented in the public forum. It can easily be decontextualized. While "the ladder of thought" is important, it fragments the flow of thought process. I do in-depth interviews in order to gain more wholistic narratives from the members since it is members themselves who construct their narratives. Private communications serve that purpose. Yes, the words members provide me are subject to readings and reactions from outsiders. Yet, that is the nature of all research studies, regardless of the content. The only way to get around it is not to be studied and known. Is that what members want though?

As I have mentioned, I do intend to share my manuscript with the members before I publish it. I will respect members' feedback and challenges. I will rethink and rewrite my text after much deliberation among us. You want to have the right to edit manuscript, which I can understand. The question is: is there a governing body that represents the members for the final say? You as an administrator? Or shall we reach a concensus among members? Is it even possible sine this is such as a heterogeneous group? Set that aside, I do believe that I, as an author, should have the ultimate authority in writing and editing the text. After all, I am not doing research on behalf of planet love or russianwomendiscussion. I am doing research as an independent scholar. I do believe that an independent research representing members fairly will be more beneficial to the group. If not, the research will simply be seen as a propaganda for planet-love or russianwomendiscussion?

I am not sure if I explained myself well enough. I welcome more thoughts from you as well as members here. I feel very much humbled by your questioning.

Ada

My "timing" for expressing my discomfort is - when I get around to it. You may have noticed that this past week there was a formal announcement of an important new initiative for Certified Marriage Agencies. Prior to the Press Release, there was a ton of work getting prepared. Since then, I have been barraged with questions and issues coming from various sources - mostly positive, a few not.

The fact that rivardco first brought this to my attention a week or so ago - and then I received notice from a couple of members about the PM's - AND - the fact that you had agreed to the idea for the separate forum in which you would be the moderator - led me to question the motives of conducting the research primarily through PM's.

I also noted your reaction to my post - defending yourself against claims I never made. I never accused you of harassment. I never accused you of misusing the board. I expressed my discomfort and the reasons for it. When you asked for greater depth of the explanation, it was offered.

I am not trying to derail your project. I have considerable regard for some of the guys who have stepped-up to say they have met (or emailed) with you and were favorably-impressed. I continue to express reservation - and continue to believe it maybe possible to achieve your end without fear of becoming a propaganda piece for P-L or RWD. Exactly HOW that would materialize is something yet to be determined.

- Dan

[catzenmouse]

Here's a thought for the review process.

Create a private area of the board for those who are participating in the study with Ada. She can post her results/thesis there and the ones involved can react/comment on it. Might be a better way to review the finished product with a group discourse rather than with individual messages. And for those who do not wish to have their comments known to the general public this would keep it down to those who are involved.

Don't know how this will fly with the participants but just thought I would throw it out there.

Ken

[jb]

from Dan: I have not yet seen a single well-reasoned and balanced result from ANY of those efforts -

This is chiefly why I refused to take part in Ada's study.

[Admin]

I can understand your discomfort from a proprietary point of view, Dan, but isn't it likely that people will be more forthcoming and honest if they are able to answer privately, without fear of being taken to task over every syllable, as too often happens on ANY open forum?

~Boar

TB - you are correct about the privacy issues. In part, it is why I suggested creation of a specific board in which Ada could moderate. I also have the ability to create some pretty crafty 'rules' for the board which would likely protect anyone from other's abuses. For instance, we would establish this board so that no-one is able to reply to another's posts - only to their own. Ada, as Mod, would be able to question anyone - but only that person would be able to reply in that topic. And there are others.

I don't know. I am not a researcher. Been involved in some research projects a time or two - but only as a participant, not as the prime.

If the idea of the open forum flies - great. If not - well, I just cannot tell you how many DOZENS or HUNDREDS of times I have seen these sorts of things since the late '90s - and they have ALL fallen short of a fair and balanced presentation.

The mere fact that I am saying that will, no doubt, be interpreted by some as if the previous researchers were accurate and it is those of us who are warped - but I know different.

My level of distrust for this sort of thing is, admittedly, off the scales.

- Dan

[Globetrotter]

Dan, I don't know if any others have met with Ada, but I'll reiterate I was impressed with her character and sense of fairness to all.  Had I not felt so, we would have had a very general non usable discussion instead of me opening up.  If guys participate by PM or open discussion, so be it, their choice.  If they choose not to participate, that's OK too.  I don't think anyone has been disappointed with what she writes thus far, and wouldn't it be nice to see an unbiased report/book that doesn't say we're all nuts.

Hell Dan, you let her in.  Why not hand the reins to the good doctor and let her run with it?

[Michelangelo]

You are a researcher, so surely you realize the more collaboration you have the better and more accurate your research will be?

That's because when one person posts here and others can read it, it extends their thinking and they will say something they would never have said without that "ladder of thought."

It appears that Ada wants to have one to one discussions, instead of the more productive "group-think" method that would produce higher order and more accurate data.  This is worrysome to me.

[Admin]

Dan, I don't know if any others have met with Ada, but I'll reiterate I was impressed with her character and sense of fairness to all.  Had I not felt so, we would have had a very general non usable discussion instead of me opening up.  If guys participate by PM or open discussion, so be it, their choice.  If they choose not to participate, that's OK too.  I don't think anyone has been disappointed with what she writes thus far, and wouldn't it be nice to see an unbiased report/book that doesn't say we're all nuts.

Hell Dan, you let her in.  Why not hand the reins to the good doctor and let her run with it?

Well, the truth is the MEMBERS let her in - and I did not (and do not) object. The members will participate, or not, as they like.

I merely want to be absolutely clear about my reservations - and my willingness to offer some form of discourse which would be less clandestine and more open.

- Dan

[KenC]

I can understand the concern for what Ada may conclude from her research based on the crap that has come out on this subject.  I guess I keep hoping for a balanced well thought out TV report, movie, research paper or book, that one could point to and say "now, that is how it is."  Something pure without an agenda attached to it.  I guess hope springs eternal.

I don't understand how Ada could ever compile her study in an open forum though.  I have participated with her via PM's and have no worries.  She has been incredibly open and honest to this forum from the very beginning.  I tend to trust people until they give me a reason not to.  I don't know if my answers to her questions would have been any different in an open forum or not, but some people might not want their true opinions posted or they might "play for the play for the public" as my Lena likes to say.

In the end, we will either like her work or not.  If we don't like it, I guess we could do it ourselves.  But then that would also be a biased report.
KenC

[TexasBoar]

TB <snip>For instance, we would establish this board so that no-one is able to reply to another's posts - only to their own. Ada, as Mod, would be able to question anyone - but only that person would be able to reply in that topic.

Realistically, though, only if Ada and the original poster were the only ones able to read the posts would the same sense of freedom in posting hold.

We all have our little areas of mistrust.  

Granted, none of Ada's questions actually covered or produced anything I personally wouldn't have been willing to share openly, but . . . I'm a pretty open guy.  The same might not be true of all participants.

If the idea of the open forum flies - great. If not - well, I just cannot tell you how many DOZENS or HUNDREDS of times I have seen these sorts of things since the late '90s - and they have ALL fallen short of a fair and balanced presentation.

That's certainly a valid concern.  However, the story will be told, with or without us.  I think it's a good thing that we were asked to participate in the process, but, having some limited understandings of scientific methodology, don't feel we should expect to be able to control the medium of communication or direct the process toward our own desired outcomes.

I mean, sure, we all want to look good in the final report. But how realistic is THAT?  

I just hope Ada's not also over at RWG!  

Still, I come back, in thinking about all this, to comparing the Kinsey Report to the Hite Report.  Kinsey simply reported/tabulated actual behaviors, without judgement; Hite had an axe to grind, which came through both in the bias of some of her questions ("Do you enjoy making thrusting movements into women's vaginas?" still stands out in my memory) and how she interpreted their answers.

My level of distrust for this sort of thing is, admittedly, off the scales.

Well, you have more to lose.  If it's bad, and came from your board, with your permission . . . that's not going to look good, and will be damaging to the good you're trying to do here.

~Boar

[Globetrotter]

Fair enough.  Anyway, you know how I vote.

[Michelangelo]

The whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

[TexasBoar]

The whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

Harder to pin down, though. 

It would certainly be interesting to ALSO open up individual questions to open discussions, though.  For us, anyway.  I don't know enough about Ada's research or her methodology to speculate on the usefulness of the results, but I imagine it would spark some very helpful threads for noobs like myself.

~Boar

[Admin]

Harder to pin down, though. 

It would certainly be interesting to ALSO open up individual questions to open discussions, though.  For us, anyway.  I don't know enough about Ada's research or her methodology to speculate on the usefulness of the results, but I imagine it would spark some very helpful threads for noobs like myself.

~Boar

Out of curiousity, did you find anything useful in the previous study (Cyberbrides)?

Not meaning to paint Ada's with the same brush - but this *is* the history of this sort of thing.

- Dan

[Kuna]

My thoughts?

I think the questions are best asked in the privacy of email or PM's because there are some strong personalities in here that could dominate the theme or direction of discussions.

As for concerns about the reputation of this board IF members comments were misrepresented.  I think the integrity of the board is open for all to see.  Anyone who reads the report comes here they'll see the huge majority of members aren't freaks, abusers or losers.  Anyone that wants to believe otherwise will anyway!

I've had some correspondence with Ada and unless she's being intentionally dishonest I have confidence she'll take the information she's collected and portray the actual thoughts and ideas of the people here.

There is so little credible information on this process available I think it's great to contribute to something that could actually present the truth.

How Ada writes it is dependant on her integrity, not ours...  but that's something out of our control.

I hope some/all of her findings are posted in here... Maybe we'll learn something.  I imagine it'll say something like:

Men seeking International Marriages are all different types of people.  Some are sane, level headed professionals seeking love and fulfilling long term relationships, AND there's a number of repulsive SOB's that are looking for a weaker partner to control... (true?)

I was on the other board yesterday and think about this...  

Imagine if Ada didn't collect RWD members thoughts etc and she relied on people like Sm00thOperator???  I would be horrified for anyone to think he was the benchmark for men in this pursuit!

Kuna

[Bruno]

Really, we make problem from nothing...

Until now, like Dan, i have never see one valid study on the "international dating"... and what now... if the ADA work lead to a similar report like the previous one, nothing change under the sun... on the reverse, if she show the "international dating" from a other view, we have all to win...

I don't know how the situation will evolve between Dan and Ada... I have already reply to the first shoot, i will reply to the second tomorrow via PM... in case the thing become bad here, Ada can always send me her questions without using the forum... simply e-mail me at bruno.thoumsin@telenet.be

Guys, i don't understand why some are crying now... so much people seek valuable information, statistic, data... but if we "kill" the people who make so statistic, where we can find the information ?

[smsmsmsm]

Hi all,

Thanks for all the comments. I think I need to discuss a bit about my intellectual orientation and academic background so you will have a better understanding of where I am coming from.

I was trained as an ethnographer and mainly do qualitative methods. For my last research project, I conducted in-depth interviews, participated in group gatherings (participant observation), and textual analysis, etc. While I find statistics useful, that is not what I am interested in. I am interested in nuances and complexity rather than a broad depiction of a group of people. I want to make this clear. I do not dismiss the public forum discussion. I have learned quite a bit from the postings since I first started. However, public forum has its limitations, and that is where in-depth interviews come in. I lose out the depth of the individual voices if I simply depend on public forum. In-depth interviews allow me to gain individual voices and learn their life stories. I think both methods are equally valuable. In fact, they complement each other.

I did not realize that setting up a public forum would preclude me from communicating with members privately. I simply assumed that both would be fine with people. Dan, my apology if I sounded defensive. I guess I was because I really don't have any other motives than to get to know individual members better. That way I can capture their complexity as human beings. Both public forums and interviews provide me with very different information.

Am I going to guarantee that everyone is going to like my results? No. But one thing I can say is that what I learned so far deconstructs many stereotypes about men who are involved in international dating and marriage. As I have mentioned in different postings, my attempt has always been to understand the "truth" rather than proving the "theory." Of course, we always bring a certain lens into our research, but I have reminded myself to keep an open mind.

I know I won't be able to completely allay your concerns. Do know that I welcome continued challenges and questionings. After all, that is how a researcher (or a human being) grows. 

Ada   

[TexasBoar]

Out of curiousity, did you find anything useful in the previous study (Cyberbrides)?

Not meaning to paint Ada's with the same brush - but this *is* the history of this sort of thing.

- Dan

Well, to be perfectly honest, Dan, apart from the obvious femimarxist critique structure, I didn't think it was really all that far off the mark.  Unflattering and less than objective, sure.  Toploads entirely too much PoliSci 101, definitely.  But not really all that different from the subtext of what I read on the fora, from time to time.

~Boar