Okay, here's a short thread of my thoughts on the research that was included in the WSJ article. Before I even start, if you have not read the paper, read it first before you read my thread. Here is the link to do so. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MLfxIyKSODsTPVw3sRIYZ9sfCWH_G14qUboO6pPmNRc/edit?usp=drivesdk

Okay, now, an interview on what ARMYs think about BTS merch and how often it releases is a great premise. But this paper reports the findings of a semi-structured interview of ARMYs who have purchased merch before. I'll come back to this point later.

This is the sample size used for this study, and, as I have said before, 19 people is an incredibly small sample size to use for a fandom this big. I think the biggest issue people had with this was this sample size was treated as representative of the whole fandom.

We are millions strong, so to package this as the opinions of all ARMYs is unwise, especially to an official publication. I would have recommended reaching out to way more people than just 19 to really make sure all my bases are covered (or at least most of them).

I personally disagree with the idea that HYBE is "sitting on our ticket money" because everyone is 100% free to refund their concert tickets and have been for over a year. So I'm not sure what this fan means by "juicing money".

On top of that, HYBE is still a company and something a lot of people forget is that they're also suffering from the pandemic. So naturally, they're going to keep releasing merchandise between comebacks so they can earn more money to fund more projects and pay their workers.

And I honestly would have liked to see this discussion about quality expanded on to at least see what products people feel aren't worth the money and which ones are and why. But that's just my personal preference.

This was also an opinion I don't get, because, as someone who wasn't able to buy some of this merch and also doesn't live around any pop up shops, I was glad when Weverse released this merch. I'm not sure why this person thought releasing BTSilence merch was low either.

In terms of the methodology, I don't feel like a qualitative method was appropriate for this research. I would have much rather preferred a survey. That way, you can reach more people and you have objective data to analyze.

Given how big our fandom is, relying on the interviews of 19 people is not as credible, as I can interview 19 other people and their opinions could fully contradict this sample's. With so many ARMYs in the fandom, this lack of consistency is too risky.

Also, snowballing? For anyone who doesn't know what that is, it's a method of sampling where you basically recruit participants, ask them to recruit participants, and so on until you've got your desired sample size. For a study like this, I wouldn't recommend doing that.

I honestly think that this sampling method contributed to the ethnocentric demographic of the sample as well. People from North America and Mexico probably just recruited their friends who are also from North America and Mexico which led to a lack of participant diversity.

To summarize, I agree that WSJ overexggerated the study a bit and it was unprofessional on their part to try and use this study's sample as the spokespeople of all ARMYs. But at the same time, I think the findings of this study shouldn't have been shared with WSJ from the get-go.

And despite this study's methodology needing some revisions, Emily is not at fault for the responses she received and it is entirely the responsibility of the 19 people who were interviewed. I believe she had good intentions with her research but it just can't be applicable.

And those who are helping get her side of the story out aren't in the wrong for doing so, even if I dont agree with the findings of the paper. Honestly, I think this should be a learning experience for Emily and not a means to cancel her or anyone who vouched for her.

If any of you are sending her or anybody she has spoken with threats or rude comments, you are a part of the problem and I'm going to be reporting you as well. She seems to be someone very willing to accept feedback and so you should take advantage of that, not attack her.

I'm sure she'll take what advice people have given her into consideration and come back with better research but you have to give her time and patience. And I'm sure she knows now not to just give results to a big publication like that.

So feel how you want about the study, but be careful about how you speak to her. I know it can be frustrating, but as someone who has also conducted research, I understand her situation a bit more.

But those are my thoughts on it. Keep in mind, you do not have to fully agree with me and I encourage discussion in the replies. And again, please to not talk to me about your thoughts on this paper if you have not fully read it.