1. Development of a Survey Question on Sexual Identity Amanda Wilmot Data Collection Methodology for Social Surveys UK, Office for National Statistics Presented by Simon Compton

2. Purpose of presentation Provide an overview of the project. Report on work undertaken. Demonstrate advantages of examining the response process from multiple perspectives.

3. Project aims Project initiated in response to: A change in equality legislation. 2011 Census consultation. Project aimed to: Examine feasibility of providing benchmark data. Examine feasibility of providing measure of disadvantage. Provide advice on best practice with regard to data collection.

4. Establishing the measurement concept Source: Prevalence of the Three Dimensions of Sexual Orientation from Laumann et al.’s (1994) U.S. Probability Sample Dimensions of sexual orientation Men (%)Women (%) Homosexual Attraction or Interest (current) 7.7 7.5 Homosexual Behaviour (since puberty) 5.3 3.5 Homosexual or Bisexual Identity (current) 2.8 1.4 Any of the Above 10.1 8.6

5. Measurement concept: Sexual identity More stable over time. Less intrusive. De facto: Sexual identity within a household environment.

6. Methodology UK and International survey review Quantitative research Four Omnibus survey trials. General Lifestyle Survey pilot. Analysis of proxy data. Qualitative research Telephone interviews with those who preferred not to answer. Feedback from interviewers / Field observations. Focus groups with members of the public. Cognitive/in-depth interviews with members of the public.

7. Quantitative trials : Omnibus trials 1 and 2 Computer Assisted Self-Interviewing (CASI) Trial 1: July/August 2006 “Which of the following best describes your sexual identity? Heterosexual 92.0% Gay or Lesbian 1.3% Bisexual 1.2% Other (please specify) 0.9% Prefer not to say 4.6% Base = 2124 (Estimates not suitable for publication) Trial 2: November/December 2006 “Do you consider yourself to be…” Heterosexual or Straight 96.8% Gay or Lesbian 0.8% Bisexual 0.6% Other (please specify) 0.3% Prefer not to say 1.5% Base = 1910 (Estimates not suitable for publication)

8. Reasons for selecting ‘prefer not to say’ Omnibus trial 2: November/December 2006 ResponseWeighted % Unweighted count 1. Did not understand the question 2. Answers unclear to me 3. None of the answers apply to me 4. Concerned about confidentiality/ privacy 5. Object to being asked the question 6. Other reason 7. Prefer not to give reason Total The percentages sum to more than 100% as respondents could give more than one answer 6 1 24 17 20 2 33 100 3 1 6 7 1 9 33

9. Quantitative trials: Omnibus trial 3 July/August 2007 - Combination of Computer Assisted Self-Interviewing (CASI) and Computer Assisted Personal Interviewing (CAPI) Response categoryGroup 1 % Response categoryGroup 2 % Heterosexual/Straight Gay/Lesbian Bisexual Other (please specify) Prefer not to say 95.8 1.1 0.8 0.2 2.1 Gay/Lesbian Bisexual Heterosexual/Straight Other (please specify) Prefer not to say 1.4 0.5 94.5 0.9 2.7 Base (Estimates not suitable for publication) 1190Base 1199

10. Quantitative trials: Omnibus trial 4 Nov/Dec/Jan 2007/8 Computer Assisted Personal Interviewing (CAPI: concealed showcards) Which of the options on this card best describes how you think of yourself? Please just read out the letter next to the description. D. Heterosexual / Straight T. Gay/Lesbian V. Bisexual M. Other (No PNTS) (Spontaneous DK/ Refusal) Looking at this card, which of these do you consider yourself to be? Please just read out the letter next to the description. K. Heterosexual / Straight N. Gay/Lesbian Z. Bisexual Q. Other (No PNTS) (Spontaneous DK/ Refusal)

11. Quantitative trials: Omnibus trial 4 Nov/Dec/Jan 2007/8 Computer Assisted Personal Interviewing (CAPI: concealed showcards) Response categoryQuestion stem A ‘best describes’ % Question stem B ‘consider yourself to be’ % Heterosexual/Straight Gay/Lesbian Bisexual Other Don’t know/refusal 97.2 0.9 0.4 0.5 1.0 96.3 0.8 0.9 0.8 1.2 Base (Estimates not suitable for publication) 1731 1698

12. Qualitative Research: Focus groups Six single-sex groups: heterosexual; gay/lesbian; bisexual. (52 participants) Primary sample criteria: age; sex; sexual identity; household type. Secondary sample criteria: educational attainment; ethnic group/religion. Age: 19-72. Location: London.

13. Qualitative research: Focus groups General acceptance of question. Confidentiality a concern. Not always understanding purpose. Location: alongside similar questions. Objections to proxy responses. Some difficulties with conceptualising sexual identity.

14. Data Collection Instrument Integrated Household Survey (IHS) the preferred data collection instrument. 278,000 individual adult interviews per year. National estimates available in year 1. Sub-national estimates within 3-5 years.

15. Quantitative trials: General Lifestyle Survey Longitudinal Household survey (CAPI) April 2008 – ongoing Face-to-Face (Concealed showcards) “Which of the options on this card best describes how you think of yourself? Please just read out the number next to the description” 27. Heterosexual / Straight 21. Gay / Lesbian 24. Bisexual 29. Other (Spontaneous DK/ Refusal) Telephone “I will now read out a list of terms people sometimes use to describe how they think of themselves.” 1.Heterosexual or Straight 2.Gay or Lesbian 3.Bisexual 4.Other (Spontaneous DK/ Refusal) “As I read the list again, please say ‘yes’ when you hear the option that best describes how you think of yourself.”

16. Qualitative research: Cognitive/In-depth interviews Around 30 cognitive/in-depth interviews. Sampled purposively to achieve breadth and diversity. Sampling strategy compliments that used for focus groups. Sub-groups include: transgender people, youngest and oldest age-groups, lower education attainment, rural communities, particular ethnic minority and faith groups.

17. Conclusion Provide an acceptable measure of self- perceived sexual identity for examining relative disadvantage at national and sub- national level. A single precise count of LGB population unlikely. Combination of qualitative and quantitative research techniques has been effective.

18. Finally… Acknowledgements Data Collection Methodology Branch Amanda Wilmot, Peter Betts and Tamara Taylor. Social Analysis and Reporting Division: Madhavi Bajekal and Joe Traynor. Contact information Sexual identity project website: www.ons.gov.uk/about-statistics/measuring-equality/sexual- identity-project Sexual identity project email: sexual.identity@ons.gov.uk