Do I Have To Be An “Other” To Be Myself? Exploring Gender Diversity In Taxonomy, Data Collection, And Through The Research Data Lifecycle

A. Gofman, Sam A. Leif, Hannah C. Gunderman, N. Exner
{"title":"Do I Have To Be An “Other” To Be Myself? Exploring Gender Diversity In Taxonomy, Data Collection, And Through The Research Data Lifecycle","authors":"A. Gofman, Sam A. Leif, Hannah C. Gunderman, N. Exner","doi":"10.7191/jeslib.2021.1219","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: Existing studies estimate that between 0.3% and 2% of adults in the U.S. (between 900,000 and 2.6 million in 2020) identify as a nonbinary gender or otherwise gender nonconforming. In response to the RDAP 2021 theme of radical change, this article examines the need to change how datasets represent nonbinary persons and how research involving gender data should approach the curation of this data at each stage of the research lifecycle.\n\nMethods: In this article, we examine some of the known challenges of gender inclusion in datasets and summarize some solutions underway. Using a critical lens, we examine the difference between current practice and inclusive practice in gender representation, describing inclusive practices at each stage of the research lifecycle from writing a data management plan to sharing data.\n\nResults: Data structures that limit gender to “male” and “female” or ontological structures that use mapping to collapse gender demographics to binary values exclude nonbinary and gender diverse populations. Some data collection instruments attempt inclusivity by adding the gender category of “other,” but using the “other” gender category labels nonbinary persons as intrinsically alien. Inclusive change must go farther, to move from alienation to inclusive categories. We describe several techniques for inclusively representing gender in data, from the data management planning stage, to collecting data, cleaning data, and sharing data. To facilitate better sharing of gender data, repositories must also allow mapping that includes nonbinary genders explicitly and allow for ontological mapping for long-term representation of diverse gender identities.\n\nConclusions: A good practice during research design is to consider two levels of critique in the data collection plan. First, consider the research question at hand and remove unnecessary gendering from the data. Secondly, if the research question needs gender, make sure to include nonbinary genders explicitly. Allies must take on this problem without leaving it to those who are most affected by it. Further, more voices calling for inclusionary practices surrounding data rises to a crescendo that cannot be ignored.","PeriodicalId":90214,"journal":{"name":"Journal of escience librarianship","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of escience librarianship","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7191/jeslib.2021.1219","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Objective: Existing studies estimate that between 0.3% and 2% of adults in the U.S. (between 900,000 and 2.6 million in 2020) identify as a nonbinary gender or otherwise gender nonconforming. In response to the RDAP 2021 theme of radical change, this article examines the need to change how datasets represent nonbinary persons and how research involving gender data should approach the curation of this data at each stage of the research lifecycle. Methods: In this article, we examine some of the known challenges of gender inclusion in datasets and summarize some solutions underway. Using a critical lens, we examine the difference between current practice and inclusive practice in gender representation, describing inclusive practices at each stage of the research lifecycle from writing a data management plan to sharing data. Results: Data structures that limit gender to “male” and “female” or ontological structures that use mapping to collapse gender demographics to binary values exclude nonbinary and gender diverse populations. Some data collection instruments attempt inclusivity by adding the gender category of “other,” but using the “other” gender category labels nonbinary persons as intrinsically alien. Inclusive change must go farther, to move from alienation to inclusive categories. We describe several techniques for inclusively representing gender in data, from the data management planning stage, to collecting data, cleaning data, and sharing data. To facilitate better sharing of gender data, repositories must also allow mapping that includes nonbinary genders explicitly and allow for ontological mapping for long-term representation of diverse gender identities. Conclusions: A good practice during research design is to consider two levels of critique in the data collection plan. First, consider the research question at hand and remove unnecessary gendering from the data. Secondly, if the research question needs gender, make sure to include nonbinary genders explicitly. Allies must take on this problem without leaving it to those who are most affected by it. Further, more voices calling for inclusionary practices surrounding data rises to a crescendo that cannot be ignored.
我必须成为一个“他者”才能成为自己吗?在分类学、数据收集和研究数据生命周期中探索性别多样性
目的:现有研究估计,美国有0.3%至2%的成年人(2020年将达到90万至260万)认为自己是非二元性别或其他性别不符合标准。为了响应RDAP 2021的激进变革主题,本文探讨了改变数据集如何代表非二元性别的必要性,以及涉及性别数据的研究应如何在研究生命周期的每个阶段处理这些数据。方法:在本文中,我们研究了数据集中性别包容的一些已知挑战,并总结了一些正在进行的解决方案。通过批判性的视角,我们研究了当前实践和包容性实践在性别代表性方面的差异,描述了从编写数据管理计划到共享数据的研究生命周期的每个阶段的包容性实践。结果:将性别限制为“男性”和“女性”的数据结构或使用映射将性别人口统计分解为二元值的本体论结构排除了非二元和性别多样化的人群。一些数据收集工具通过添加“其他”性别类别来尝试包容性,但使用“其他”性别类别将非二元性别的人标记为本质上的异类。包容性变革必须走得更远,从异化走向包容性范畴。我们描述了从数据管理规划阶段到收集数据、清理数据和共享数据,在数据中包容性地表示性别的几种技术。为了更好地共享性别数据,存储库还必须允许明确包含非二元性别的映射,并允许对不同性别身份的长期表示进行本体论映射。结论:在研究设计过程中,一个好的做法是在数据收集计划中考虑两个层次的批评。首先,考虑手头的研究问题,并从数据中删除不必要的性别。其次,如果研究问题需要性别,确保明确包括非二元性别。盟国必须承担起这一问题,而不把它留给受影响最严重的国家。此外,越来越多的声音要求围绕数据进行包容性实践,这是不可忽视的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
16 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信