The need for ‘pansexual’ as an answer choice on data collection instruments
by misstomrstodr
Without a doubt, the current state of affairs in LGBTQA data collection is severely lacking and suboptimal for numerous reasons, many of which deserve their own separate post for another time. My post today pertains more to something quite specific that I’ve come across on research projects that I’ve worked with in the capacity as a data manager.
It is hard to make the argument (at least for those who are part of the LGBTQA community and/or those that work in this field often) that data collection for “non-heterosexual” populations of any sort is done adequately [*note: a friend of mine cringes when I’ve said ‘non-heterosexual’ in our discussions about a conference abstract we submitted a few months back, but I use it here only to make a point].
When it comes to data collection, we can focus on labels, identity, actions… where to start? What to capture? And from a sociological lens, an philosophical perspective, or a public health focus (or all of the above)? But pie-in-the-sky dreams aside, there is an obvious gaping hole in the question that so frequently peppers data collection instruments as the “standard” or “core” sexual orientation question. I completely support the notion that some effort is better than no effort – asking a question on a survey about sexual orientation helps us not only collect relevant data, but also provides a point from which to grow, refine, and appropriately develop adequate data collection tools for this needy population.
But as your resident bi-lov-ed researcher, it is my duty to say that this standard/core question is failing to capture an important element of the bisexual realm. From my past post, you may have read that I have my reasons for identifying as a bisexual woman, rather than a pansexual woman. I have theorized that I feel comfortable in my current state as a bisexual woman because it allows me to coexist happily as a woman in a marriage with a cismale, while also feeling comfortable with having attractions towards women. I have discussed with my husband that it is quite likely (in an alternate universe, perhaps) that my identity as a single woman would actually be pansexual – my first inclination throughout my life in looking for my life partner was never to ask whether Mendelian randomization at conception provided them XX or XY (or triploid sex chromosomes?).
Thus, honing in beyond the global (but vitally important) notion that sexuality is fluid and identities are dynamic rather than static, tattooed-on labels that stick with us for life in databases, we need to understand that lacking an answer choice that at least says “Bisexual/pansexual” and only providing a choice that says “bisexual” will alienate pansexual individuals and force them to either skip the question, to choose a selection that doesn’t fit their current identity, or inconvenience them by writing in their answer in the ‘Other’ box [if there is such a box!]
Yes, some data is better than no data, but while we’re at it, why not add just one more word to help enrich the data that we are already collecting in so many surveys?
Best,
C
The Bi-Love-Ed RESEARCHER 
This is a very informative report.
LikeLike
Wouldn’t that depend on the specific data being sought after and the purpose for collecting it? I’m not disagreeing with you and if I were collecting data on sexuality and related behaviors, I’d include pansexual under “What is your sexuality?” and go from there. I wouldn’t think that someone having to check “Other” is a slight or an inconvenience and more so if you do one of those “if you checked Other, go to question 5” kind of things to get specific information. And if such a thing would alienate pansexuals, wouldn’t someone who’s Queer feel alienated if this designation isn’t included in a quest for data?
Probably… but it still depends on what the survey is specifically looking for. If I were designing a data collection module and needed to know the sexuality of the person taking the survey, I’d even design it to ask the question about their sexuality and then put a box in so that the survey taker can write in their sexuality so that, say, Asexual folks won’t feel left out.
LikeLike
Hello there,
Thanks for your comment! This issue is incredibly complex, so I only wanted to tackle the specific issue of not including pansexual as a choice, but including bisexual as a choice. Having to check other, and subsequent write what you are is a challenge in terms of the validity of data you are trying to capture in many psychometric scales, for both the respondent and the researcher. If you have an answer choice that says “bisexuality/pansexual”, then this is the answer choice they select. If your given options are sparse, and you rely mostly on people writing whatever they are in the ‘Other’ box, then the data manager/analyst is going to have a hard time understanding the difference in “pansexual” “50/50 pansexual/bisexual” and things of that nature. The ‘other’ box, notoriously, does not have really good reliability in research, so it’s best to try your best in operationalizing the construct you are trying to measure for the purposes of your study.
I’m a health researcher, so regardless of the specific outcome and determinants that I’m researching, it is still critical to capture as much useful covariate data as possible. The actual outcomes/determinants don’t matter so much when you are trying to standardize data collection to build a robust body of data to examine and analyze, and eventually, refine and re-examine better ways to collect such data.
My post was only about pansexual/bisexual sexuality choices – I didn’t even approach many of the other issues with sexual orientation questions. The question that inspired this post had many other options, but ‘queer’ was also not one of them. Great for you to bring that because I knew someone once who identified as queer because they felt the strict lesbian/dyke dynamic was so stringent.
Please consider following my blog because I am in talks with working with a prominent sexual health/sexuality researcher to gain a better understanding of how we can collect sexual orientation/identity data in a better format. The body of evidence out there is VERY new, but it still points to an increased need for health research to stop focusing on the actions of individuals in capturing sexual identity. MSM and WSW completely oversimplifies the rich data that is out there for us to collect.
Thanks again for your comment 🙂 Hope to discuss more in the future.
Best,
C
LikeLike
I know how complex it is – I’m a retired computer systems engineer and I’ve had to write code and/or design datasets for data collection and when I’ve sat in the design meetings, wow, they can be intense when trying to decide what data are to be collected and right down to specific terminology required.
I’ll go back to your blog and click follow because now I’m very curious about how this is gonna turn out…
LikeLiked by 1 person