Hi all,
I’m a fifth-year graduate student at Stanford University and I’m looking to interview men between ages 18 and 34 living in the United States who identify as men's rights activists/advocates. The purpose of the project is to understand participants’ experiences as men and their understandings of what it means to be a man in today’s world. My goal is to learn about personal experiences relating to the Internet, school, work, family, dating, and marriage.
I know from speaking with other men's rights activists and advocates, as well as the mods here, that there are many justified concerns about privacy and being misrepresented. Although I don't think I can totally convince anyone that my motives are sound, I can say the following: (1) The interview is confidential, meaning your personal information (including your name) will be altered so that you cannot be identified. You don't need to tell me your real name if you prefer. (2) I have interviewed nearly 30 men's rights activists so far, many of whom shared very personal and troubling stories with me. I will not misrepresent their experiences, nor will I misrepresent yours. Out of concerns for misrepresentation, some of my participants have asked for a recording of our interview and I have shared it with them. I would be happy to do the same for you.
Interviews would last between one and two hours and would be conducted over the phone. Participants will be reimbursed for their time with a $25 gift card to Amazon.com. Interviews will be recorded, but, as I said, personally identifiable information will be kept confidential. If you're interested, you can PM me or email me at [email protected].
Please feel free to reach out to me with any questions.
Thank you,
Emily Carian [email protected] https://www.linkedin.com/pub/emily-carian/75/243/244 https://sociology.stanford.edu/people/emily-carian
[–]iainmf 3 points4 points5 points (13 children) | Copy Link
[–]shit-zen-giggles 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]emgrad14[S] 0 points1 point2 points (11 children) | Copy Link
[–]iainmf 2 points3 points4 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]emgrad14[S] -1 points0 points1 point (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]iainmf 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]emgrad14[S] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]madmaxf1 points [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link
Normally I wouldn't post in the mensrights sub, I just lurk around at times. Occasionally there are interesting posts. Some of it I agree with and some I don't. A portion of the posts here do feel borderline(at sometimes not borderline) offensive. But some do highlight real issues. For some reason, your post here hit a chord with me.
Do you feel like your original post is a bit deceitful? You structured it in such a way to appear as an alley, but you obviously have some preconceived ideas about the men and women here. Have your opinions changed or was your post worded in a way to attract subjects?
In the aforementioned paper, you state this group consists of "low-status" men. I see three issues with this;
2a) Could it be "high-status" men have a bit more to lose if their opinions are made public? Many companies have very strict social media policies.
2b) In my experience men of "higher-status" are generally a bit more busy as well as more selective about how they spend there time. Is it possible your sample group is tainted by this?
2c) Your "compensation" is a $25 gift card to Amazon. As a somewhat successful man, if I saw value and trusted in what you were doing I may take part, but I would tell you to keep your $25. When you achieve a certain level of success, 25 bucks just doesn't have much weight. Is it possible that your compensation rate is attracting what you would label as "low-status" men?
I do respect you for owning the fact that is your article, but question your motives and intent.
[–]emgrad14[S] 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]madmaxf1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]shit-zen-giggles 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]emgrad14[S] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Leinadro 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]emgrad14[S] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]shit-zen-giggles 3 points4 points5 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]emgrad14[S] 1 point2 points3 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]shit-zen-giggles 3 points4 points5 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]emgrad14[S] 0 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]shit-zen-giggles 1 point2 points3 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Leinadro 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]shit-zen-giggles 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]William__F0ster1 points [recovered] (6 children) | Copy Link
I am too old to be included in that age range (and am European in any case so even if I was I doubt I would be suitable) but ... I am very curious and feel compelled to ask - why did you select 18-34 as the age range?
I'm not saying it's wrong and in any case you may have good reason not to respond, but if it is not confidential I would be very interested to know the reasoning behind that.
[–]Imnotmrabut 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]emgrad14[S] 1 point2 points3 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]iainmf -1 points0 points1 point (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]emgrad14[S] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]shit-zen-giggles 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]shit-zen-giggles 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]omegaphallic 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]creationlaw -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Leinadro -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link