Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
In light of the methodological and ethical issues associated with using a male/female tick box to collect gender data, researchers are increasingly questioning how to measure gender inclusively in survey research. Open-ended measures afford the greatest flexibility, though whether they are practical for large-scale surveys has yet to be tested. Here, we systematically assess the feasibility of open-ended gender measures drawing on a New Zealand national probability sample (New Zealand Attitudes and Values Study, N = 15,758). We asked participants “What is your gender?” as an open-ended measure of gender, and developed a simple, cost-effective coding scheme for coding qualitative gender data. Results indicate that very few participants (n = 15) self-identified as transgender, or outside of the male/female gender binary. Moreover, we find no evidence that implementation of the open-ended measure contributes to non-response rates or panel attrition. Taken together, these results demonstrate that large-scale surveys can feasibly implement inclusive measures of gender as an alternative to binary categorical measures. Because the single-measure approach likely underestimates the number of transgender participants, however, researchers interested in identifying all participants whose gender differs from their assigned sex should utilize two-step methods, which assess gender as well as assigned sex at birth.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Fraser et al. (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: