Discovering A-spec Identity Survey

[Neir]

Here is the second survey @Magni and I are running. This is a broad a-spec survey, so it’s not just for aros - it’s for aros, aces, a-specs, and all grey or questioning folks on any of those spectra. If you are aro only, ace only, or a-spec only, you are just as welcome to participate as aroaces - there will be questions about your other identities as well. 

 

The survey will ask you about your experiences learning about your identity. The purpose of this survey is to understand how a-spec people came to learn about their identities and how they define them for themselves. We want to collect data and narratives so that we can understand how best to engage each demographic in things like outreach and discussions.

 

It is entirely optional to participate. There are a few questions in this survey that require you to write in your own words - feel free to be as brief or as lengthy as you’d like, using whatever kind of register you’re most comfortable with. It does not have to be a formal essay or in complete sentences - just your thoughts. You may also stop participating at any time, for any reason.

 

If you are interested in participating, CLICK HERE.

 

Feel free to boost this survey on other channels. If you do, please include the blurb above.

 

Thank you.

[nonmerci]

I answered.

[Mark]

"When did you first start identifying as aromantic?" with the option of "before 1970" does not really make sense.
Possibly if there was a question like "When did you first realise your attitudes towards relationships and romance differed from those of most people?"

[Neir]

@Mark Thanks for the feedback! The problem with the second question is that are non-aros to whom that question could apply. Or, feelings that an aro might have had that are different from their aro experience that would fit into those words. E.g., People who vow to be single regardless of their attraction (bachelors, spinsters, etc.). I fit that example before and after identifying as aro, and it's not an aro-specific experience for me. Using the identity-centered question is a way we could be explicit that this was about aro-ness.

 

The reason we have the years go back so far is for between-question consistency (ace and a-spec questions have the years go back that far). It's entirely arbitrary.

[Coyote]

On 8/20/2019 at 3:19 PM, running.tally said:

This is a broad a-spec survey, so it’s not just for aros - it’s for aros, aces, a-specs, and all grey or questioning folks on any of those spectra. If you are aro only, ace only, or a-spec only, you are just as welcome to participate as aroaces - there will be questions about your other identities as well. 

 

I was talking to a friend of mine who took this and after I mentioned why I wasn't, I realized I had a question about your target population here. You refer to them in this post and in the Tumblr post as "a-spec" people, but your elaboration only mentions aros and aces. Are you intending the concept of the "a-spectrum" to include aplatonic people, as well?

[Neir]

@Coyote Yes! The aro and ace mentions were examples.

Though, full disclosure, I hadn't thought about the possibility of someone being a-spec and not aro or ace (e.g., aplatonic but not aro or ace). There is a write-in possibility and commenting as an option in the general a-spec category but you make a good point about explicit inclusion we had missed when planning. Thanks for the comment - I like running surveys precisely because I can get feedback like this.

[Mark]

On 8/26/2019 at 2:48 PM, running.tally said:

@Coyote Yes! The aro and ace mentions were examples.

Though, full disclosure, I hadn't thought about the possibility of someone being a-spec and not aro or ace (e.g., aplatonic but not aro or ace). There is a write-in possibility and commenting as an option in the general a-spec category but you make a good point about explicit inclusion we had missed when planning. Thanks for the comment - I like running surveys precisely because I can get feedback like this.

I wonder if there is a way to "beta test" surveys.
Since these kind of issues are not uncommon. I've encountered those which are impossible to complete, due to logical fallacies, but are unfixable because of "sunk costs".

[Coyote]

2 hours ago, running.tally said:

Though, full disclosure, I hadn't thought about the possibility of someone being a-spec and not aro or ace (e.g., aplatonic but not aro or ace).

 

Yeah, see, I wouldn't have thought so either, but then I had a conversation with someone who used to run an aplatonic twitter account -- who told me that they didn't ID as aro or ace at the time. Just aplatonic. So while I imagine that's a fairly small population, I can't say it's never happened. And I imagine some of those folks, if they encounter this survey, would be dissuaded from taking it by the presentation that frames it as solely for aros and aces. So... worth being aware of that difference between your intentions and the respondents you're probably getting, I figure.

 

Anyway. In between now and my last post, I got to talking with a few more people about the survey, and they told me they had some more issues with trying to take it, due to the way the questions were constructed. Should I PM you about that or explain here?

 

2 minutes ago, Mark said:

I wonder if there is a way to "beta test" surveys.

 

There is. That's what I did with Siggy last month before I released the Romantic Ambivalence Survey.

[Neir]

Beta testing sureys is difficult because the only way we'll be able to foresee everything is if we open beta to everyone. Not many people have that time.

It may help to know that this survey was looked at by more than just me and Magni. I suspect that aro and aro-related surveys are having a lot of growing pains right now because there aren't many out there yet. This is very common in the beginnings of research.

 

As for comments, some of these we may be aware of but haven't had the means to respond to yet (I've been away the whole weekend with only limited mobile access). Go right ahead and PM me though, Coyote, and I would definitely encourage individuals to PM or contact me via email if they want to as well.

 

Ultimately there is no way a survey will be perfect, no matter the number of iterations/replications, beta testers, years of forethought, or makeup of the research team. But there is always room for improvement and things we can learn that will be useful for future work (even if not on the exact same topic).

Thanks everyone for your interest in this current research and in helping us understand our communities better.

[Neir]

A boost for October.  

[Neir]

This survey has closed. We received 923 responses; thank you to everyone who participated!

 

For those of you who started answering but didn't get to finish, you still have 2 weeks to complete the survey.

 

Analyses will come after that.

[Mark]

13 hours ago, running.tally said:

For those of you who started answering but didn't get to finish, you still have 2 weeks to complete the survey.

Do you know how many people this involves and which question they stopped at?

This might itself be useful data.

[Neir]

On 11/12/2019 at 6:33 AM, Mark said:

Do you know how many people this involves and which question they stopped at?

 

Still waiting and haven't crunched the numbers yet, but yes, we will know this.  Percentage of participants who started vs. completed is standard to report, as well, so you'll see it. If there's a pattern to the questions stopped at, I agree it's useful data. In a previous survey I ran, participants who stopped typically did so after the first question, so it wasn't very interesting - I just assumed they changed their minds about participating. If something different happens here, it'd be interesting to see.