AEA365 | A Tip-a-Day by and for Evaluators

TAG | lgbt

Hi, I’m Jen Przewoznik, Director of Prevention and Evaluation at the North Carolina Coalition Against Sexual Assault. I have been working with and within lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and intersex (LGBTQI+) communities for 15 years. I’d like to share some thoughts about conducting research with and within LGBTQI+ communities that I have learned, using as an example a current study I am co-investigating.

Research with and within LGBTQI+ communities has happened for decades. More and more of this research is conducted by people who are well trained in data collection and analysis regarding people who claim non-normative sexual and gender identities. Unfortunately, a lot of this research still misses the mark. Some researchers, agenda-driven, “miss the mark” because they are actively trying to defame LGBTQI+ people. Most studies, however, seem to miss the mark due to fundamental design flaws.  There are still measurement tools being created (maybe right now?!?! Let’s hope not right now) that conflate sexual orientation and gender identity.

Hot Tip: Friends don’t let friends conflate sexual orientation and gender identity. I know you wouldn’t do this, but if you see a researcher doing this, please tell them to stop.

Hot Tip: Engage BOTH LGBTQI+ people and researchers in the process of creating instruments to better understand LGBTQI+ lives and experiences.  Myself and Juliette Grimmett, NC Sexual Violence Prevention Team member, are collaborating with Drs. Paige Hall Smith and Leanne Royster of UNC Greensboro on a study about LGBTQI+ peoples’ experiences with sexual violence on NC College Campuses.  The results will help campuses create inclusive and affirming sexual violence prevention programming. We began by holding a daylong semi-structured qualitative discussion group to engage folks in conversations about sexual violence and LGBTQI+ communities. People were chosen for their experience in sexual violence or LGBTQI+ campus work with an emphasis on inviting people we knew to be allies and/or themselves LGBTQI+-identified.

Lessons Learned: The output from the meeting heavily informed the survey, which includes questions about sexual violence without using normative terms for body parts and allows participants to choose “all that apply” for identity questions. Our colleagues reminded us that this work can’t be as neat and tidy as it sometimes seems researchers and statisticians would like.

When we exclude necessary research elements because we do not have the knowledge or are too concerned with whether the data will be publishable (statistical significance, the enemy of robust LGBTQI+ research. Kidding. Sort of.), we are left with results that are largely unreliable. While this shouldn’t hold us back from doing this work, it is incredibly important that we continue to explore ways to ask difficult questions and analyze complex responses in order to truly understand peoples’ lived experiences.

Do you have questions, concerns, kudos, or content to extend this aea365 contribution? Please add them in the comments section for this post on the aea365 webpage so that we may enrich our community of practice. Would you like to submit an aea365 Tip? Please send a note of interest to aea365@eval.org . aea365 is sponsored by the American Evaluation Association and provides a Tip-a-Day by and for evaluators.

· · ·

My name is Käri Greene and I’m a Senior Research Analyst at Program Design & Evaluation Services, an intergovernmental agency for the Oregon Public Health Division and Multnomah County Health Department, as well as a co-Chair for the LGBT Issues TIG. Hold on…what was that jumble of letters at the end of the sentence? Well, our TIG explores areas of sexuality, gender and identity as they relate to evaluation theory, practice, and use, specifically focusing on issues related to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender issues.

Many evaluations might not deal explicitly with LGBT issues; however, gender and sexuality are concepts present in much of our evaluation practice. Gender or ‘sex’ is a standard demographic variable collected in nearly all evaluation studies, and sexual orientation is being included more frequently in evaluations. But the concepts of sexual orientation, sexual behavior, and gender identity can be dynamic and complex.

In public health evaluations, someone served by a program might identify as a lesbian woman, but she may have been born and raised as a boy and not identify as transgender. A man served at the local public health clinic might be having sex with other men, but not identify as gay or bisexual. Being clear about what we need to know about the clients served in our programs is essential to answering our evaluation questions.

2015 Update
The key thing to keep in mind when dealing with issues of sexuality and gender is to question assumptions and ask the right questions for your evaluation and those served by the program. Sexual orientation does not automatically define a person’s sexual behavior, and gender identity does not always fit neatly into a two-by-two table.

Feeling even more confused about how to deal with gender and sexuality? That’s good – that means you’re questioning assumptions! But it can be frustrating. The field is evolving and even after a century of research on sexuality and gender, few researchers agree on terminology, dimensions and categorical classifications of sexuality. But fear not, we’ll have more to say on this subject throughout the week…

Hot Tip: Consider how you currently assess gender. It might be important to ask multiple items to get at gender – one that asks current gender identity (“Do you consider yourself to be male, female, transgender, or something else?”) and one that asks birth gender (“What sex were you assigned at birth – male, female, or intersex?”).

Hot Tip: Consider expanding your existing response categories for sexual identity. Younger clients might consider themselves “queer” as opposed to the more traditional categories of lesbian, gay, or bisexual.

2015 Updates
Rad Resource: The Williams Institute “Best Practices for Asking Questions to Identify Transgender & Other Gender Minority Respondents on Population-Based Surveys

Rad Resource: The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) has resources, including a media reference guide, that can be helpful when communicating and reporting about issues of sexuality and gender.

Rad Resource:Do Ask, Do Tell” article by Cahill et al. on the acceptability of asking patients sexual orientation and gender identity in clinical settings.

This post is a modified version of a previously published aea365 post in an occasional series, “Best of aea365.” Do you have questions, concerns, kudos, or content to extend this aea365 contribution? Please add them in the comments section for this post on the aea365 webpage so that we may enrich our community of practice. Would you like to submit an aea365 Tip? Please send a note of interest to aea365@eval.org. aea365 is sponsored by the American Evaluation Association and provides a Tip-a-Day by and for evaluators.

· ·

My name is Leah Christina Neubauer. I am the President of the Chicagoland Evaluation Association and the Program Manager and an Instructor in the MPH Program at DePaul University.

Today, I am writing to extend three updates from the Practice committee of the AEA Public Statement on Cultural Competence in Evaluation Dissemination Working Group. We are working on projects to disseminate the statement and integrate the contents into evaluation practice. The following updates are shared in the form of RAD RESOURCES. Enjoy!

Rad Resources:

  1. HIV/AIDS Focused with National Minority AIDS Council (NMAC): Task Force Members Cindy Crusto and Leah Neubauer are collaborating with Robin Kelly and NMAC in the development of culturally-responsive data plans for the local and statewide HIV/AIDS response.  NMAC is focused on building leadership and healthier communities to address HIV/AIDS across the US.  For more information, check out this link: http://nmac.org/resources/
  2. LGBT Health with George Washington University: Task Force Members Crusto and Neubauer are collaborating with Stephen Forsell to further develop culture and LGBTQI issues in evaluation. Forsell is currently leading a LGBT Health Certification program at GWU. For more information about this program, check out this link: http://programs.columbian.gwu.edu/lgbt/
  3. Future Scholarship Talk with the AEA GEDI Scholars: Task Force Members Katrina Bledsoe and Neubauer joined Stewart Donaldson and the Graduate Education Diversity Internship (GEDI) Scholars at the Inaugural Conference on Culturally Responsive Evaluation and Assessment (CREA) in Chicago, Illinois.  The discussion was quite lively and the time at the inaugural conference was well-spent.  For more information on GEDI or CREA, check out the hyperlinks.Clipped from http://education.illinois.edu/crea/conference 

This week, we’re diving into issues of Cultural Competence in Evaluation with AEA’s Statement on Cultural Competence in Evaluation Dissemination Working Group. Do you have questions, concerns, kudos, or content to extend this aea365 contribution? Please add them in the comments section for this post on the aea365 webpage so that we may enrich our community of practice. Would you like to submit an aea365 Tip? Please send a note of interest to aea365@eval.org. aea365 is sponsored by the American Evaluation Association and provides a Tip-a-Day by and for evaluators.

 

· · ·

I’m Robert Hoke, independent evaluation consultant, and co-chair for the LGBT Issues TIG.  Today, I want to share some reflections from this AEA365 week.

Although it is becoming easier, it remains challenging to be different regarding sexual identity and gender issues.  The “It Gets Better” campaign grew out of the bullying of youth, and primarily the bullying of GLTQ youth who continue to struggle.  Suicide rates remain over 3 times that of heterosexual youth and individuals who come out as gay, lesbian or transgender continue to lose family and friends.

Hot Tips: Our intention was to take LGBT beyond the checkmarks of “what is your sex” and even past “what is your gender” questions.  We hoped to expand the interests of LGBT evaluation beyond those who identify as LGBTQQI and reveal:

  • As Joe Heimlich suggested, the complexity and integrity of the person who identifies as different from the heteronormative gender labels.
  • The wonderful link and information Terry Brown included on straight privilege on how pervasively our society remains heteronormed.
  • Inclusive evaluation around gender begins with incorporating opportunities to feel included in the evaluation, as shared by Kari Greene and Emily Greytak.
  • Efrain Gutierrez’ advice that culturally competent evaluations require understanding how gender identity is woven through all life components of an individual.
  • That true cultural competence means moving beyond one’s comfort zone and challenging the system.  David Fetterman shared just a hint of what he and his students discovered when they asked a different question from the norm.

With the increased acceptance of gays and lesbians, and emergence of a growing transgender awareness movement, the evaluation field is at a decision point—does the field as a whole push society and become truly inclusive in our work, or do we wait for society to change and follow?  I believe the cultural competency statement gives a clear indication that honoring all respondents is part of our profession.

The LGBT TIG issues a challenge for all evaluators this year:  consider how you could increase and apply cultural competence inclusive of LGBTQQI populations.  Please share your story at AEA 2013 by allowing the LGBT TIG to sponsor or co-sponsor your presentation.

Rad Resources:  The LGBT TIG leadership is available as sounding board to help increase the sensitivity of your evaluation tools to LGBT cultures or suggest others who are knowledgeable about how LGBT issues may be different in your topic area.

Check out these AEA resources:

*AEA members-only content

aea365 is sponsored by the American Evaluation Association and provides a Tip-a-Day by and for evaluators. We’re celebrating LGBT Evaluation week with our colleagues in AEA’s LGBT Topical Interest Group. Do you have questions, concerns, kudos, or content to extend this aea365 contribution? Please add them in the comments section for this post on the aea365 webpage so that we may enrich our community of practice. 

·

My name is David Fetterman.  I’m President & CEO of Fetterman & Associates, an international evaluation consulting firm (with 25 years experience at Stanford University) and past-president of the American Evaluation Association (AEA).  I am probably best known for empowerment evaluation work (helping people learn how to evaluate their own programs).  For examples see our blog and an article about empowerment evaluation in the School of Medicine at Stanford University in Academic Medicine, and the book Empowerment Evaluation in the Digital Villages:  Hewlett-Packard’s $15 Million Race Toward Social Justice, Stanford University Press

LGBT-Related Survey

One of my recent evaluations, conducted with my  Stanford School of Medicine students, focused on LGBT curricular training in medical schools throughout the U.S. and Canada.  The results – a median reported time of 5 hours of LGBT-related content in the entire curriculum – were published in this article in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). It received considerable attention in the press, in part because it is as much a human rights issue as a medical education issue. I’ll share a few tips and tricks that emerged from conducting and publishing this study.

Hot Tip:  We used an online survey program to ask Deans of Schools of Medicine to evaluate their institutions’ level of coverage of 16 LGBT related topics.  Online survey tools, such as SurveyMonkey, save time and money and sort data almost instantaneously.  Surveying Deans automatically enhances the credibility of findings (especially if findings suggest minimal coverage of the material, as in our case).

Reporting survey findings was as much a social responsibility as a scholarly one.  See Anne Dohrenwend’s challenge to speak out about gay rights in Academic Medicine.

Cool Trick: Videoconferencing programs, including Skype, ooVoo, and Google Hangouts are invaluable tools to facilitate communication with team members at remote sites.  Most team members were located across the country, completing residency requirements.  Videoconferencing allowed us to function remotely and inexpensively.

Rad Resource: The Association of American Medical Colleges maintains a curriculum management and Information (CurrMIT) database that helps you determine the coverage of specific topics in medical schools. This database was particularly useful as a form of triangulation when our reporting format – “reported hours of instruction” – was questioned in a draft of our article.

Recommended LGBT cultural competence resources:

Fenway Health

Institute of Medicine of the National Academies

Lesson Learned:  Be prepared for significant opposition to unpopular or controversial findings.  Be prepared to speak with the press.  Highlight key findings and recommendations simply and concisely and be prepared to see how journalists use the information (see example of highlighted findings in New York Times.)  Appreciate your team and enjoy the media blitz for as long as it lasts.

aea365 is sponsored by the American Evaluation Association and provides a Tip-a-Day by and for evaluators. We’re celebrating LGBT Evaluation week with our colleagues in AEA’s LGBT Topical Interest Group. Do you have questions, concerns, kudos, or content to extend this aea365 contribution? Please add them in the comments section for this post on the aea365 webpage so that we may enrich our community of practice. 

· · · ·

I am Efrain Gutierrez and I work for FSG, a nonprofit consulting firm that helps foundations, nonprofits and corporations increase their social impact. Last year a friend started collaborating as an evaluator for a program that works with LGBTQ youth. Before starting his evaluation he wanted to talk about cultural competency when working with the LGBTQ community. As I prepared for the meeting, I reflected on the lessons that I think would be most useful for evaluators working with this community:                    

Lessons Learned: 1. A person’s sexuality is not the only thing affecting their life. The LGBTQ community replicates the patterns of sexism, racism, and classism prevalent in our society. Problems affecting women and other underrepresented groups are also affecting members of the community. Being queer creates a “multiplier effect,” making it even more challenging for queers to overcome social barriers, stay healthy, get an education, make a decent wage, etc. A clear example of this “multiplier effect” is in the study All Children Matter: How Legal and Social Inequalities Hurt LGBT Families . The document shows how children across races are more likely to live in poverty if they live with a same sex couple compared to those living in different sex couples (see graph from the report below).  As evaluators it is important to account for this “multiplier effect” and be open and prepared to discuss race, sexism, class, and other social issues when engaging with LGBTQ folks.

gut

2. Account for a diversity of voices in your evaluation; tapping only into the most visible LGBTQ members might not give you the diversity needed. Since the LGBTQ movement often reproduces patterns of racial and gender separation prevalent in our society, most intellectual and political circles in the community remain predominantly cis-gender, male, and white. As you determine who to include in your evaluation look for a representative set of members of the LGBTQ community to provide a full picture of the issues affecting the recipients of the programs you are evaluating.

3.  Don’t take for granted that you understand the political context for LGBTQ rights just by reading the headlines. Marriage equality is important, but there is a wide range of challenges affecting the community popular narrative is not focusing on: discrimination against transsexuals, violence against queers living in rural areas, and inadequate access to resources for queers with special needs, to name just a few of the issues evaluators should consider as they work with the LGBTQ community.

Rad Resources:

A Fragile Union  – article on gay politics

Allan Bérubé’s work

aea365 is sponsored by the American Evaluation Association and provides a Tip-a-Day by and for evaluators. We’re celebrating LGBT Evaluation week with our colleagues in AEA’s LGBT Topical Interest Group. Do you have questions, concerns, kudos, or content to extend this aea365 contribution? Please add them in the comments section for this post on the aea365 webpage so that we may enrich our community of practice. 

· ·

This is Kari Greene with Program Design & Evaluation Services in Oregon, and Emily Greytak with GLSEN, the Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network in New York. We are with the American Evaluation Association’s (AEA) LGBT Issues Topical Interest Group (TIG) and are heartened to see AEA members building cultural competency around transgender-inclusivity.

Have you ever thought about what you’re really asking with “What is your gender: Male or Female?” Do you want to know how people identify to others? How others see them? What sex they were assigned at birth? This ubiquitous question and standard response options deserve more thought…

Hot Tips:

Should I ask transgender identity? Sex at birth? Current gender?

Start with asking what you really need to know and why. For example, a health program offering cancer screenings may need to know if male-identified clients have anatomy/physiology typically associated with females, so they may need breast or cervical cancer screenings. Meanwhile, a housing program might only need to assess if the outcomes are different between transgender and non-trans clients.

I can’t ask people if they’re transgender – they’ll be offended!

Including trans-inclusive items appears to be innocuous for adults and youth. Oregon tested two transgender items in the statewide health survey and respondents 18 to 80 answered easily. In fact, income and weight questions have far higher refusal rates.

I put “Transgender” on my client form but a transgender client checked the “Female” box – what did I do wrong?

Nothing! Some transgender people may identify as both female or male and transgender, so you may want a “check all that apply” gender item. Others may only identify as male or female, so you could also add a question asking sex assigned at birth. Some people don’t identify as male, female or transgender so an open option is helpful.

There are so few transgender people – why bother since I can’t use them in subgroup analysis of male/female participants?

Remember the program is already serving transgender people – they just aren’t counted. Create an analytic plan that describes all participants, and combines groups reliably and respectfully. Excluding transgender respondents sends the message that the evaluation or program is not relevant or welcoming to transgender people.

Any sample questions you suggest?

Yes, but it depends on what you need to know. There is no single “best item” for assessing transgender respondents but these resources can help!

Rad Resources:

Injustice at Every Turn: A Report of the National Transgender Discrimination Survey

Assessing Transgender Status in Surveys of Adolescents: A GLSEN Research Brief Services & Advocacy for GLBT Elders

Eval12 Session 654: Don’t Ask, Can’t Report  materials in the AEA public eLibrary

aea365 is sponsored by the American Evaluation Association and provides a Tip-a-Day by and for evaluators. We’re celebrating LGBT Evaluation week with our colleagues in AEA’s LGBT Topical Interest Group. Do you have questions, concerns, kudos, or content to extend this aea365 contribution? Please add them in the comments section for this post on the aea365 webpage so that we may enrich our community of practice. 

· ·

My name is Terry L. Brown, and I am a doctoral candidate in the College of Education at Northern Illinois University in DeKalb, Illinois. Transgressing gender is the practice of blurring socio-constructed gender boundaries as a strategic response to heteronormative practice. Heteronormative, also referred to as gender normative, practice seeks efficiencies through standardizing and regulating sameness while simultaneously diminishing difference.  Disruptions to heteronormative cultural ways offer opportunities to re-think traditional policy and programmatic response structures and frameworks. Individuals across the gender spectrum often drive change laterally, across social, political, technological, legal and economic systems, in such a way that leads to the expansion of opportunities for those traditionally excluded.

Rad Resources – The Basics: Gender 101  (Some starting points)

Hot Tip 1:  Binary categories have long exceeded their usefulness in collecting data on sexual orientation and gender. To this end,

a)  Likert-type scales are useful for capturing nuanced data when gender positionalities are often situational and can even change dynamically from questions to question.

b)  Allow for multiple items to be selected.

c)  Employ case study to capture transformational outcomes for those who identify as LGBT.

Hot Tip 2:  Gender assumptions can be found embedded among the nouns, pronouns, adjectives and verbs we use in writing, resulting in participants hitting exit before survey completion.

a)  Make sure to go outside traditional feedback loops, to review any evaluation materials before implementation.

b)  Challenge traditional academic models of “best practice” for processes that reinforce gender preferences.

c)  Use inclusive language: “we” as opposed to he/she when preparing reports.

d)  Examine metaphors and other linguistic devices for reproducing gender- normative patterns.

Hot Tip 3:  Gender assumptions are implicit understandings which often take the form of stereotypes around masculinity and femininity. Be generous in your use of comment boxes, even in demographics items, as a method for allowing:

a)  Respondents to provide feedback on word choice, or to point out embedded assumptions;

b)  To reduce conceptual blind spots and emerge unknown positionalities;

c)  To break the urge of evaluators to neatly label and categorize; and

d)  To bring out rich data and capture human diversity.

Lessons Learned – Some common heteronormative assumptions:

  • Lesbians dislike men
  • All trans-folk consider themselves part of the LGBT community
  • Marriage = 1 man and 1 woman
  • A stay at home caregiver  = a woman
  • LGBT are non-spiritual and/or non-religious
  • All women, lesbian or otherwise, want to have children
  • Men are born leaders
  • People who identify as LGBT are making a choice
  • Men who identify as gay are effeminate

Rad Resources:  Explore: Heterosexuality Questionnaire;  Straight Privilege

aea365 is sponsored by the American Evaluation Association and provides a Tip-a-Day by and for evaluators. We’re celebrating LGBT Evaluation week with our colleagues in AEA’s LGBT Topical Interest Group. Do you have questions, concerns, kudos, or content to extend this aea365 contribution? Please add them in the comments section for this post on the aea365 webpage so that we may enrich our community of practice. 

· ·

Hello! We’re Cary Johnson, Executive Director of the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (IGLHRC) and Efrain Gutierrez, Associate at FSG, a nonprofit consulting firm, and Co-leader of the LGBT TIG. We want to share with you some initial lessons learned and resources we have found since IGLHRC engaged with FSG in the development of a Monitoring and Evaluation System.

Lesson Learned – Funders in the field of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) human rights advocacy are becoming more strategic and starting to request more rigorous evaluation from their grantees. FSG conducted interviews with program officers from some of the most influential foundations in the field. Most are going through strategy development processes for their human rights advocacy areas. They are also advancing their evaluation approach, which is having an impact on the level of sophistication of evaluation data requested from grantees.

Rad Resource – Evaluating advocacy efforts is challenging but the field of evaluation is developing robust resources and knowledge to help organizations achieve advocacy’s desired outcomes. IGLHRC’s efforts to promote human rights for LGBT people around the world unfold in a nonlinear fashion making it challenging to evaluate and communicate impact. Thankfully, the field of evaluation has developed tools and practices that have the ability to adapt to IGLHRC’s changing circumstances. A great resource on Advocacy Evaluation is Ehren Reed’s AEA 365 post on the topic.

Rad Resource – Explaining “attribution vs. contribution” to staff from the beginning of engagement can reduce anxiety about evaluation and keep staff engaged throughout the evaluation. As evaluators, we understand that there are many actors working together for LGBT rights and it’s difficult to establish attribution. During our first workshop, FSG discovered that IGLHRC’s staff responded very well to the concept of “attribution vs. contribution” in advocacy evaluation. FSG explained how the evaluation of advocacy efforts is about capturing the journey rather than just a specific policy change. If you want to learn more about this topic, check out the Advocacy Evaluation Wikipedia page.

Lessons Learned – If you are working with local partners in an international context make sure you engage frontline staff working on the ground. They know the cultural sensitivities that might affect evaluation and data collection practices. While developing IGLHRC’s logic model we learned that in certain regions the concept of evaluation can be perceived as a Western construct and might be seen as a way to control local advocacy efforts. This is one example of the importance of cultural competency in evaluation. As we develop the M&E system for IGLHRC, we give staff from different regions flexibility to adapt data collection activities to the regional context.

We’re celebrating LGBT Evaluation week with our colleagues in AEA’s LGBT Topical Interest Group. Follow @aeaweb on twitter this week, or subscribe to the week’s Headlines and Resources list for more LGBT Evaluation items of note. Do you have questions, concerns, kudos, or content to extend this aea365 contribution? Please add them in the comments section for this post on the aea365 webpage so that we may enrich our community of practice. aea365 is sponsored by the American Evaluation Association and provides a Tip-a-Day by and for evaluators.

· · ·

Hi. I’m Joe Heimlich, a professor at Ohio State, senior research associate with the Institute for Learning Innovation, and member of the LGBT TIG. I’d like to share some thoughts on including transgender in our discussions of gender when we gather data.

In a study of gay and lesbian museum visitors, I was struck by statements of gay male couples with children about what keeps them from visiting—the desire to avoid the risk of their children hearing negative and potentially hurtful comments made toward the family. This study and subsequent work have led me to thinking how much more of a challenge it would be for a trans individual to engage with children or family in a public place. This was brought home when a MTF pre-op trans shared that she would love to feel comfortable enough to take her grandchildren to the zoo. How might we use evaluation to make a place “safer” for different people?

Clearly, one way to start is by letting people know there is an expectation of presence. For my work, that is doable by including an ‘ask’ in the demographics, and I’ve started asking sex with the options of Male, Female, and Trans. Does it work? In a science center, which along with zoos are likely the most family-oriented of the scientific-cultural institutions, we included the ask on what will be a year-long, roll-out study. The first component of the study is completed and we found: there were no trans individuals identified, and few respondents reacted to our asking. In fact, out of the 250 responses, there were two positive reactions inserted (“awesome you have this option” and “good job including this”) and two negative (“you had an agenda” and “transgender is not a scientific category. It is a social construct. You should be ashamed”).

Did the inclusion of trans give us important data? No. Did the inclusion of trans make a statement? We think so. And with few comments and those equally split, the response clearly suggests to me that the inclusion of the ask as an effort for creating a safe space is done with far less risk than we had anticipated.

Rad Resources: The transgender site for the American Psychological Association provides a well grounded introduction to transgenderism. And, here’s an interesting discussion on the American Library Association website about asking gender, including transgender.

Hot Tip: We all know evaluations can teach by revealing expectations and by creating perceptions through what is asked/how it is asked. Consider how your demographics suggest to people what is normal and expected—are we really allowing individuals to comfortably see themselves (seriously—is “check all that apply” really showing me I’m considered an equal?)?

We’re celebrating LGBT Evaluation week with our colleagues in AEA’s LGBT Topical Interest Group. Follow @aeaweb on twitter this week, or subscribe to the week’s Headlines and Resources list for more LGBT Evaluation items of note. Do you have questions, concerns, kudos, or content to extend this aea365 contribution? Please add them in the comments section for this post on the aea365 webpage so that we may enrich our community of practice. aea365 is sponsored by the American Evaluation Association and provides a Tip-a-Day by and for evaluators.

·

Older posts >>

Archives

To top