Boutique Photography CA wrote:
I check out the survey, It's pretty good, but I am worried that it is still slightly skewed to discuss negative experiences rather than positive ones.  Especially questions 7 and 8.  They are only focused on negative experiences  For example the question "Have you ever experienced...: Industry advancement based on results of the shoot." is not asked, nor are any other positive outcomes that can come from a shoot mentioned.

If you want truly beneficial statistics, your survey needs to be balanced.

Generally research about labour conditions isn't all unicorns and rainbows. Frankly I don't see how a survey about why models have an awesome time modeling would be relevant -- that should be the default. The survey is looking for conditions that are aberrant and need to be changed for the workplace to be agreeable.

Colorado llama Amber wrote:
How does one take the Survey if they've never worked with you, They wouldn't know your working conditions. Might have better luck contacting the llamas you've worked with.

What?

Risen Phoenix Photo wrote:
This is a waste of time unless the OP is trying to unionize the industry. I do think bad things happen but where are the questions about how models come on set demanding, not prepared and then want to be paid.  There are two sides to this and the survey is heavily biased trying to show that models are harassed both sexually and financially .

I would love to know the OPs rational for such a survey and what her thesis is regarding the study she requesting

The questions are not biased. They say "have you ever," not "tell me about the time you were." I am looking at rates of abuse. It's relevant to know if that is 5% or 40%.

If you would like to see the rationale you are welcome to read about it.
http://insidermodel.wordpress.com/

And you may just want to do more reading in general:
http://modelalliance.org/

DayneH wrote:

The questions are not biased. They say "have you ever," not "tell me about the time you were." I am looking at rates of abuse. It's relevant to know if that is 5% or 40%.

OP,

Surely you understand that this statement alone shows that there is certainly bias and an agenda in your survey, don't you?

DayneH wrote:
thank you for responding! I hope to have some results soon! So far the sample size is about 10 away from being viable!

I'm not sure what "viable" means in a statistical sense, but certainly this is nothing like a random sample.

salvatori. wrote:
OP,

Surely you understand that this statement alone shows that there is certainly bias and an agenda in your survey, don't you?

Kind of a targeted survey recruiting on here and definitely sounds like something with an agenda to me, but whatever.  I'd actually be curious to see the difference in regular MM models and agency models.  That could be interesting.

Will Snizek wrote:
Kind of a targeted survey recruiting on here and definitely sounds like something with an agenda to me, but whatever.  I'd actually be curious to see the difference in regular MM models and agency models.  That could be interesting.

I am both, but so far I haven't seen much of a difference. It happens in different ways, but at all levels of the industry.
http://www.fashionologie.com/Sara-Ziffs … ld-3271323

DayneH wrote:
Ok,

1. I have recruited all over the place for llamas, not just here. If I am doing a survey of llamas, I recruit where llamas go. I work with two agencies and have also recruited llamas that way. I am looking at several levels of the industry.
2. Statistically I am looking for 95% confidence level, and a confidence interval of 5. This means that based on an estimated population of 300 000 I need a sample size of 384. If you are a statistician feel free to double-check my math.
3. If llamas haven't experienced any of these negative things, they skip the question. If you want to do research about how many photographers have bad experiences with llamas, you are welcome to do that, but it's not relevant to the scope of this study.
4. There is no such thing as unbiased research or truly random sampling. Surely you know that most research is done on college students getting paid $5 to do something like dip their hand in a bucket of water and then tell a lie (or whatever). I studied this for years in school and have also done it at work.

So you admit there is no such thing as accurate, random or unbiased research, but are doing a survey anyway. Got it.

O_o

And this line cracks me up: 'If llamas haven't experienced any of these negative things, they skip the question...'

Why don't you just go to the local Woman's Center and be done with it? You agenda is pretty clear (considering you aren't even interested in hearing from people who haven't had negative experiences), so I'll save you the trouble...

Yes, most all male photographers buy a shitload of expensive equipment, train for years at their craft, all to see lady bits and fondle women.

salvatori. wrote:

So you admit there is no such thing as accurate, random or unbiased research, but are doing a survey anyway. Got it.

O_o

And this line cracks me up: 'If models haven't experienced any of these negative things, they skip the question...'

Why don't you just go to the local Woman's Center and be done with it? You agenda is pretty clear (considering you aren't even interested in hearing from people who haven't had negative experiences), so I'll save you the trouble...

Yes, most all male photographers buy a shitload of expensive equipment, train for years at their craft, all to see lady bits and fondle women.

You are projecting so badly here

A-M-P wrote:
You are projecting so badly here

My earlier replies were serious. From the replies that the OP has given, I sense that the survey is ridiculous, biased and contains an agenda, which isn't hidden very well.

The OP continues to argue her points, I used sarcasm to counter.

As your previous reply stated, photographers shouldn't have bothered to answer her thread; hence you don't have to comment on my replies.

EDIT: just realized that I am not sure of your tone or intentions, so it may be best to disregard or accept the fact that I had a really long weekend and am tired and not thinking all that clearly... lol

A-M-P wrote:
Why the hell are photographers responding to this thread let the models answer their survey and that's it. You guys always reply only to nitpick as if this survey somehow affects them.

I am also curious as to why there is so much vitriol. Surely it benefits everyone serious about their craft to attempt to have accurate information about the industry in which they work.

DayneH wrote:
... I would love to see lower figures on this study because that would mean fewer people are being hurt..

No, it would not mean that - and this gets at why your survey is getting criticism.

You don't ask a single question about models actually getting hurt.  You ask a number of questions about stalking, harassment, etc. without providing any quantifying defiinition as to what these mean, leaving it to the person taking the survey to self identify these terms.  You also don't really ask anything about either the severity or the frequency of these things, only if they have ever occured.

That's like doing a survey to find out how bad violence is in a culture by simply asking people if they've ever been struck.  Someone who was spanked once as a child and someone who is regularly beaten to a pulp, needing drastic medical attention could both answer yes to that question.

I regularly provide such data to a national database.  The data includes a minimum standard for what constitutes an injury or a crime.  (some measure of severity), it also includes total user days and then the number of accidents per user day - giving a measure of frequency.  In contrast, in your survey, you don't define the terms you use, you don't have any minimum standard, you don't ask about the number of incidents and you don't ask about the total quantity of modeling done in relation to this.  Again, you ask nothing about whether a model was actually hurt or not.

If you will find this survey information personally interesting, that's great, but don't feel it will give you any objective insights into the frequency or severity of models getting hurt or even how often they are seriously harassed.  Your survey does not give the definitions or ask the questions to give you any objective measure of this information.

Abbitt Photography wrote:
That's like doing a survey to find out how bad violence is in a culture by simply asking people if they've ever been struck.  Someone who was spanked once as a child and someone who is regularly beaten to a pulp, needing drastic medical attention could both answer yes to that question.

That is completely a false equivalency. "Have you ever experienced sexual assault by an employer (while working as a model)... if so, describe the experience." is not "have you ever been struck (in your entire life)."

I am not averse to educated questions being asked about the research, but again, if you are curious about my methods, perhaps it's better to ask "what stage of the research is this?" or "how do you plan on addressing this?" rather than attempting to give me an education in my own field in a model forum.

In Balance Photography wrote:
Where will we be able to read the results of your research?

As I posted above, I am doing a series here with informal reports on progress, and also just article drafts/sketches.
http://insidermodel.wordpress.com/

After that it's material for a thesis, so I will put a link up to the full published study on the blog once it's properly vetted.

DayneH wrote:

As I posted above, I am doing a series here with informal reports on progress, and also just article drafts/sketches.
http://insidermodel.wordpress.com/

After that it's material for a thesis, so I will put a link up to the full published study on the blog once it's properly vetted.

By publishing intermediate results (as well as the commenting here) are you concerned that independent of actual effect that it would provide more data for those that question the objectivity of study?