On the other hand, when I approached my research methods prof a year ago about this very issue, I was told in no uncertain terms that "Most people wouldn't understand why you are asking, and would answer in the standard way on all the different sex and gender questions, so why create confusion in the minds of the surveyed and use up lots of valuable research time that could be put to making other aspects of the survey better in ways that will be statistically significant?"
I think her reply highlights a belief rampant among most researchers: that the surveyed are simpletons who can only think within pre-existing boxes, and that for many people filling in little circles is already more of a hardship than most people can manage. Those of us up and coming in research, imo, are obligated to educate our mentors to the errors in their own thinking. -H...
One of my long-ago Weird Jobs was going through US Army aptitude tests and fixing errors the test-takers had made in filling out the machine-readable bubbles under their names and SSNs.
My first office job back in 1985 was a bubbler for Montgomery County Public Schools. We filled in the "bubbles" on the scantron sheets for all the first graders in the county for their standardized tests. I was always careful and double checked my work, but I worried about errors creeping in.
Sex: Male [] Female [] Do you express your sex/gender in a non-traditional way (i.e. homosexual, crossdressing, etc.) Yes [] No [] Do you have a gender-related birth anomaly (i.e. Klinefelter's Syndrome, androgen insensitivity syndrome, etc.) Answer 'no' if you do not understand this question. Yes [] No []
That would catch most of the major categories, but still be simple enough for Joe Average.
Actually, my second question would be simpler as: Are you homosexual, a crossdresser, or otherwise express your sex/gender in a non-traditional way? Yes [] No []
Sex/Gender: []Male []Female []Other If you marked "other", you may explain your answer or not, below: [_________________________________]
That wouldn't give a whole lot of tidily checked-off categories to do statistical calculations on, but it would a) gather an idea of just how many people identify as "other", with some additional clues for what categories should go on a more detailed form when you're not worried aboout confusing people, and b) make the form only the tiniest bit more complicated than most forms currently are, which should help with the not-confusing-people thing.
(Come to think of it, I've heard of folks getting confused by forms that just say, "Sex: ___" with a blank instead of check boxes. One of my neighbours, as a teen, asked his mother, "Do I put zero, because I haven't had sex yet?" while filling out such a form. An easy mistake in retrospect. I wasn't confused by a form, but I do recall seeing lots of classified ads in the newspaper that said, "EOE: M/F/H", and I figured it meant, "Equal Opportunity Employer: Male/Female/H____" and my brain kept filling in "Hermaphrodite", but I had trouble believeing all those employers were that cool. But wow, I'm veering way off into tangent-land now. I should sleep.)
"[...] why create confusion in the minds of the surveyed and use up lots of valuable research time that could be put to making other aspects of the survey better in ways that will be statistically significant?"
Uh ... "In order to find out whether the number of people we're completely overlooking because they have no way to make themselves known to us, is in fact statistcally significant after all."
Though I have to wonder what she meant by "the standard way" on the non-standard questions.
Thing is, there are a lot more people identifying as nontraditionally-gendered these days, as folks who previously would've tried to squeeze themselves into some other box or just muddled through feeling "different" in some way they couldn't name, now have the concepts to explore these issues. So what percentage of the survey population would be confused by the questions will depend partly on the ages of the surveyed.
Heck, Lynn Johnston had one of her characters casually toss off the phrase "multigendered population" in passing recently, not as a plot point, but just as one aspect of how diverse the world is on the way to some other point. Just how alien are these concepts in our culture now? Less so than they used to be.
(no subject)
I think her reply highlights a belief rampant among most researchers: that the surveyed are simpletons who can only think within pre-existing boxes, and that for many people filling in little circles is already more of a hardship than most people can manage. Those of us up and coming in research, imo, are obligated to educate our mentors to the errors in their own thinking. -H...
(no subject)
Bubbling
(no subject)
Do you express your sex/gender in a non-traditional way (i.e. homosexual, crossdressing, etc.) Yes [] No []
Do you have a gender-related birth anomaly (i.e. Klinefelter's Syndrome, androgen insensitivity syndrome, etc.) Answer 'no' if you do not understand this question. Yes [] No []
That would catch most of the major categories, but still be simple enough for Joe Average.
Actually, my second question would be simpler as:
Are you homosexual, a crossdresser, or otherwise express your sex/gender in a non-traditional way? Yes [] No []
(no subject)
Sex/Gender: []Male []Female []Other
If you marked "other", you may explain
your answer or not, below:
[_________________________________]
That wouldn't give a whole lot of tidily checked-off categories to do statistical calculations on, but it would a) gather an idea of just how many people identify as "other", with some additional clues for what categories should go on a more detailed form when you're not worried aboout confusing people, and b) make the form only the tiniest bit more complicated than most forms currently are, which should help with the not-confusing-people thing.
(Come to think of it, I've heard of folks getting confused by forms that just say, "Sex: ___" with a blank instead of check boxes. One of my neighbours, as a teen, asked his mother, "Do I put zero, because I haven't had sex yet?" while filling out such a form. An easy mistake in retrospect. I wasn't confused by a form, but I do recall seeing lots of classified ads in the newspaper that said, "EOE: M/F/H", and I figured it meant, "Equal Opportunity Employer: Male/Female/H____" and my brain kept filling in "Hermaphrodite", but I had trouble believeing all those employers were that cool. But wow, I'm veering way off into tangent-land now. I should sleep.)
(no subject)
(no subject)
Uh ... "In order to find out whether the number of people we're completely overlooking because they have no way to make themselves known to us, is in fact statistcally significant after all."
Though I have to wonder what she meant by "the standard way" on the non-standard questions.
Thing is, there are a lot more people identifying as nontraditionally-gendered these days, as folks who previously would've tried to squeeze themselves into some other box or just muddled through feeling "different" in some way they couldn't name, now have the concepts to explore these issues. So what percentage of the survey population would be confused by the questions will depend partly on the ages of the surveyed.
Heck, Lynn Johnston had one of her characters casually toss off the phrase "multigendered population" in passing recently, not as a plot point, but just as one aspect of how diverse the world is on the way to some other point. Just how alien are these concepts in our culture now? Less so than they used to be.