Home » Research and Writing
Category Archives: Research and Writing
A couple of weeks ago, I participated on a panel at the American Sociological Association annual meeting titled, “Navigating Queer Identities in the Department and Classroom.” I decided to reflect on what I feel is the “conditional acceptance” of LGBTQ scholars in sociology. I have provided my notes from that panel below.
I have faced surprisingly little homophobic discrimination in my academic career. There have been occasional stings of homophobic microaggressions: “you’re gay, do you like my shoes?”; “I’m glad I don’t have to worry about AIDS”; “did you want life insurance for your wife?”; “we’re so gay-friendly – there are lots of theatres and museums nearby.” But, I am not aware of instances of outright discrimination, harassment, or exclusion.
I do not take from my experiences the assumption that I am one of the lucky few, and certainty not the conclusion that homophobia is a thing of the past (even in academia). Rather, I am keenly aware of the choices – or, rather, compromises – that I have made that have shielded me from more severe discrimination and marginalization in academia. To some degree, at least compared to even a few years ago, lesbian, gay, and bisexual have achieved acceptance in sociology. The American Sociological Association’s (ASA) advocacy for marriage equality is nothing short of historical. (The field lags in recognizing, addressing, and eliminating transphobia.)
As a queer cisgender man, I have certainly felt welcome, if not accepted, in sociology. But, this acceptance has felt anything but unconditional. Throughout my career, I have felt conditionally accepted as an out queer man in sociology. I borrow this term – conditionally accepted – from the experience of coming out to my parents around age 18. In the years that followed, their initial denial and disappointment gave way to acceptance because I was doing well in school. They admitted that it became easier to accept my sexuality because I was successful. Translation: my parents would have continued to struggle if I were HIV-positive, suffering from drug addition, or another casualty of suicide or hate crimes.
“I Don’t Mind Gay People”
In my academic career, I have faced two manifestations of this conditional acceptance as a queer scholar studying queer communities. The first is akin to the supposedly welcoming phrase, “I don’t mind gay people as long as they don’t come up on me.” You can be queer in sociology – just do not demand the majority to change. Do not ask sociology to start recognizing sexualities and trans studies as legitimate areas of study.
Even before I even began my PhD program, I was discouraged from pursuing gender studies training. My dreams of a joint PhD in sociology and gender studies were quickly dismissed with the warning that I would never get a job. But, I was also discouraged from pursuing a graduate minor in gender studies; instead, my minor became research methods (i.e., statistics). By the midpoint of my training, I had picked up the habit of choosing more mainstream subfields and topics on my own. I focused on social psychology instead of gender or sexualities for my qualifying exam. My dissertation was primarily a medical sociology project, though it includes some attention to sexuality and intersectionality.
On the surface, the pressure to become a mainstream sociologist was a practical matter. I would, and did, get job offers as a quantitative medical sociologist who has published in mainstream journals. Maybe the interests I came to grad school with – wanting to study racism within queer communities using qualitative methods – would have led to a very different academic trajectory. But, the implicit message was that studying sexualities – or more specifically, studying queer people – was not important to sociology. To be successful, one does not become a sociologist of sexualities, and certainly not a sociologist of queer communities nor a queer sociologist. Rather, one becomes a medical sociologist, a criminologist, a cultural sociologist or some other reputable subfield, who happens to study LGBTQ people.
When I became a medical sociologist who happens to study queer people, and other oppressed groups, I stopped hearing that my research interests were “too narrow.” I stopped hearing, “you’ll never get a job with a dissertation on trans people.” Conforming paid off – at least professionally.
“Don’t Flaunt It”
The second manifestation of conditional acceptance for queer scholars in sociology is parallel to the expression, “I don’t care if you’re queer as long as you don’t flaunt it.” For lesbian, gay, and bisexual people, your sexual identity is not an issue so long as you do not make it an issue – at least in the eyes of our heterosexist colleagues. Besides advice on how to frame my work, I also occasionally received advice on how to present myself as a scholar. For conference presentations, I was warned against “shy guy stuff.” Translation: “man up.” To be successful, a scholar must present herself in a masculinist way. From the awful stories that I heard from trans and gender non-conforming peers, I understood that to mean my ticket to success on the job market was wearing suits and speaking with unwavering authority and expertise. Due to my fear of professional harm, I wear suits in almost every academic setting, including the classroom.
In my pursuit to conform to the heterosexist and cissexist standards in sociology and academe in general, I have been rewarded. But, that has come at great personal costs. What began as a diagnosis of generalized anxiety disorder stemming from the intense, urgent demands of grad school morphed into anxiety about interacting with other people in general – even students. I find only slight comfort in my suits from the fear of being dismissed, disrespected, or even fired. I struggle to find a home within sociology. My work falls primarily in medical sociology, yet I remain unknown in that subfield of the ASA. I find a sense of community in the sexualities section, but my limited research feels insignificant to the study of sexuality. Finding the proper home for awards and sessions is a challenge each year, as well.
More generally, I feel my professional identity has almost completely dissociated from my sexual, gender, and racial identities, as well as my activism. Though I am undeniably out via my blogging and other public writing, my scholarship, and the picture of my partner on my office desk, my queer identity is disconnected from my professional presentation of self. In the classroom, I only explicitly out myself after students have completed course evaluations because I fear that I will be deemed biased or “too activist.” I suppose I am somewhat in the closet intellectually and pedagogically. I do not feel authentically queer as a scholar and teacher.
I probably should not be surprised by my experiences. I first read Patricia Hill Collins’s essay, “Learning from the Outsider Within,” in my first semester of graduate school. Through that 1986 piece, Collins warned me that scholars of oppressed communities face the pressure to “assimilate a standpoint that is quite different from their own” in order to become sociological insiders. The outsider within status is one filled with tension between one’s experiences and worldview and the false ideology of objectivity in mainstream sociology. Collins noted that some sociological outsiders resolve this tension by leaving the discipline, while others suppress their difference to become sociological insiders. Apparently, I have pursued the latter path.
Some Advice For LGBTQ Sociologists (And Scholars in General)
I do not share these experiences to criticize my graduate program, or as an excuse to vent about that chapter of my life. I also refrain from casting blame, as I am partly responsible. Knowing the norms and values of academia, I have made various compromises in order to get ahead. Fortunately, there are improvements, albeit reflecting slow change. For example, just 3 years after the 2012 sexualities ASA pre-conference in Denver, CO, sexuality will be the 2015 theme for the main ASA meeting in Chicago. And, I do not want to characterize the academic career options for queer people as bleak, facing either conformity and selling out or perpetually being on the margins of sociology.
I do believe there is hope for an authentic, happy, and healthy career for queer sociologists, including those who study gender and sexualities. I suspect we must all make some sort of concessions in order to success in academia, though this burden falls more on marginalized scholars. It may be useful, then, to determine how far one is willing to concede. At what point does advancing in one’s career outweigh the costs to oneself, one’s identity and values, one’s family, and one’s community? I recommend reflecting on this at multiple times in one’s career, particularly with upcoming milestones, new jobs, and other transitions. Essentially, can you live with the tough decisions you must make?
- If you are forced to make concessions, or even sell out in some way, then make sure there are other sources of community, authenticity, happiness, or validation in place in your life. Find or create a queer community, maybe specifically of other academics. Have one fun, critical, or super queer project for every few projects that are more mainstream; maybe use these projects as opportunities to collaborate with other queer scholars. If your research is pretty devoid of queer issues, find ways to cover them in your classes, or vice versa, or focus your service and advocacy on queer initiatives.
- Look for queer role models among your professors or senior colleagues. Look outside of your own department or university if necessary. And, in turn, consider being a role model for your students and junior colleagues – that means being out if it is safe to do so. Incorporate sexualities and trans studies into your syllabi to demonstrate the relevance and importance of these subjects in sociology. At the start of the semester, ask students for their preferred name and pronoun, and mention yours.
- Before enrolling into a program or accepting a job, do your homework. How safe will you be as an out LGBTQ person? In the campus and local newspaper, can you find evidence of anti-LGBTQ violence, discrimination, and prejudice? Are queer scholars, especially those who do queer research, supported and included? Email queer and queer-friendly students or faculty. I have heard some suggest being out on interviews and campus visits, which seems counterintuitive; but, if you face discomfort or hostility, you would know what to except upon going there.
- Let’s be honest about what we are talking about here: figuring out how to survive as queer people within heterosexist and cissexist academic institutions. In order to be included, in order to create queer communities, in order to see our own lives reflected in scholarship and curriculum, we must fight. Like it or not, we must be activists to ensure our survival and inclusion within academia and other social institutions.
- Let’s keep having these conversations. It is crucial that we know that we are not alone, and that we have a supportive community in sociology.
Sociologists Andrew M. Penner and Aliya Saperstein have published yet another study that demonstrates how we categorize others in terms of race — not just racial stereotypes, but even racial identity — is dependent upon their other characteristics. In their most recent, published in the June 2013 issue of Gender & Society, the researchers found that individuals’ socioeconomic position and gender predicted whether their race would be recorded by interviewers as Black, white, or other:
Researchers study what shapes racial classification. In a novel study that looked back at how survey interviewers racially classify people over the course of their adult lives, sociologists Andrew Penner and Aliya Saperstein discovered that from one year to the next some people’s race appeared to change. This change occurred when the interviewer in one year wrote down one race, but in the next year the interviewer wrote down a different race. Penner and Saperstein call these changes in classification “racial fluidity,” and the researchers wanted to know what affected how a person’s race was perceived.
Though they found general factors that seemed to determine respondents’ racial classification, some were gender-specific:
The study found that men and women had similar levels of racial fluidity overall, and some factors, such as where the people lived, resulted in similar changes for both women and men. All else being equal, people were more likely to be classified as white and less likely to be classified as black if they lived in the suburbs, while the opposite was true for people living in the inner city.
However, other factors that triggered changes in racial classification differed by gender. In particular, poverty made men and women less likely to be classified as white, but the effect was stronger for men. Penner explains, “This is consistent with traditional gender roles that emphasize men’s responsibility as breadwinners, so that poverty changes how men are seen more than how women are seen.”
On the other hand, women, but not men, who have received welfare benefits are less likely to be seen as white and more likely to be seen as black, even though the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services estimated that in 2010 70% of welfare recipients are not black. Penner continues, “This result speaks to deeply entrenched stereotypes of ‘welfare queens’ originally made popular by Ronald Reagan in the 1980s. Knowing that a women is on welfare triggers a racial stereotype that isn’t triggered for men.”
Consistent with other widespread stereotypes, being a single parent affected a woman’s likelihood of being classified as white more than a man’s, while having been in prison affected whether men were classified as white but not women.
Some Additional Thoughts
This study, and their larger research project on racial fluidity, is a major contribution to the sociological understanding of race. Put bluntly, their work provides further evidence that race is socially constructed. It is not fixed (i.e., unchanging) nor universal. Rather, race is contextual, fluid, and, most importantly, an arbitrary way of classifying people.
It is also a commendable extension of intersectionality, wherein the researchers highlight the intersections of gender and social class in racial classifications. How we view others in terms of race is contingent upon their socioeconomic standing and gender. To study race separate from other important social characteristics is to paint an incomplete picture. I particularly appreciate their detailed discussion of doing intersectionality (i.e., applying an intersectional framework) in quantitative research — a practice that remains contentious among (and even antithetical to some) intersectionality scholars.
One question that lingers in my mind is the perceivers’ background. That is, do these dynamics play out the same way for all interviewers? Are they unique to interviewers of a particular background? Heck, let me just say what I really mean — is it just white interviewers whose racial classifications appear to be contingent on classed and gendered notions of whiteness and Blackness? The researchers accounted for various characteristics of the interviewers, including gender, level of education, and age — none of which effected racial categorization. But, interviewers’ self-identified race did.
In particular, respondents were significantly more likely to be coded as white if the interviewer was white (at least compared to Black interviewers); the reverse was true for coding respondents as Black. (Maybe these dynamics would reflect other race interviewers’ racial classifications if the survey was more racially inclusive than Black, white, and “other.”) Since this was merely background noise for the researchers’ primary analyses, they did not dig deeper into this. Why are white interviewers more likely to see respondents as white, and Black interviewers more likely to see respondents as Black?
I suppose from my own experience — notably, as someone who is racially ambiguous — there tends to be just as much racial inclusion as there is racial “Othering.” Some whites and Blacks have seen me as “one of their own,” while others see me as belonging to some other racial group. So, I am surprised by this bias of categorizing others as one’s own race. Certainly more research is needed to better understand these dynamics.
A point that seems lost in the academic press releases, commenting on “how others see your race,” is that those “others” are NLYS interviewers. Certainly, interviewers and researchers are mere humans; thus, it would be inappropriate to expect them to be totally free of society’s influences (including stereotypes and biases). I could make an issue of the supposed generalizability of the study — that we cannot assume trained interviewers’ racial classifications reflect those of laypeople. But, their other work makes this concern unnecessary.
One article about the study noted:
These changes were not random, as one might expect if the interviewers were just hurrying to finish up or if the data-entry clerks were making mistakes. The racial classifications changed systematically, in response to what had happened to the respondent since the previous interview.
Interviewer error is inevitable. But, this kind of systematic racial misclassification raises some cause for concern. These “mistakes,” to some unknown degree, biased research based on the NLYS data. In particular, it may have produced inaccurate estimates of racial differences on some outcome (e.g., health).
Fortunately, NLYS along with many other widely used surveys (and the US Census) have ceased interviewer-imposed race and ethnicity. Now, respondents themselves provide their self-identified race and ethnicity. While this eliminates interviewer bias, this approach is still imperfect for the fluidity and complexity of race. In another study by Saperstein and Penner, individuals’ racial self-identification depended upon prior incarceration. While this may appear to be evidence that respondents lie about their race (which is possible), it actually suggests that even how individuals see their own race depends upon their experiences and status. Arguably, these contingent self-identified racial categorizations may reflect how others see them.
In other ways, researchers and interviewers may continue to impose their perceptions on respondents. I have witnessed first hand the imputing of respondents’ gender. The rationale given against explicitly asking respondents their gender was to avoid offending them: “can’t you tell by my voice that I’m a man!” I am confident that most people were accurately classified by their self-identified gender. But, I worry about the unknowable number of people who were misclassified. I wondered why, when asking about personal opinions and intimate details of strangers’ lives, there was fear of offending them by asking about something so readily volunteered, constantly provided on official forms.
Although our openness as researchers introduces messiness and complexity, I feel we owe it to the people we study to willingly capture the messy, complicated details of their lives and identities. I fear we too often choose the convenience of easily contained categories and quantifiable experiences over the rich complexity and diversity of our social world. Though barely mentioned in the press for the article, Penner and Saperstein’s study reminds us just how complicated and messy that world is.
In 2008, I jumped at the opportunity to attend the Williams Institute’s primer on quantitative research on sexual orientation. By the time I attended the Fenway Institute‘s Summer Institute on LGBT Population Health in 2011, and thereafter, a lot had changed in survey research on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and trans* people in the US. The good news is that we have advanced at lightening speed in collecting samples of LGBT people and information about their sexual and non-sexual lives. The bad news – reflected by the ease with which one anti-gay study disrupted a Supreme Court case on marriage equality – is that we have not come far enough.
LGBT Inclusion in Survey Research
With the simultaneous decline in anti-LGBT prejudice and growing visibility of LGBT communities in the US, it is unsurprising that research on LGBT people, too, is an evolving process. In the late 1980s, the beginnings of LGBT inclusion in survey research were the product of attention to the HIV epidemic among gay and bisexual men. For example, the General Social Survey (GSS) added a question about the sex of their sexual partners in 1989. Unfortunately, there seemed little hope to investigate the lives of LGBT people otherwise. For some time, questions about sex (including sexual orientation) remained tucked away in confidential, self-administered questionnaires.
Now, more and more national surveys are asking respondents about their sexual orientation right in the core of the questions. Self-reported sexual identity has now worked its way to the status of a (sometimes included) sociodemographic characteristic, along with gender, race and ethnicity, education, and so forth. The most recent surveys, like a 2012 Gallup poll and the 2012 American National Election Survey (ANES), even asked whether adults identify as transgender. In many ways, we have achieved LGBT inclusion in survey research. But, in many ways, we are far from accurately representing LGBT adults and youth in social surveys.
“Shades” of Representation
The typical gold standard for survey research is representativeness – ideally, the collection of a large sample that reflects the “true” US population. Because some segments of the population are small and/or hard-to-reach, additional strategies are sometimes employed to better achieve representativeness. These strategies include oversampling (i.e., collecting a larger share of a specific subpopulation) and using sample weights to correct for sampling bias. Social scientists have made great efforts toward achieving representation of LGBT people in quantitative research. Indeed, several nationally representative surveys now include measures of sexual identity or sexual orientation.
But, what do we mean when we say we have collected a “nationally representative sample of LGB” youth or adults? I think it is worth teasing out the nuances of “representation.” Here are some important dimensions, in my opinion:
- Capturing the “true” size of the LGBT population – LGBT individuals and (not “or”) same-gender couples.
- Appropriately representing each segment of the diverse LGBT population – trans* people (e.g., transwomen, transmen, genderqueer people), lesbian women, bisexual women, bisexual men, gay men.
- Effectively representing other axes of diversity in the LGBT population – race, ethnicity, immigrant status, nationality, body size and shape, religion, socioeconomic status, ability, age, marital/partnership status, parental status, geography (e.g., urban, rural, East Coast, South), and political ideology.
- Representing the experiences, interests, and well-being of LGBT people (e.g., discrimination, political priorities).
Right now, we are just beginning to navigate the challenges of the first of these dimensions of representation – estimating the “true” size of the LGBT population. In fact, one data collection service, Knowledge Networks, offers sampling procedures to collect representative samples of lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) adults. However, in doing some digging, I believe their means of means of oversampling LGB individuals and applying inclusive sample weights rely on the American Community Survey (ACS) estimates of “same-sex couples.” Absent of a Census or similar comprehensive assessment of all LGBT-identified individuals in the US population, our best attempts at nationally representative samples of LGBT people are not necessarily “representative.”
Further, our first achievements of “nationally representative samples” of LGBT people may be underrepresenting certain segments of the LGBT population – namely, older LGB adults, bisexuals (especially men), LGB people of color, and LGB people in rural areas. And, I must make painfully clear here that we are even further behind on collecting representative samples of trans* adults and youth. Though we have the very large National Transgender Discrimination Survey, the earliest, very preliminary estimates of the size of the trans* adult population are based on the state of Massachusetts.
Why It Matters
For a number of reasons, it is important to 1) include at least one measure of sexual identity in surveys, 2) include at least one (inclusive) measure of gender identity, 3) include at least one (inclusive) measure of marital/partnership status, and 4) oversample LGBT people and/or apply LGBT-inclusive sample weights. First and foremost, the evidence that sexual and gender identities are an importance aspect of our social world is undeniable. The lives of LGBT people are uniquely shaped by their marginalized status – persistent discrimination, invisibility, income inequality, exclusion, relatively worse health and well-being, lack of relationship recognition, etc. This appears to shape a distinct set of political behaviors and attitudes, one’s social networks, and likely a host of other aspects of the everyday lives of LGBT people.
Second, social scientists must correct the lingering heteronormative and cisnormative biases in survey research. Surveys that fail to ask respondents’ their sexual identity, and that do not allow respondents to report same-gender partners contribute to the systematic erasure of LGB people and their romantic and familial relationships. Too few surveys collect information on respondents’ sex-assigned-at-birth, current gender identity, and current gender expression. Simply asking “female/woman” or “male/man” makes invisible those who are trans* and intersex. Further, I worry that many researchers using telephone surveys continue to assume the respondent’s gender based on their voice, presumably to avoid offending them by asking. Even for researchers whose primary interest is not in the lives of LGBT people, these biases are urgent matters for presenting accurate estimates in their research.
Finally, though many scholars do not agree or care to admit it, academic research has great power in defining the population. In excluding measures that reflect or at least include LGBT people, we send the message that that population is unimportant to social science research. Or, by slipping in “sex of sex partners” at the end of the survey or in a self-administered questionnaire, we signal the persistent taboo-ness of same-sexuality. By using one catch-all item for LGBT identity, scholars (unintentionally) erase the diversity within LGBT communities. But, by treating sexual identity and gender identity as core elements of sociodemographics, we make clear the importance and normalness of these aspects of individuals’ lives. Why not take the position of having a positive impact on the lives of LGBT people?
We are, indeed, on our way to better representing LGBT people in our research. In the mean time, there is much room for improvement. And, it is important to extend and enhance research via other methods (e.g., respondent-driven sampling, qualitative methods), as well, to capture a comprehensive understanding of the identities, well-being, and experiences of LGBT people.
Below, I include a list of resources and additional readings that may be useful for future LGBT research.
- LGBTData.com – resources for quantitative research on LGBT people
- The Fenway Institute Center for Population Research in LGBT Health, including the LGBT-inclusive data archive, Summer Institute in LGBT Population Health, and pre-doctoral mentoring program
- Healthy People 2020 LGBT Health Initiative
- Social Justice Sexuality Project (survey of LGBT people of color)
- National Transgender Discrimination Survey
- The Williams Institute, including reports on LGBT demographics, and primer on quantitative LGBT research
- “FAQ: Collecting Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Data” (Center for American Progress)
- “Gathering Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Data in Health IT: Better Information Can Help Close Disparities Gap.” (Center for American Progress)
- “On Sex/Gender Checkboxes” (recommendations for measuring sex, gender identity, and gender expression by Dr. Cary Gabriel Costello)
- “Gender-Related Measures Overview” (by the Gender Identity in U.S. Surveillance group)
- 2012 LGBT-inclusive Gallop Poll
- National Survey of Sexual Health and Behavior and special issue of the Journal of Sexual Medicine devoted to the survey’s preliminary results
- International LGBT Psychology Summer Institute
- ASA Section on Sexualities, including the 2012 pre-Conference, “Crossing Boundaries, Workshopping Sexualities”
Baulme, Amanda K., and D’Lane R. Compton. 2014. “Identity Versus Identification: How LGBTQ Parents Identify Their Children on Census Surveys.” Journal of Marriage and Family 76: 94-104.
Black, Dan, Gary Gates, Seth Sanders, and Lowell Taylor. 2000. “Demographics of the Gay and Lesbian Population in the United States: Evidence from Available Systematic Data Sources.” Demography 37: 139-54.
Bradford, Judith B., Sean Cahill, Chriss Grasso, and Harvey J. Makadon. 2012. Why Gather Data on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in Clinical Settings: Boston, MA: The Fenway Institute.
Bradford, Judith B., Sean Cahill, Chriss Grasso, and Harvey J. Makadon. 2012. How to Gather Data on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in Clinical Settings: Boston, MA: The Fenway Institute.
Dilley, Julia A., Katrina Wynkoop Simmons, Michael Boysun, Barbara A. Pizacani, and Mike J. Stark. 2010. “Demonstrating the Importance and Feasibility of Including Sexual Orientation in Public Health Surveys: Health Disparities in the Pacific Northwest.” American Journal of Public Health 100: 460-7.
Egan, Patrick J., Murray S. Edelman, and Kenneth Sherrill. 2008. “Findings from the Hunter College Poll of Lesbians, Gays and Bisexuals: New Discoveries about Identity, Political Attitudes, and Civic Engagement.” Hunter College, The City University of New York, New York, NY. Unpublished Manuscript.
Gates, Gary J. 2011. How Many People are Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender? Los Angeles: The Williams Institute.
Gates, Gary J. 2013. “Demographics and LGBT Health.” Journal of Health and Social Behavior 54: 72-4.
Herek, Gregory M., Aaron T. Norton, Thomas J. Allen, and Charles L. Sims. 2010. “Demographic, Psychological, and Social Characteristics of Self-Identified Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Adults in a US Probability Sample.” Sexuality Research and Social Policy 7: 176-200.
Herek, Gregory M. 2009. “Hate Crimes and Stigma-Related Experiences Among Sexual Minority Adults in the United States: Prevalence Estimates From a National Probability Sample.” Journal of Interpersonal Violence 24: 54-74.
Institute of Medicine. 2011. The Health of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender People: Building a Foundation for Better Understanding. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Meyer, Ilan H., and Patrick A. Wilson. 2009. “Sampling Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Populations.” Journal of Counseling Psychology 56: 23-31.
Sell, Randall L. 2010. “Defining and Measuring Sexual Orientation for Research.” Pp. 355-74 in The Health of Sexual Minorities: Public Health Perspectives on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Populations, edited by I. H. Meyer and M. E. Northridge. Springer: New York.
Sexual Minority Assessment Research Team (SMART). 2009. Best Practices for Asking Questions about Sexual Orientation on Surveys. Los Angeles: The Williams Institute, UCLA.
Tourangeau, Roger, and Tom W. Smith. 1996. “Asking Sensitive Questions: The Impact of Data Collection Mode, Question Format, and Question Context.” Public Opinion Quarterly 60: 275-304.
VanKim, Nicole A., James L. Padilla, Joseph G. L. Lee, and Adam O. Goldstein. 2010. “Adding Sexual Orientation Questions to Statewide Public Health Surveillance: New Mexico’s Experience.” American Journal of Public Health 100: 2392-6.