Queer Quantitative Query: Sexual Orientation in Higher Education Surveys

Abstract

Queer Quantitative Query:Sexual Orientation in Higher Education Surveys Jason C. Garvey (bio) The dearth of quantitative research on sexual orientation in higher education is highly problematic yet not entirely surprising, particularly considering the historical exclusion of sexual orientation in national higher education data sets (Garvey, 2014). The lack of inclusive quantitative research on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and queer (LGBQ) students perpetuates hetero-normative and dominant methodological assumptions, which has great impact on policy and practice (re)formation. To promote inclusivity in quantitative research about LGBQ students, scholars must first understand how sexual orientat ion data are collected in higher education survey research (Garvey, 2014; Rankin & Garvey, 2015). There is one research question that guides this study: How is sexual orientation demographic information operationalized and collected in prevalent higher education quantitative surveys? The intended audience is survey developers, both researchers and assessment practitioners, who occupy a critical position for influencing sexual orientation survey data, which has lasting consequences for data analyses. [End Page 495] Because of the widespread use of the term sexual orientation within surveys, I chose to maintain this term within my manuscript, although I also advocate for more inclusive and dynamic terms in surveys (e.g., sexuality, sexual identity, sexual behavior, sexual attraction). Although there is a necessary entanglement of sexual orientation with gender identity, gender expression, and biological sex, I chose to foreground sexual orientation to recognize its distinct and separate context in survey data. For a critical examination the operationalization and collection of gender and sex data in higher education surveys, see Garvey, Hart, Metcalfe, and Fellabaum-Toston (in press). METHOD The purpose of this study was to examine how demographic information on sexual orientation is operationalized and collected in widely used quantitative surveys in higher education. Pascarella and Terenzini (2005) noted the importance of national surveys in higher education research: "A number of national [US] data sets, which produce a substantial portion of the evidence on the impact of college on students, have become targets of opportunity for large numbers of social scientists" (p. 15). Higher education survey instruments are "systems of knowledge" (Renn, 2010, p. 138), with great influence and importance, that require closer examination, particularly those overrepresented in highly regarded and widely circulated journals. To address the research question, I utilized Garvey's (2014) catalog of higher education survey instruments used three or more times within tier–1 higher education journals from 2010 through 2012. The focus on these particular journals is supported by Bray and Major's (2011) assertion that they are identified by higher education program faculty as influential and prestigious, as evidenced by their frequency of knowledge use, authorship, readership, and citations. Because sexual orientation is understudied in higher education quantitative scholarship (Garvey, 2014), focusing on tier–1 journals highlights systemic issues of inclusivity within a small set of prestigious and highly influential publications. One third (124 of 373) ofall the quantitative studies published in tier–1 higher education journals from 2010 to 2012 used data from 19 widely used survey instruments, demonstrating the high influence of these surveys. Of the 19 instruments, 6 were U.S. federal government surveys, and 13 were administered by nonprofit educational organizations. I chose not to include 3 of the nonprofit educational organization survey instruments in the analysis. First, the Cooperative Institutional Research Program College Students' Beliefs and Values Survey is connected to the Freshman Survey, which is already included in the analysis. Second, I did not include the National Association of State Student Grant and Aid Programs survey because it assessed program information and did not include student-level variables. Third, the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center does not publish and did not make available the National Student Clearinghouse survey for this study. Using Garvey's (2014) survey catalog, I acquired copies of the most widely used higher education survey instruments by either contacting survey distributors or downloading the instruments online. After collecting all the instruments, I conducted a detailed, directed assessment of the surveys (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005), concentrating on the prevalence and operationalization of sexual orientation in demographic questions. My analysis focused on (a) whether the survey included a question/ item about sexual orientation, and, if so, (a) how the question...