Emily and her 19 friends (BTS ARMY)

Event
Event:	Emily and her 19 friends, Criticisms of Academics in ARMY (BTS), Emilygate
Participants:	ResearchBTS, Bangtan Scholars, The R3 Journal
Date(s):	April 14, 2021 and April 23, 2021
Type:	meta, online
Fandom:	ARMY (BTS)
URL:
Click here for related articles on Fanlore.

Emily and her 19 friends refers to an incident on ARMY (BTS) Twitter where the fandom criticized media-studies student Emily Wang for her research and other academics. This event spawned hostility within the fandom to aca-fans due to feeling like "guinea pigs" and "lab rats" to the research conducted by academics.

The Wall Street Journal Article

On April 14, 2021 the article "Superfans’ Message to Taylor Swift, BTS and Other Music Superstars: Enough With the Deluxe Albums and Pricey Merch" by Neil Shah was released. It discussed Taylor Swift's fandom Swifties and ARMY (BTS) and the rising prices and frequency of merchandise in recent years.

In the beginning of the article, a media-studies student named Emily Wang shared her survey research about how ARMYs feel about BTS' merchandise releases in 2020.

Emily Wang, a BTS superfan, calls last year’s barrage of product offerings from the band a “sensory overload.” Wondering whether she was the only one who felt that way, the media-studies student in October conducted an informal online survey of 19 U.S. and Canadian BTS fans. Nearly all said BTS’ recent merchandise releases were “too frequent.”

“It kind of showed the greediness of things,” says Ms. Wang, 22. She adds some fans said the mounting merch drops made them feel “anxious,” “stressed,” “addicted,” and “dread.”

Representatives for BTS did not respond to a request for comment.

Response to Article from ARMY on Twitter

A majority of responses from ARMYs on were critical of the article.

The first tweet about the article was posted on April 16, 2021 and gained over 2,000 likes. It pointed out issues with the "hot take" nature of the article and the greediness quote from Wang. The ARMY also pointed out how the article specifically targeted BTS when mentioning merchandise tactics when the group has frequently supplied free content more than "just about any other artist." To this ARMY, the most stressful aspect of purchasing BTS merchandise is the "inability to grab it before it's sold out." There were also specific issues with the way the article referred to Wang as a BTS 'superfan' "WITHOUT actually calling her an ARMY?" This one ARMY's tweet began the larger conversation about the article and ARMY academics on Twitter.

The initial ARMY response turned Emily Wang and her 19 survey participants into a meme called "Emily Wang and her 19 friends." During the same week when the WSJ article was published, BTS' company BigHit Music announced multiple releases of merchandise and collaborations. These are all the announcements:

• McDonalds BTS Meal
• Map of the Soul On:e photobooks
• Restock of the 5th Muster performance DVD
• 24 hour YouTube BangBangCon 2021 livestream of old BTS concerts and performances
• Collaboration with Louis Vuitton

Response from Emily Wang on Twitter

In an effort to provide transparency on the situation, Wang provided the full presentation & transcript of her research on the @sbykjeon Twitter account.

Hi everyone, here's the presentation & transcript of our research for ICAMA-KAS. I hope it provides a little more context, and if you have any questions, please leave them here.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GVNu-HveKlJM2nR_Q4cnecPGAjerBuNC/view

And albeit belated, I want to say sorry for the hurt I've caused many in the community as an aftermath of my carelessness. A muddled mind comes in the way of sound words but I wish to express an apology regardless.

---

Just a quick overview - Big Hit was founded in 2005 by Bang Si Hyuk. BTS was the main group until 2019. And as they neared IPO what happened was they had to diversify their revenue streams. One of the results of that was to grow their indirect involvement - IP strategy. Over the last three years that's grown from 22.3% in 2017 to 45.4% in 2019.

SLIDE 3

And so what that means is the way that Big Hit defines intellectual property and that strategy that they have is that there's two tiers. There's the source IP which is the core. That's what we all know to be the music, the videos, the photos - it's very direct for the artists. And then there is the second tier which is the indirect artist involvement of intellectual property, which is where Big Hit creates characters and universes and music-based IP and merchandise. Very few artists in the music industry delve into this arena of strategy or content given and so Big Hit is one of the, I guess, revolutionaries in this scene.

SLIDE 4

But we get to analyze what's happened in 2020 and so I'll skip this part but essentially what me and Emily, my co-researcher, did - she's somewhere in here - is we conducted one hour's semi-structured interviews with BTS fans who have bought merch. And this also included an ethnographic research study on a variety of other media platforms and what we asked was - what motivates people to buy, what kind of quality that they're looking for and then also like ideas for the future.

SLIDE 6

And then conclusion. So fans are really dedicated and they are willing to spend, everything sells out. And so what we would like to see and understand better is ... despite the variety and quantity in current BTS merch, fans do desire design and connection that is more related to BTS. I think we see a lot of merch outside of that and we'd love to see merch inside of it, as well as future IP. And in IP projects and indirect artist involvement we'd like to see them thrive in a diverse way. And we're trying to see if TinyTAN is enough to please fans.

SLIDE 15

Criticisms of Emily Wang's Research by ARMY

ARMYs on Twitter criticized these parts of Emily Wang's research:

• Snowball sampling
• Stereotyping/Generalizing ARMY
• Misrepresenting ARMY

No one forces anyone to buy anything. And the 19 people you polled certainly do not speak for the fandom. If I can’t buy it, I don’t buy it. Simple. You are in charge of your ARMY experience, you’re not being held hostage and forced to buy anything. Truly annoyed.

Tweet by @BeccaIsMe7177

Nah. I’m not here for this ‘hot take’ WSJ. Yes, there has been a whole lot of merch, but I’ve made strategic decisions about what I’ve chosen to purchase.

Love the ‘greediness’ quote. Fuck off.

For the record, the article does mention the merch ‘onslaught’ tactics of other artists, but it didn’t escape my notice that they targeted 875 (censored spelling of BTS) right outta the gate.

875 supplies more free content than just about any other artist, and the most ‘stressful’ aspect of purchasing their merch is the inability to grab it before it’s sold out.

Is anyone else also giving this article extra side-eye based on it referring to Ms. Wang as an 875 “superfan” WITHOUT actually calling her ARMY?

On a side note, let's not forget that Ms. Wang is simply a 22 y.o. young woman. The real irresponsibility here lies with WSJ and Mr. Shah, the author of the piece.

Note: Fans took the use of the term superfan as a sign of the article's lack of research because BTS does not refer to their fans as anything other than ARMY.

Tweet by @_noonabear_

Hold on! Who? First of all, no one thought any western artist selling hoodie, cups, lollipop, condoms with their music were too much merch! But BTS is the problem? No one goes to supermarket and whines why there are too many cans of soups, or too many varieties of Apples!

I don't buy everything BTS sells! Because I can't afford it! I know when to stop! No one is forcing ANYONE to buy it! Your money is YOUR responsibility! Who the eff is that and why so little people suddenly represent "US"?

Name ONE artist who gives as much FREE content as BTS! From FREE concerts to Run BTS to FREE masterpieces on Soundcloud (SELF-PRODUCED too) ALL for FREE for constant entertainment! And still people are calling them greedy? Such ungrateful people can't be ARMY!

Tweet by @MrsTOH2O

You know tickets can be refunded right. The article is extremely biased and poorly research. Snowballing 19 people in a fandom of millions with different nationalities. Emily. You reflect the situation poorly. Increase in merch came with cancellation of tours,no one is sitting-

On money of your tickets putting out more merch. You can refund your money. You are choosing not to. That is your decision. Yes we know Shah was at fault. But honestly you didn't give him much not to misinterpreted. Not only were you underprepared. You were also-

Basing your so called research on 19 people. 19 people Vs over 30 million of us.

Tweet by @nocturnal_ly

i think my final thought on emily wang is that she used a burner account to share that transcript when surely she has a main stan account she uses here. she either wasn't confident enough in her work to post from there or knew there was something on her account we wouldn't like

...or both

Tweet by @rocktanbangwool

This right here already assumes an outcome. She had one person over the age of 30. ONE. The majority of whom joined during a pandemic. The sample used was not a reflection of the fandom in any way.

Tweet by @lsgrlr

Response from Academics on Twitter

Academics came to the aid of Emily Wang during this time, emphasizing how Wang's research had been misinterpreted by the journalist Neil Shah and the Wall Street Journal. They also explained, in depth, academic phrases and practices to the general ARMY public that was criticizing them in an attempt to come to an understanding and respond to the initial outcry.

ARMY Academics

These are the responses and statements specifically made by ARMY-associated academics and accounts.

ResearchBTS

ResearchBTS, also known as Nicole Santero, interviewed Emily Wang after the initial outcry to understand her perspective of the situation. She was also the first solo academic to respond to the situation and directly address the concerns of non-academic ARMYs.

In a now deleted tweet, ResearchBTS created this chart comparing the WSJ article and providing full context to lines from it about Emily Wang.

Hi there. My comments were regarding the fact that there were positive insights from ARMY, which were not acknowledged by the article. This topic is something that is great to explore, however I do agree with others that it should be done more carefully and without bias.

Tweet by @ResearchBTS

Hi there, I was referring to the fact that positive insights were cited by ARMY in the study and were not acknowledged in the article. I thought it was unfair to focus on negatives solely but do agree that overall, she/the study should not have been considered a media source.

Tweet by @ResearchBTS

She gave a lot of info and definitely gave background and talked about positives during a 70+ minute interview. If these are the only things the writer took from that long of a discussion, that’s certainly problematic.

Tweet by @ResearchBTS

The R3 Journal

The R3 Journal is a BTS-focused academic journal that Emily Wang had previously published academic articles under. They responded as a group by quote retweeting ResearchBTS's now deleted tweet. ResearchBTS is a managing editor, peer reviewer, and a part of the marketing team for The R3 Journal.

In the past few days, you might have come across comments on Emily Wang and the WSJ article. Emily's research was part of the track we co-hosted at ICAMA-KAS 2020 conference. We stand with her and against the misrepresentation of her research in the WSJ article. Please read⬇️

Many ARMY felt and as ARMY we did too, varying degrees of hurt, disagreement or misrepresentation - these feelings are valid.

It also reaffirms our belief in strong academic safeguards, IRB approval & rigorous review before publication (vs presentation).

Please continue to question us and other publications - our collective curiosity and desire to learn is what makes us such a great community. We also always need more ARMY reviewers and try hard to be inclusive in our events, publications and staff! https://ther3journal.com/join/

Tweet by @TheR3Journal

Bangtan Scholars

Bangtan Scholars is the central hub for the international community of scholars interested in BTS. They share both media articles and academic articles on their Twitter account.

Did you see how @ResearchBTS got Emily’s side regarding the WSJ? The article said she conducted “an informal survey of 19.. fans” while she actually did “one-hour interviews.”

We thought we could give some insight. What is the difference between research surveys & interviews?

In @ResearchBTS'interview with Emily it stated that she did an “ethnographic research.”

What is ethnographic research then?

(NOTICE) Bangtan Scholars notice regarding the latest article released by WSJ & Em.

If you have done this type of research and would like to give some insight, we would love to hear from you.

We encourage you also to read a bit more about how ethnographic research is conducted at the following sources below:

https://t.co/ngae4euJxd

https://t.co/PafVcCN06c

---

UPDATE: 04/23/2021

Emily's presentation now available for everyone to read.

https://twitter.com/sbykjeon/status/1385700110294609924

Tweet by @BangtanScholars

This thread includes an ARMY's comments and BangtanScholar's response for full context of the conversation.

From @AsdePicas3 replying to @ResearchBTS now deleted tweet:

Maybe I'm kind of late with everything, but did you @ResearchBTS together with @BangtanScholars and @TheR3Journal collaborated or help Emily with her research? Or it was her own research published in your blogs/pages?

From @BangtanScholars:

Hello, from our side we can confirm that we did not help Emily with her research nor has it been published in our spaces. 3/4ths of our team attended the conference & presented on the same day as Emily with separate individual research studies.

But great question! Thank you for asking.

From @AsdePicas3:

I see. Well, after reading all of your posts regarding this (the three accounts and the transcription of Emily's presentation), I would like to share my opinion on this. Feel free to disagree with me or anyone that may think like me as well.+

Media has never been our friend, never. We got used to twist what we say, what the company says, even what the boys say in some cases. It's annoying, and specially stressing.+

However, after reading the transcription, I must say that:

1. A proper research should never be conducted that way considering what you're analyzing. It's true that in some cases, 19 people to conduct a quality research is okay (ex. General knowledge on science in class B).

But this particular study it's not that case. The scope was truly narrow, the "positive" reviews didn't provide any type of impact, explanation, nothing. Saying "excellent", "very good", "good quality" does not provide a good understanding on the product or them to analyze.

Take into account that all the people that answered negative views on merch being sold like this provided justification. The positive reviews didn't, and when you have those results, you have to continue researching.

2. 19 people from 10-40 more or less, that's great! But the issue is that after, there wasn't anything else that provided a wide demography. We have shared everywhere the results from the army demography being absolutely proud of it. +

Multiple languages, multiple backgrounds, multiple countries. That's the basis of the fandom, as well as the love for music and the boys of course. I don't understand how knowing that, it's said that this is a proper research.

3. A research provides justification and context. How people view merch in 2020 is important in the study, that's true. But you have to also demonstrate the other type of analysis: why did they sell more products in 2020? How are composed their profits and loses?

That makes a research properly done, because depending on the topic you're choosing, that creates value in an investigation, because if you do not include information that It's rich and complete, the investigation turns out biased.

Emily's investigation turned out that way. Now, you're probably wondering, why I'm not tagging Emily or telling this to her? Because she may have done a poor research, but seeing your posts, you're standing and supporting her.

However, that's not the same that justifying what she did. The investigation was biased, and armys noticed that. You know the best how investigations are correctly done, we preach all the time about it, you have multiple excellent papers.

But even worse, you know how diverse it's the fandom, a whole study was done of it. You stand by it all the time, all of us. And how you're standing on HOW her research was done contradicts not only what we all preach about, but also what YOU preach about.

Again, defending her from doing what she thought was okay and protecting her from attacks it's totally okay, even great and important to do.

But how the research was done, how the results were presented and how it was shared with media, that's not okay, not at all.

And judging from the posts shared by the three of you, the position you took and how you took the general response, people that did not attack Emily in any way and just shared their opinion, I must say I'm really sad and in some way disappointed.

I believe all of you are good people, that you're doing what you're doing because you think it's okay and valid. But it seems as biased as the issue itself and I wish you could understand why there's so many negative impact on it.

And I'm worried future interviews like this could be supported the same way you're doing right now.

Every professional should respect their counterparts, but it does not mean in any way supporting every decision/action that your counterpart does.

And, finally, something I must say as someone who wants to be a business professional and studies for that. Businesses are complex, and managing companies is even worse. Every move has a justification because if you do not analyze it, you fail.

That's all I have to say and I'm sorry if this sounds hurtful, but please consider what people have been sharing and how it impacts us as people as well.

Thank you and I'm sorry again.

Twitter conversation by @BangtanScholars and @AsdePicas3

Other Academics

These are the reactions of individual academics to the incident.

@LukneLou or Lukne Vasileviciute is a graduate in anthropology, English literature, and media and communications whose research interests lay within the field of fandom studies.

Screenshot by @epipeny

@Maath48 or Mathieu Berbiguier is a Ph. D. Candidate in Korean Popular Culture at the University of California, Los Angeles. He is also the founder of the YouTube channel Deok_UP. @tbaudinette or Dr. Thomas Baudinette is a Senior Lecturer in Japanese at Macquarie University in North Ryde, Sydney, Australia.

Screenshot by @epipeny

This article shows how it is very easy to put a study out of context and highlight "buzzworthy" elements to make the piece sensational. However, it does not mean we should deny any less positive findings of this study.

If it indeed mentions that some fans feel "anxious" or "stressed," it is also important to acknowledge those experiences -- and this article should not be an occasion to hop on the cancel wagon, use hate speech against the researcher, or even overlook the study as a whole.

Tweet by @Maath48

Criticisms of Academics by ARMY

Actually I wanna know what you’ll do to protect us from ppl in your academic circle. If Emily’s high school project was “good” & condescending outsiders are welcome, how can we trust research armys to self-critique if yall jump to defend crap just bc it’s done by one of your own?

I’m frustrated by how you, R3 and scholars — armys we trusted — tried to slide shoddy work by us as if you’re the only uni-educated ppl in the fandom. Emily’s work was laughably bad and you sold it to us and I believed you until I saw it for myself, that’s how much trust you had.

it wasn’t nice to be talked down to & patronized by our own armys with academic hogwash, or to have members of your community dismiss legitimate concerns as “toxic crazy fan bs”. idk why u staked your reputation on stuff you didn’t have to defend, but im disappointed you chose to

Twitter Thread by @epipeny

All I want from the parties involved in that research is acknowledgment the article was bad for us too. I see lots of sympathy for the researcher, but nothing about how ARMY was misrepresented without our consent. We were the subject of the research yet somehow sidelined +

I get that the researcher had their words twisted and that’s horrible. But it was their choice to engage with a journalist. The rest of us didn’t get that choice, yet still get the narrative of exploited fans being thrust upon us.

This feeling of being both an area of research, but then somehow excluded by the academics researching us, and it being treated as solely their own personal issue, is making me very uncomfortable. @TheR3Journal I hope you can read these tweets and understand the issue here.

And I understand not all of you were involved with the research @TheR3Journal, but you are using multiple platforms to support it without acknowledgment at all of our feelings and what we are trying to say. Please get out of your bubble and listen to us.

I’m just so disappointed by this because I was so excited by the idea of BTS being an area of academic discussion. I never thought it would end up feeling like ARMY as a whole was excluded and disregarded.

I wanted to add another point that made me uncomfortable yesterday but I couldn’t put my finger on. Multiple accounts outside @TheR3Journal posted threads or infographics on the situation with the journalist that portrayed it only from the perspective of her being misinterpreted+

It was only later I realised that people running those accounts were members of/closely associated with R3. Now I know R3 did not do the research, but they were professionally linked to it and thus had a stake in the reputation of the researcher being preserved +

Whilst I don’t think it was being intentionally misleading, the explanations posted by those accounts gave the impression of giving the ‘whole story’ from an unbiased outside perspective +

When actually, after seeing the quality of the research, and finding out about the links between the accounts, it is much less clear cut. Important information was missed. A full picture would have also included more about the researcher’s personal culpability +

I also had other accounts replying on behalf of R3 when I had tagged R3, and I don’t understand why. The impression I got (and I understand this could be inaccurate) was people were using these other accounts to deal with the issue without having it directly associated with R3 +

Again, I don’t think this is necessarily some great malicious scheme, but it doesn’t help at all in terms of transparency and accountability. All I’ve been left with is difficulty trusting multiple accounts.

There are conversations R3 members had about this that will not show up anywhere in R3’s tweets because they were using other accounts. I guess they didn’t want to speak for all the members but it looks odd, especially when those accounts are not listed on R3’s profile +

I had to dig into the R3 website to find the link between them. I will accede that R3 was listed in the other account’a profile but if you start from R3 you don’t know that +

We had to fight to get access to the research and we also had multiple accounts getting involved without immediately stating their connection. This does not promote an image of openness and transparency to the community (ARMY) that was researched.

I’m not saying this to attack. Actually one of the reason this upset me so much is I had a lot of respect for all those accounts and was proud to have them associated with ARMY. I just hope that this can be used to learn how not to approach these situations in future.

Anyway I’m out. @TheR3Journal you are not engaging in the academic criticisms we have made. You are not acknowledging your power compared to us and the damage that was done due to your lack of accountability and guidelines. And now I have your member deflecting in my mentions.

I’ve been trying to be respectful but we’re not getting that back, even though the research was about us. I was excited by this idea, but I, and many others, have now totally lost faith. I won’t be engaging in anything you do in future.

Twitter Thread by @Lydia130613

Dear fellow academics, we CAN NOT tell ppl that being critical of research is bad, esp when it was so obvi flawed. That's hypocritical!

Dear fellow ARMYs, YES we need to give feedback cuz oh boy what even was that?! Remember tho plz that we're all human & we all make mistakes.

Tweet by @ryuminating

armys have proven from time to time to appreciate good pieces of work and professionals who take the time to understand bts and not let their work be hindered by any bias. if you cannot stomach the thought of criticism, perhaps research is not right for you.

(qrt of this now deleted tweet by @tbaudinette)

Honestly baffles me that this person is scared of criticism like armys are senseless and dog pile on well meaning academics without any reason? people have written about bts and conducted research about them with zero issues? we have had armys themselves do it too?

Tweet by @agustranda

okay so twt doesn't need another researcher going off, but I can't help myself, because this issue of wsj and e.w. is just SO frustrating to me.

so let's talk about ethnographic studies.

this is a qualitative (ie no numbers) data collection method that anthropologists use (1)

(hello! I have my master's :)). specifically, this method is used over an extended period of time by the researcher with a small number of participants from A culture (I will expand on this later).

often times, ethnographic studies take months (if not years) to complete and (2)

involve the researcher being in direct contact with those they are studying. meaning they immerse themselves in the process and observe ALL of the details to get a broader, more holistic, sense of why ppl think and behave the way they do. it can involve interviews, but there (3)

is really a LOT of watching and observation. findings are presented oftentimes (not always) in a narrative fashion, as if you're reading the day-to-day life yourself. you get histories, motivations, practices, traditions, religions, careers, even language in some cases (4)

NOW.

we've been talking a lot about 19 not being representative. I AGREE. truthfully, in the scope of ethnographic research, however, 19 people would be a formidable number to have worked with. that's just the truth.

HOWEVER. what we have seen from this research is not an (5)

ethnographic study.

▪︎1hr interviews doesn't begin to scrape the surface of understanding culture and behavior. did your employer know everything about YOU after you interviewed? I doubt it.

▪︎we are in a pangea so e.w. had NO contact with her participants and did not (6)

get to see their behavior interacting with weverse or see the reactions at the news of new merch dropping. another crucial step violated.

▪︎CULTURE. now this could mean a lot of different things, but let's focus on the fact that the pool of participants are actually not at (7)

all from the same culture. being army is an identifier, and we share certain values (we love bts and support them). however, we don't all speak the same languages, have the same religions, have the same skin colors, or experience the same age-related phenomena at once.. (8)

and I think we can agree, these things all have a large part in shaping who we are and by extension, how we think and how we behave. oftentimes we don't recognize those things, and that's okay! but when you read someone saying things like "recognize your bias" (not member) (9)

this is what we mean. we have biases about everything- some we recognize and some we don't.

I've detracted a bit, and I'm sorry, but it is relevant, I promise.

the point is, as these 19 people are not from the same culture (or even ages), this CANNOT be called a true (11)

ethnographic study.

ethnographic studies are AMAZING. they provide such a wealth of information of ppls and places most of us will never see, hear about, or go to, plus remark on familiar cultures too! and this whole thing has made me so frustrated and the thought of (12)

ppl potentially turning their noses up at ethnography in the future is disheartening. pls know that this was simply not an ethnographic study and how it was ever called this just sends me, as anthro is something I am passionate about and studied for years. (13)

if any of my fellow anthro moots (I know there are a few of you!), or other social science moots have anything to add, I'd be very interested! I certainly haven't covered everything- just wanted to put this out there to defend the name of ethnography and its value. (14 AND SCENE)

Twitter Thread by @mikro_drop

Statements released by ARMY Academics to Criticisms by ARMY

In response to criticisms of the initial statements released by ARMY academics by ARMYs, ARMY academics directly responded to individual ARMYs and released a second round of statements. This first quotation is the full interaction between @BangtanScholars and individual ARMYs.

@Modooborahae quote retweeting @sbykjeon's release of the presentation and transcript:

idk what i was expecting but this is really bad. i won't list all the issues i have with it. i will just say i really hope both researchers, emily and fatima, read the feedback they're getting because i think it will help them if they want to pursue research in the future.

https://twitter.com/sbykjeon/status/1385700110294609924?s=20&t=f251AZkG7w0FXRbKz9Lvqg

Reply from @elledi_bangtan, quote retweeting @BangtanScholar's first statement:

The thread below is very interesting. I notice a lot of people who are competent in academic research are giving productive & compassionate feedback, which is very valuable. I don't feel like your tweet is doing that. Quite the opposite.

https://twitter.com/BangtanScholars/status/1385495536715894784?s=20&t=YTH4m1WifuDpUTVaTypXog

Reply from @Modooborahae:

yes i did see it! i rted it earlier. i don't think i was being snide or cruel and i'm being very honest when i say that i hope they read all the feedback (bc a lot of it has been very good) because it will help them as researchers.

Reply from @BangtanScholars

That's why we are here to provide insights so that future researchers within the fandom can learn and grow from this mistake. We were only guidance to Emily on how to proceed with any research she plans in the future.

Reply from @WomanEncircled:

She shouldnt have agreed to an interview

Reply from @BangtanScholars, quote retweeting their second statement to ARMY: As from our side, we didn't even know she agreed to do an interview. We are here to provide insight in terms of this mistake & how as ARMY researchers we can learn. We do know that not all ARMY researchers have been trained w/media. Hence, we wrote this.

https://twitter.com/BangtanScholars/status/1385504484651061248?s=20&t=J2kOulbDMQb33rKE57pVbA

Reply from @WomanEncircled:

Its good you do that, but Emily should apologize and explain WHAT she has learned though, not just say she has learned things from our criticisms. These kinds of bad articles (from a journalist who had already written with an agenda against BTS) impacts BTS and our whole fandom

Reply from @BangtanScholars

We completely understand that. We will have to wait for her response directly. We can't do that for her.

Reply from @WomanEncircled:

I wasnt expecting you to 😄, but thanks for acknowledging that you understand

I do think it would be only right for you to ask her to answer that though, since you have a relationship with her and made tweets that were supportive of her

Reply from @BangtanScholars

We will let her know.

Reply from @WomanEncircled:

Thanks. I hope you request it

Twitter Conversation between @Modooborahae, @elledi_bangtan, @BangtanScholars, @WomanEncircled

ARMY is the face of @BTS_twt, but talking to media can be intimidating and confusing.

We've prepared some quick tips below for ARMY who may be worried about being interviewed. 💜

https://bangtanscholars.medium.com/bts-army-media-tips-to-keep-in-mind-5475754ba737

Tweet by @BangtanScholars

This is the Medium article Bangtan Scholars released in addition to their first statement.

BTS ARMY— Media Tips To Keep in Mind

In 2020, we saw the rise of more media outlets contacting ARMYs in a variety of ways. Even more so, in the last couple of years as BTS’ trajectory has expanded worldwide, the fandom has grown.

That means that as BTS ARMY, we all need to help everyone by providing them with useful resources to bring forth a safe and healthy fandom community.

ARMY is the face of BTS

BTS’ road to success wasn’t made overnight. If you’ve encountered ARMYs who joined the fandom in its early years, many of them had to overcome countless media play scenarios, unjust accusations of the use of ‘Payola,’ and the boys encountering claims of plagiarism.

Even in the midst of misrepresentation of both ARMY and BTS in the media, ARMY is the face of BTS. Therefore, it’s important for fans to keep in mind some of these tips for interacting with the media.

Talking with the Media

Talking or being approached by the media can be intimidating, especially if you don’t have a lot of experience.

If the media approach you or you choose to become interviewed, keep in mind the following general tips.

What to do if the media approach you

If a member of the media contacts you, first obtain the reporter’s name, the media organization, and, if available, the anticipated time of the release of the piece in print, broadcast, or online.

When the media/interviewer calls, you must decide whether you will grant the interview. To help you decide, here are some questions to ask:

• What is the subject of the interview?
• Ask the reporter about the general story angle in advance so that you can gather information, collect your thoughts and be better prepared.
• Are you the appropriate person to answer questions about the topic?
• Who is the reporter, and where does he/she work?
• What will be the format of the interview? Live? A pre-recorded video/podcast? Telephone?
• Is it a feature story or a news story?
• Where will the interview be conducted, and how long will the interview be?
• Try to find out who else the media will be interviewing.
• What is the reporter’s deadline?

How to prepare for a media interview

• Consider preparing a recording device for the interview (only if you are allowed to by your state/country, please research your local & national press laws. — in the U.S., some states allow recording if one party agrees and others require all parties interviewed to agree, also known as ‘two-party consent’)
• Stick to what you know, talk about subjects that fit into the area of your expertise. You can always decline to answer questions you aren’t knowledgeable about.
• Do plenty of preparation, work out what you want to talk about, and what you do not want to speak about.
• Write down the questions (easy and difficult) you expect — and would like — to be asked.
• Think of the one or two main points or responses that you want to get across before entering the interview, and have relevant facts at your fingertips.
• Avoid jargon, acronyms, and technical language. Use language that is simple and direct. Be brief.
• Long answers do not get used, and often distract from the point you want to make. If you do not want something to get lost in translation, keep your responses so simple and straightforward that translation is unnecessary.
• Remember that even if the interview takes on a casual, informal tone, what you say or email them may be included in the story.
• If at any point during your media interview preparation you feel that you are uncomfortable speaking to the media, let them know.

During the interview

• You are not obliged to answer questions that don’t pertain to the initially given pitch/theme.
• Stick to what you know, talk about subjects that fit into the area of your expertise.
• Record your interview (only if you are allowed to by your state/country)
• Remember that even if the interview takes on a casual, informal tone, what you say may be included in the story.
• Have relevant facts or figures at your fingertips if you intend to use them.
• While reporters are set to do background research, do not assume this if you can, offer to send the information.

When interviewed, there is no guarantee that the journalist will use it. We hope that these tips are helpful.

Medium article by Bangtan Scholars

The R3 Journal also tweeted out this second statement about the situation.

Now is a time for us to listen, not to speak. Please know that the R3 is listening. We are paying attention. We will be making changes. While our response may be slow, it is because we want to hear you.

Tweet by @TheR3Journal

ARMY Twitter Response to Statements released by ARMY Academics

ARMY are a phenomenon. We are unusual.

Like it or not there will be research coming out about this fandom. Most of it will probably be done by outsiders and not be to our liking.

Unlike articles in the news, clicks don't effect academic research, citations do.

+

What these academic researches can lead to is articles citing them like we saw with the WSJ.

The way these news outlets will know they exist is either if the writer contacts the outlet or if we make so much noise about it that they will take notice. Wd know they watch us.

+

When the time comes, and it will, we should be ready to react in a way that will give us the best outcome.

We have time to prepare ourselves and this latest incident has taught us a lot.

Fighting!! 💜💜💜

Twitter Thread by @omermeroz

i think academia in fandom spaces can be good and there is esp some interesting stuff in terms of army specifically. what is becoming v evident however is the ppl wanting to do academic work on us are not interested in working with us or respecting us and have extreme biases

and no we should not feel bad for wanting to shut them out. they don't deserve our open arms just bc they want to write sth for their "respected" peers. academics gotta earn the trust of the ppl they wanna work with they dont get it automatically.

Twitter Thread by @vante_fm

@Lydia130613 quote retweeting @lsgrlr:

Something I keep saying is if I had done the same research, in the same way, with a group of ARMYs I found through friends of friends, the WSJ would not have written about it. The academic connections of that group legitimised it, and that’s why they are all accountable in this.

https://twitter.com/lsgrlr/status/1386006407544197122

If they had at least distanced themselves after the presentation (they had plenty of time) by going through the same critiques we are now, I’d be more understanding. Instead, they used their platforms to support it even further and quash the criticisms being raised.

There was a point when many of us felt genuinely bad about the way we’d responded to the researcher and that article and it was because of the narratives multiple people in that team wilfully pushed. They misled us.

Twitter Thread by @Lydia130613

Aftermath of Emily Wang Incident

The aftermath of the situation had ARMYs becoming more cautious of academic presence in the fandom.

As someone who does research and published multiple papers on BTS & ARMY, I'll just say this. I've seen some academics say that ARMYs simply cannot take anything critical about BTS or the fandom, and based on my own experience and observations, I have to disagree. +

ARMYs will, however, call out unethical aspects of research, poor research design, misrepresentation of preliminary/non peer-reviewed research as refereed published research, lack of transparency in the review process, and researchers who are disrespectful of the community. +

And of course they should. That is a positive thing, and when these points are raised, we, as researchers, should sincerely engage in the conversation, not be dismissive or speak over them. That is the bare minimum all of us need to do as researchers working with communities.

Twitter Thread by @ElegantLogic

Ok so I was and still am planning a thread on the mess that happened recently with academic and research ARMYs on the TL. And I just want to let yall know why I haven't posted yet. Personally I feel like what happened is part of a bigger problem that needs to be +

Addressed before we can have some real progress. Second, while I 100% agree and believe that Mrs (im gonna talk to the press) was somehow/somewhat full of it (I will address this in the actual thread), I also personally think that the responses from both sides were +

Pretty wonky and that caused a lot of confusion and mistrust in the fandom. And third, I feel like while the loss of trust and the defensiveness that some of us harbored against academic and research accounts involved is warranted and understandable, it can also be a +

Learning curve and stepping stone for us as a fandom when we approach research and academics and this can be used as a lesson learned in what to do and what not to do. And I still firmly believe that researchers and academics bring a certain value to our fandom but that we +

Have to be better at asking better questions and at not taking everything at face value because it comes from academic/research type accounts because even they are prone to mistakes and no discipline is perfect and also they have to be better and ready for being held +

Accountable and answering questions with more than the words: "but its research" or "it's academia and that's the way it works". In other words, both sides can stand to learn from this experience and move forward towards something better for us all. So far these are my thoughts+

I'm saving the rest for the actual thread where I will actually get into the issue at hand and how ridiculous I found the abstract that Mrs (im gonna go talk to the media) tried to capitalize on and shove in our face as a sound research subject.

1. ARMYREALTALK

Twitter Thread by @gmcantave1

Rhizome Connect 2021

On October 27, 2021, a new controversy over the Rhizome Connect 2021 conference run by the The R3 Journal brought further discussion to the tensions between ARMY and academics. These concerns were directly tied to the ones raised around the Emily Wang incident in April 2021, building on them to create heightened tensions between ARMYs and academics. Twitter user @Agent_Snark pointed out the tweets of an academic involved in The R3 Journal's academic conference Rhizome Connect 2021 which spurred the conversation.

I don't police who people listen too, it's whatever. But you can't be a part of ARMY, let alone ARMY Academia and say their new work is too poor quality for the Grammys and then also tweet the one on the right.

Trust in R3 is already fragile and allowing antis to participate in our community is not doing anything to help.

Note: ARMYs and NCTzens (Fans of the K-pop group NCT) frequently fight over conversations about music quality.

Twitter Thread by @gmcantave1

In response to this criticism, The R3 Journal released this statement:

Statement on Transparency by The Editorial Board

Dear R3 followers,

It has come to our attention that one of our volunteers for our affiliate event, the online conference Rhizome Connect 2021, has made some concerning social media posts. We thank you for bringing this to our notice. We would like to clarify that this individual is not an official member of R3 (they do not serve on any of our boards or on staff as an editor, reviewer, etc.). Rather, they responded to a Twitter call for volunteers to help with short-term translations (Polish translations for social media posts) for Rhizome Connect 2021. Our intention to involve them was to further develop our social media presence for the online conference in a language other than English.

The Editorial Board has decided to terminate their panel and volunteer position for Rhizome Connect 2021. The Editorial Board is also currently defining various actions that could be grounds for termination of any volunteer positions going forward.

While we hope we will not encounter these situations often, we anticipate that at some point, this may happen again – we cannot predict the social media content of over 100 members of R3 as well as short-term volunteers for events. However, this incident propels us to develop a policy addressing a code of conduct for members and volunteers as to what constitutes grounds for dismissal. We are hesitant to put requirements for an individual to be “ARMY” since this sets up the potential for gatekeeping; i.e., R3 is beyond any one individual member (including the Editorial Board) and should not be defining who is and is not ARMY. What we can do is identify the types of speech and behaviour that are inconsistent with the ethos of R3 and respond appropriately.

The Editorial Board is accountable for R3’s public statements and policies. Social media content is from R3’s marketing staff. However, R3, as a collective, does not speak on behalf of any of our members nor do individual members represent us as a whole. To be clear, we do not monitor the personal social media activity of any of our members or volunteers. We are a very large organisation, and doing so is not feasible. We have thus far operated on good faith with our members and volunteers, and so far the overwhelming majority have proved beyond deserving of our trust.

Regarding R3’s role: R3 does not conduct any research; rather it is an open-access platform to publish your research, your personal stories, and your creative work. The majority of the members of R3 do not conduct research on BTS and/or ARMY (in their professional careers), although they are eligible to submit work to the journal and some have. All R3 members are volunteers and are not compensated for their work, but contribute purely out of admiration for BTS and a desire to contribute our support to the community to which we all belong.

We have had several questions regarding our vetting and application process. R3 staff includes an Editorial Board, managing editors, peer-reviewers, and copy-editors who are recruited through a formal and rigorous application process. The Editorial Board serves a term of 3 years. Information about us can be found on our website. The applications for managing editors, peer-reviewers, and copy-editors are vetted by members of the Editorial Board who evaluate the subject matter expertise, capacity of applicants to manage your submissions, and assess whether the individual can contribute to a robust peer-review process. Our designers, content creators, and marketing team are all volunteers from the ARMY community and have all gone through this application process. Going forward, we intend to be more transparent with each of our processes, including our workflows developed to publish your academic essays, creative work, and personal stories.

We also rely on an Advisory Board. These individuals were invited to participate based on a variety of factors. Some are published authors who write about BTS and ARMY; some are Korean and can give us a perspective we would otherwise lack. These members serve a term of 3 years.

We hope this statement provides some clarification regarding the issue that you have brought to our attention today.

We thank you for the patience, support, and continuous care about how BTS and ARMY are portrayed and how research on them (and our community) should be done.

The Editorial Board

Official Statement by The R3 Journal

Responses by Individual ARMYs

Many responses by individual ARMYs denounced the involvement of academics in ARMY and criticized the acts of The R3 Journal along with bringing up past criticisms of ResearchBTS and BangtanScholars.

Been observing since “the Emily incident” & imho it’s like what happened w/ the kp0p journos. In their eyes, they’re the “pioneers”. Kp0p fans that found BTS & a way to merge their interests w/ their profession. However, it was still centralized bc kp0p was still unknown to GP.

Then BTS’ fame grew with each new achievement & GP started to get interested in kp0p too. They wanted a piece of the pie. What was a community of maybe 30 researchers became 100+. All of them wanting to add their 2 cents but w/ a surface lvl understanding & respect for +

the subject they were researching about. Now let’s circle back to the “pioneers”. It must have been difficult finding an audience within their research community pre-2018 when kp0p was still considered niche. FF to now where everyone is interested in studying BTS & their fans. +

“How did they do it?” ppl ask. Must be awesome to be the “expert”. To see ur community grow. To feel validated. But this is the crux of why many ARMY are upset. You put ur community & the prestige they bestowed upon you above the fandom. +

You were once one of the “lab rats” being studied but are now wearing the lab coat studying “the art, fandom, economic effects, and sociocultural forces generated by BTS and ARMY.” You lost perspective once u mixed ur interests with ur profession. +

I understand differing opinions are welcomed in the scientific community. I also know it’s all about who did it first & getting it documented first. As an adult, I don’t expect u to burn prof. bridges over kp0p. But don’t pretend that u aren’t choosing ur profession over ARMY. +

Don’t be surprised when ppl question your motives or vetting process when the entire time you let ppl assume that you had ARMY’s best interests at heart. You’re about THISCLOSE to being the next “well I only write what ppl pay me to write about”.

This fandom is constantly moving, adapting, and changing. I hope at some point you realize u need to change & adapt too. Otherwise, your research will eventually be useless bc data will be too old and sample size will be small. +

This fandom is not a monolith either but one thing we learned from our favs is how to be petty. I can bet you there will never be another ARMY census unless it was given by HYBE themselves. And honestly they are doing a better job then u guys are now. +

They lurk quietly and just drop the 🍵 in Weverse articles. And at least with them, I know it’ll be in BTS’ best interests bc they want to keep their main consumers happy and engaged. But u know that’s just my 2 cents…what do I know

Twitter Thread by @SmallChimChim

Regardless...this isnt about the conference...its about the org oe these grp of researchers themselves and how, even in their "statements",they always skirt over the issues and dodge accountabilities by boring us with thesaurus rich 283738 worded essays. This is about their team+

Using ARMYs as some kind of springboards to their academic pursuit but always have this community's and tannies' best interest last. Theyve allowed antis to take part and watch us like some spectacle and kekekeke on their accts, trashing tannies & their music like???

Twitter Thread by @pragueart1

Quote retweet by @omermeroz of @TheR3Journal's statement:

This can't stay like this.

If you want to put the ARMY name on something the least you can do is to verify they are ARMY. Academia is peer reviewed for a reason and this is the first step. Every academic journal, even the crappy ones, verifies those submitting work and those +

https://twitter.com/TheR3Journal/status/1453498205119844358

Volunteering to peer review. They decide their parameters and they can be as strict or as loose as they want. Having a strict screening to all those involved does not mean you deciding who is ARMY and who is not. It means that you care about the community you are a part of and +

Want to make sure that they are represented properly.

You can't use ARMY and BTS without having proper protections in place and validation is the start.

Do much better or don't do at all.

Twitter Thread by @omermeroz

Quote retweet by @Hazard7x of @TheR3Journal's statement:

It’s clear this is a failed project. You have to set basic requirements around bias, which means you cannot have people who disparage BTS and ARMY in your circles, yet that’s repeatedly been the case. If you can’t gatekeep, you don’t belong here.

What this project is doing is repeatedly allowing people who actively have agendas against BTS and ARMY to use a veneer of academic respectability to present shoddy biased perspectives. If you can’t stop giving these people a platform, you don’t deserve yours.

Twitter Thread by @Hazard7x

2022

As of 2022, ResearchBTS, The R3 Journal, and BangtanScholars do not post as frequently as they did pre-April 2021 on Twitter. When BTS merchandise is released, jokes about and references to Emily Wang are still made. Attempts at large research surveys done by academics in the ARMY fandom are met with contention and no longer garner the same response level as they did pre-April 2021.