To mark the launch of the new Gender + Sexuality Data Lab, we were invited to attend a panel discussion on ‘The Future of Gender and Sexuality Data: Perils and Possibilities’. The session was hosted by Lab Director and leading scholar in gender and sexuality data, Dr Kevin Guyan, alongside a panel of four subject matter experts:
- Sharon Cowan, Professor of Feminist and Queer Legal Studies, University of Edinburgh;
- Kirstie Ken English, Social Researcher, University of Glasgow;
- Reema Vadoliya, Data professional, storyteller and advocate for inclusion in data;
- Matthew J. Cull, Postdoctoral Researcher and Fellow, Trinity College Dublin.
I was particularly interested in attending this event as my academic field is heavily reliant on data. However, the methodologies and ethical considerations in gender and sexuality data collection are remarkably different from those in finance and earth sciences. I wanted to learn from this event about the challenges, biases, and potential improvements in data collection within these fields in an effort to discover how some considerations may apply to my own work.
Dr Guyan’s opening speech described the Lab as a "north star" for researchers, policymakers, and activists working in gender and sexuality data. He shared that one of the Lab’s goals is to take action against systems that minoritise and exclude populations, rather than simply accumulating more data. While the collection of more data is often considered indicative of progress, the Lab rejects this idea and instead looks to develop the necessary tools to dismantle harmful data practices. Dr Guyan and the panellists highlighted throughout the event that certain data collection methods can be harmful as they reinforce exclusionary frameworks through the use of categorisation, even when inclusive options are incorporated.
One of the most thought-provoking discussions in this event revolved around historical data and the ways in which demographic categories evolve over time. Here, the panellists pointed out that demographic categorisation was rooted in eugenics, underlining that inclusive data practices can be weaponised to exclude or target populations. They went on to explain that data collection practices are limited in their ability to capture the fluidity of identity, as Reema Vadoliya stated, "Data captured is only true for that one point in time.” This conversation raised concerns over the potential misuse of historical demographic data in research and commercial use.
The data is broken. The system is broken.Kirstie Ken English
Another discussion point that stood out to me was in relation to the overcollection of data, where basic demographic collection is considered standard practice despite having no direct use. This resonated with me as I realised that I often provide gender and sexuality data without questioning why. To correct this, the panellists suggested that data collectors should be more intentional when collecting demographic data, clearly disclosing its purpose to respondents.
It doesn’t feel like what we’re doing here is a problem that needs to be solved by more data, it feels like it needs to be less - and more intentional.Reema Vadoliya
Attending this event changed my perspective on personal data collection and its implications. It made me more aware of the inherent power dynamics in data systems and the necessity of questioning who dictates identity in data collection. Moving forward, I aim to be more intentional about the data I engage with, recognising that although data can be a tool for inclusion, it can also be a mechanism for exclusion when in the wrong hands.
The new Gender + Sexuality Data Lab is a critical step toward rethinking data practices in a way that acknowledges the complexities of identity and individual autonomy. I look forward to following future developments as they continue to question existing frameworks and strive for more ethical, inclusive approaches to data collection.