Sexual- and Gender-Minority Individuals in Survey Instruments: A Critical Examination of Demographic Information Collection

• In Event: 72.056 - Unruly Queers: Interrogating Power in Higher Education Practice, Policy, and Research

Abstract

Objectives or Purpose

Within the fields of higher education, there are a select number of national datasets that provide a strong foundation for innovative empirical analyses. Though these datasets heavily influence research and practice, scholarly communities do not have a holistic or transparent understanding of how participant information is collected. The purpose of this paper is to examine the national landscape of higher education survey instruments in regards to demographic information collection for sexual and gender minority individuals.

Theoretical Framework

The foundation for this examination is built upon four theoretical frameworks: critical social theory, quantitative criticalism, intersectionality, and queer theory. Quantitative criticalists examine phenomena with objectivity while also advocating for social justice and the reduction of oppression (Carter & Hurtado, 2007). Intersectionality refers to the interaction between gender, race, and other categories of difference and the outcomes of these interactions as they relate to power (Crenshaw, 1989). Queer theory suspends binary classifications to encompass a more social, fluid, understanding of identity (Britzman, 1995). In her seminal article examining queer theory uses in higher education and student affairs research, Renn (2010) wrote, “I call for increased use of queer theory and new research approaches at the same time that I call for continuation of large-scale studies” (p. 138). This study synthesizes the need for critical quantitative research and large-scale queer studies.

Method/data sources/modes of inquiry

Scholar A reviewed all manuscripts from five tier-one higher education and student affairs journal volumes from 2010-2012 (Bray & Major, 2011). Within articles that primarily used quantitative methods (N=373), he tracked the demographic variables included in the analyses, paying particular attention to the proportion of quantitative studies that included sexual identity and/or transgender identity. He also identified survey instruments that were used in analyses for three or more studies published in the aforementioned journals from 2010-2012 and gained copies of the instruments. He conducted a detailed assessment of demographic information included in the surveys and concentrated on the prevalence of sexual and transgender identities in demographic questions.

Results and Scholarly Significance

Of the 373 quantitative articles, Scholar A found that only seven (1.88%) included sexual identity and two (0.54%) included transgender identity. The only tier one higher education and student affairs journal to publish quantitative articles with sexual and transgender identity was the Journal of College Student Development. Regarding demographic questions included across the 10 survey instruments, four included sexual identity and two included transgender identity. These findings are astonishing and unacceptable given the importance of quantitative scholarship in advancing institutional, state, and national policies in higher education and student affairs (Stage, 2007). As a scholarly community, we have caught ourselves in a catch-22, whereby these underrepresented groups are under-researched, yet survey developers do not include these demographic questions because of a lack of empirical research on these populations. The full manuscript provides detailed recommendations for quantitative scholars conducting research across social identities. Recommendations will provide guidance for navigating the tensions between quantifying sexual and gender identities and celebrating the fluid, intersectional, and evolving nature of social identities.

Author

• Jason C. Garvey, The University of Alabama