Measurements We Live By: Gender as Data in Canadian Sociology


Kennedy Culbertson, University of Saskatchewan

Calls for more inclusive measures for sex and gender go back as far as 2010, but normative Canadian sociology has yet to answer this evidence-based call to action. Transgender and gender diverse populations continue to exist on the periphery of sociological research and are outright excluded by traditional research practices involving gender. Due to a lack of inclusive research methods, there is still much we do not know about transgender and gender diverse populations. Although the systemic exclusion of trans folks has likely been unintentional, we cannot deny the negative ramifications felt to this day. My research investigates the inclusion and exclusion of transgender and gender diverse people in Canadian sociology using measurement tools for sex and gender. Traditional binary measurement tools for sex and gender exclude many transgender and gender diverse populations from participating in research. I performed a content analysis of 126 papers published between 2014 and 2023 in the Canadian Review of Sociology (CRS). Papers that were included in the sample must be published in English, perform empirical research, and use a Canadian dataset or sample population. Papers that were primarily theoretical or that performed systematic reviews were excluded from the sample, as the focus of this study was measurement tools for sex and gender. Similarly, papers that made no mention of both sex and gender were excluded from the sample. With these parameters, I was left with a sample of 126 research papers. Initial results indicate that one in four papers did not report which sex or gender measurement tool was used in research (n = 32). Nearly two-thirds of the sample reported using binary measurement tools for sex or gender in their work (n = 83). When restricting the analysis to papers that reported their measurement tool (n = 94), binary measures were used in almost 90% of cases. A total of eleven papers reported using a more inclusive measurement tool for sex or gender. More inclusive measures of sex or gender accounted for less than ten percent of the total sample (n = 11; 8.7%), and just under twelve percent of the papers that reported their measurement tool (11.7%). The current recommendation for social research is a two-step measure that includes sex assigned at birth and self-identified gender identity. This measure allows for trans folks to be included in analysis with their gender group and allows for researchers to determine the transgender status of respondents if needed. Based on the analysis of the CRS from 2014 to 2023, most publications that measure gender are not following the practices outlined by experts. My presentation will discuss other variables that may be related to the adoption of inclusive measurement tools, including research type (quantitative, qualitative, mixed), method of data collection (survey, census, interviews, etc.), and data source (primary, secondary, mixed). I will also discuss the variation between the different inclusive measures used by papers in the sample. It is important to understand the practices of normative sociological research so that we can intentionally move towards more inclusive practices.

This paper will be presented at the following session: