Open Letter to Researchers

[Lord Happy Toast]

As part of Asexual Awareness Week 2011, we wrote an Open Letter to Researchers, although it ended up not getting finished on time.

Open Letter to Researchers:

We believe that researchers have an invaluable role to play in promoting understanding of asexuality, and that a better understanding of asexuality will promote a richer understanding of human sexuality more generally. Prior to the creation of online asexual communities in the early 2000s, the study of asexuality was largely limited to isolated case reports with no means of doing more systematic research. Thanks to the growth of online communities—and increasingly offline communities as well—the possibilities for researching asexuality have grown enormously, and an increasing number of people in a variety of disciplines are studying it. As members and allies of the asexual community, we are committed to promoting research on asexuality and working with researchers in a variety of fields. Based on our experience in the asexual community, we have a number of observations and recommendations

1) People studying asexuality often face a tension between wanting to using existing instruments and developing new ones. Often, the former have already been validated (on very different populations) and using existing instruments allows for comparison with previous research. However, the possible answers to closed questions are limited to the range of variability that was expected/taken into account when creating the survey. Because the existence of asexuals was not taken seriously in the creation of many existing instruments, results from asexuals taking such surveys may be very misleading.

Therefore, if existing instruments are used, the fact that they have been validated on other populations should not be taken to indicate they are valid for asexuals. Crunch the numbers, but also keep in mind that measures of internal consistency (e.g., Cronbach alpha) assess psychometric reliability and neither determine construct validity nor content validity. Verifying an instrument’s construct (or content) validity is a lengthy process that cannot rely strictly on statistical means (Cronbach & Meehl, 1955). It is crucial that researchers consult with asexual people (e.g., in focus groups) in order to determine whether an instrument assesses relevant or sufficient aspects of the construct of interest.

2) The above described problems are especially applicable for many surveys on sexual function/dysfunction, which may make assumptions that are not true for many asexuals, with the result that asexuals are often confused by some of the questions, uncertain how to answer, and feel that they are being forced to misrepresent themselves. This is regularly seen in discussion in threads where calls for participants are posted. Such confusion rises because of assumptions about previous sexual experience and problematic assumptions about sexual desire.

Therefore, the possibility for feedback should be given. In traditional experimental contexts, this is often done in exit interviews. For online research, textboxes may be used. This is necessary for understanding if people’s responses accurately reflect how they feel or if the responses are an artifact of confusing questions for which none of the responses seems accurate. Participant feedback should be taken seriously when interpreting the results. This feedback should also be used not only to help interpret the results, but also to assess the instrument’s validity. Our experience has been that for many existing instruments, many asexuals feel that they must either discontinue participation or repeatedly misrepresent themselves questions about sensitive subjects (e.g. sexuality), which can cause distress. If this is likely to occur, it should be discussed in the consent form.

More generally, it is important for researchers–nonasexual researchers in particular–to try to understand asexual participants in ways that makes sense from asexual perspectives. This is analogous to how heterosexual researchers studying lesbian, gay, bisexual or otherwise non-heterosexual participants should avoid imposing their own heterosexual perspectives and heteronormative assumptions upon participants. Researchers studying asexuality should make every reasonable attempt to become familiar with asexuality and the asexual community beyond the narrow confines of their research. This can be done by consulting directly with asexual people and by reading products of asexual self-expression (e.g., diverse blog posts, zine articles, etc.). Because of the role that the internet has played in enabling the creation of asexual communities, a great deal of asexual-produced materials about asexuality are online, and navigating these online spaces can be daunting for researchers, especially ones not overly familiar with new media technologies. Talking to people familiar with asexual online spaces may be helpful for researchers wanting to familiarize themselves with asexual discourse.

3) In asexual discourse, it is common to distinguish between sexual attraction and sexual desire. Many asexuals masturbate, and one way of explaining this is with a concept of “undirected sex drive,” where the idea is that desire for sexual release exists, but it is not directed at anyone. Because of this, many asexuals are confused by questions about “sexual desire,” unsure about whether this means desire for sexual release and desire for partnered sexual behavior.

Therefore, the meanings of potentially confusing terms (e.g. “sexual desire”) should be made clear to participants.

4) Another major problem with sexual function/dysfunction questionnaires is that they assume everyone fits neatly into a strict gender binary. However, existing data (Asexual Visibility and Education Network [AVEN], 2009; Asexual Awareness Week, 2011; Brotto et al., 2009) suggests that between 5-20% of people active in online asexual communities do not. Systematically excluding these people is ethically questionable and methodologically very problematic.

Therefore, gender diversity in the asexual community should be taken seriously in research designs. If you do rely on instruments that require people to choose either a male-version or a female-version, this should be made clear when explaining eligibility for the study. In order to prevent negative attitudes towards the researchers, explaining the reason for this decision is advisable.

5) Some–but not all–people identifying as asexual feel that they are “not sexual.” Another way of understanding “asexual” is on analogy with hetero- homo- and bisexual, where asexuals are people who do not experience sexual attraction. Asexuals vary in terms of their understanding of asexuality. Since early in the asexual community, many have been uncomfortable with the term “asexual,” but people have been unable to find a term that is widely preferred. Moreover, the term has gained considerable currency over the past decade, and some use it for lack of a better term.

Therefore, it should not be assumed that everyone identifying as “asexual” feels that they are “not sexual.” This is a matter that must be investigated, not accepted a priori.

6) Many studies on asexuality have recruited participants online. The largest online asexual community is the Asexual Visibility and Education Network (AVEN), and many researchers have recruited there. In March 2011, AVEN created a set of policies for researchers wanting to recruit from AVEN. Interested parties are encouraged to read these policies (AVEN, 2011).

We believe that taking these into consideration can help to facilitate research on the asexuality and to help researchers avoid mistakes that are easy to fall into.

Sincerely,

Asexual Awareness Week 2011 Committee

References:

Asexual Visibility and Education Network. (2009). AVEN Survey 2008 – Results. Retrieved 11/6/2011 from http://www.asexuality.org/home/2008_stats.html

Asexual Visibility and Education Network. (2011). Rules for research requests: New policy. Retrieved 11/6/2011 from http://www.asexuality.org/en/index.php?/topic/59868-rules-for-research-requests/

Brotto, L. A., Knudson, G., Inskip, J., Rhodes, K., & Erskine, Y. (2010). Asexuality: A mixed methods approach. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39 (3), 599-618.

Asexual Awareness Week. (2011). Results of the asexual community census 2011. Retrieved 11/6/2011 from http://www.facebook.com/notes/asexual-awareness-week/results-of-the-asexual-community-census-2011/208581089214485

Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological test. Psychological

Bulletin , 52 (4), 281-302.