Working Thesis Proposal

The term “fandom” is used to describe a group of people who share a common interest in a form of entertainment, whether a television show, sport, movie, book or other type of mass media. In recent years, fandom has developed beyond the conventions and fanzines of earlier years into communities on the internet. For researchers interested in working with a self-organized community of like-minded people, fandom in general is an attractive option as a study group, regardless of the specific interests of individual fen (plural of fan), because of the size of the population. One large drawback is that fandom comprises a vast majority of women (some estimates put the population at upwards of 98 percent female), so studies would necessarily be gender specific. Another problem for ethical researchers is that a significant number of fen are under the age of eighteen and unable to give consent to participate in research.

Ethos
In July 2009, two researchers, Ogi Ogas and Sai Gaddam, representing themselves as being affiliated with Boston University [http://shaggirl.livejournal.com/185387.html, posted 19 Jul 2009], approached several members of fandom, one of whom was Shaggirl, to ask for assistance in promoting a research study they intended to conduct to provide data for a book they had already been contracted to write. Ogas and Gaddam told Shaggirl the book was about “how the Internet reveals new insights into some of the oldest circuits in our brain which control romantic attraction and sexual behavior” [shaggirl post, 19 Jul 2009]. The language they used was scientific and respectful, which seemed at odds with the casual slang found in the title of the book, Rule 34: What Netporn Teaches Us About The Brain (the book has since been retitled Rule 34 [http://www.gailross.com/project_health.htm]).

Ogas and Gaddam told Shaggirl in their preliminary communications “we’re quite interested in learning about how people creatively use text and fiction to express and explore sexuality. If you’re willing, we’d like to ask questions about Crack Van and about adult fanfic in general. If you’d like, we’d be happy to include a positive mention of you and/or Crack Van in the book (or respect your privacy, if you’d prefer)” [Shaggirl post, 19 Jul 2009], setting up a pattern of communication designed to engender confidence, trust and open communication.

As Shaggirl later reported [http://shaggirl.livejournal.com/190980.html, posted 2 Sept 2009], Ogas continued to present himself as genuinely interested in fandom as she tried to work with him and Gaddam to develop appropriate survey questions that would engage fandom’s interest and give the researchers the answers they needed. “He was always so nice and enthusiastic about his research,” she wrote, adding that she apologized to him for not articulating fandom’s concerns more clearly [Shaggirl post, 2 Sept 2009].

Pathos
When the survey went live on August 30, 2009, it was with Shaggirl’s full and enthusiastic cooperation. The banner they used for the survey included a screen shot from Harry Potter as well as a publicity still from Buffy: The Vampire Slayer, both fairly large fandoms. The images had been altered with an overlay of a human brain on two of the characters, and, the banner’s top line read, “Does Your Fandom Have a Sexy Brain?” Combined with the remainder of the text, the banner was designed to appeal to a broad cross-section of fandom, and it worked. Ogas later told Shaggirl that they had received over two thousand responses to the survey in the brief time it was up. Though the number is suspect based on Ogas’ behavior during and after the storm of negative commentary, it seemed clear from the number of negative responses later aimed at Ogas and Gaddam that a large number of fen had, in fact, been swayed by the emotional appeal of the banner.

Image copyright 2009, Ogi Ogas and Sai Gaddam

Logos
The “About” page of the survey (which has since been deleted) had this to say about the survey:

The structure and activity of our subcortical circuits are shaped by neurohormones such as testosterone, estrogen, oxytocin, progesterone, and vasopressin; these circuits function differently in men and women. As cognitive neuroscientists, we draw upon a wide variety of empirical data sources to model these circuits, including brain imaging studies, primate research, cognitive science experiments, machine learning algorithms–and behavioral data. The Internet offers large, unprecedented sources of data on human activity: one of these data sets is fan fiction.

We’re deeply interested in broad-based behavioral data that involves romantic or erotic cognition and evinces a clear distinction between men and women. Fan fiction matches this criteria perfectly. [http://fanlore.org/wiki/Surveyfail]

Issues of the validity of their research aside, Ogas and Gaddam failed to address their audience with clear, understandable language. Instead, they used the language of science and research, and whether intentional or not, their language choice obscured their meaning for the average reader. It also implied a high level of knowledge on their part and was generally designed to build trust that they knew their subject matter well and that the reader need not worry about that aspect.

Justice
Initially, there was broad and widespread support for the survey. Fen posted links to the online questionnaire in their LiveJournal or Dreamwidth accounts and dutifully went to answer the questions. Within twenty-four hours, however, enthusiasm for the research turned into antagonism toward the researchers. One of those responsible for the change of heart was Eruthros, who on August 31, 2009, posted a request that fen not take the survey. As moderator of the popular Kink Bingo challenge and as a fan who was fairly well read in the subject of fan studies, Eruthros had sufficient standing within the community to be heard when she called for a halt to participation in the research.

In her post, Eruthros included the messages she had received from Ogas and Gaddam as well as her replies. Essentially, she responded in kind to their technical language and picked apart not only their request for assistance but also their stated intent for the research. Rather than address her concerns directly, Gaddam responded with a fairly lengthy description of neuroscience in an apparent attempt to avoid acknowledging her concerns. Her final comments to Gaddam were:

Some helpful tips for luring unsuspecting minority groups into being the focus of your studies in the future:

• don’t consistently refuse to actually tell them what your book is about (the announcement on your agent’s site isn’t exactly informative)
• don’t repeatedly refer to your own research methods as hasty
• don’t ignore the signs that the people you’re communicating with might not be merely objects of your research — when we say we are queer theorists, you might want to look that up and realize that we are aware of the historic DSM criteria for homosexuality and the continuing DSM criteria for paraphilias

[http://eruthros.dreamwidth.org/273840.html, posted 31 Aug 2009].

That same day, comments on Ogas’ LiveJournal posts (now deleted) started to reflect fandom’s increasing concern over not only the intent of the research but also the language of the questions, which started with a binary gender question and moved onto questions involving sexual behavior, personal kinks and rape fantasies [Fanlore]. Complaints from fen were largely met with silence. Given that there was no evidence of a mechanism to prevent underage fen from participating, concerns grew quickly, and word of the problematic survey spread even more quickly. By September 2, 2009, the survey had been removed, and by September 7, 2009, Ogas had not only deleted all of the comments he had made in Shaggirl’s journal posts and elsewhere, but he had also deleted his own LiveJournal account.

Although much of Ogas’ and Gaddam’s text was deleted, enough was saved by way of screen captures and copy-and-pasted text that it is possible to analyze the rhetoric they used to ensure buy-in from fandom, their subject population. In many ways, the discourse that took place between the researchers and their subject population resembled the conversations that took place before the Challenger launch and the invasion of Iraq, with fandom taking on the role of the engineers/field agents and the researchers taking on the role of management. When fandom articulated its concerns not only about the survey but the research itself, particularly with regard to the well-being of any minors who might happen upon the survey, the researchers either chose not to respond or responded with offensive language. Additionally, it eventually came out that contrary to their initial claims of affiliation with Boston University, the research itself was not sanctioned by the institution. In response to requests for information from the Institutional Review Board at Boston University, Deadlychameleon was told that neither Ogas nor Gaddam had any affiliation with Boston University except as recent graduates [http://deadlychameleon.livejournal.com/230809.html, posted 2 Sept 2009).

In hindsight, it seems apparent that Ogas and Gaddam crafted their language to engender trust and a sense of mutual respect. Had their research taken place offline, it’s quite possible that they could have received the response they hoped for. What happened instead was that their subject population, a group well used to communicating online, came together en masse to decry the survey language as well as the science behind the research. The fannish response was so strong and vitriolic that ultimately, Ogas and Gaddam removed both the survey and themselves from LiveJournal. This paper will review the available communications from both Ogas and Gaddam as well as the response of fandom to their statements, using Aristotelian rhetoric as a baseline criterion for measuring the effectiveness of each side’s communication.