The first methodological theme in the panel discussion was the formulation of questions on gender identity and sexual orientation. The panellists noted that asking about gender identity can be empowering or triggering. Many often used answering options make some participants feel othered – and especially the common use of “other” category which can be perceived as offensive. Anukatariina Saloheimo gave an example of her study where she had used a list of 30 labels, allowed choosing more than one, and included an open question on identity which resulted in 90 different descriptions. One option that was mentioned was to use Likert scales instead of binary answering options.
The second theme was how to improve study designs and reporting. One advice was to match the study planning with the aim. A typical problem in general population surveys is that groups have to be merged in the reporting phase because of small numbers in individual groups. One solution is to use data from several survey rounds to increase the number of responses from specific groups. Another solution is to use cohort study design; examples of such studies are the Norwegian Life Course, Ageing and Generation Study (NorLAG) and the Project SEXUS in Denmark. It would also be valuable to have longitudinal studies of LGBTI+ people.
When developing methodology and reporting, it is important to be aware of the limitations of the study design. Adding open-ended questions is a recommended way to mitigate the limitations of survey question formulations.
The problems related to question formulations is not limited to questions about identity. When surveys want to study attitudes and values, the risk is that question formulations reinforce exclusion or stereotypies.
Regarding reporting, the panel identified several important themes. One is strategic and responsible reporting. Which aspects are chosen for reporting – are they empowering or oppressive? What kinds of narratives are created with the reports? Another important question is the dissemination of the results. What is being done to disseminate the results to various stakeholders? Civil society organizations, policymakers and professionals working in different fields were mentioned as important target audiences, but dissemination could be more active. It would be important to ensure that results are published rapidly, and to monitor how the results have been used.
Regarding resources, the panellists agreed that research funding is highly competitive and getting funding is difficult. The organizational funding for public data gathering typically covers the costs related to data gathering but not research. The result is that many public data sources are underutilized.