Navigating Gender in International Research

The only option that applied to me was ‘Mrs’.

My proverbial market research senses tingled. Gender and marital status were distinctly irrelevant here, so why was the question compulsory? What meaningful data lies within my response, unless one-dimensional stereotypes about married women were being applied?

Most importantly, there was no option to not reveal my gender, and no gender-neutral honorifics for up to 1 in every 250 people in the UK who are non-binary.

The experience left me feeling frustrated – and it is a frustration that our participants often share. When translating multimarket surveys from English into other languages, I am continually reminded that our journey towards genuine inclusivity in research is far from over.

Today, the 2-option gender question is no longer fit for purpose in Western society. Industry bodies and commentators offer ample guidance on asking the gender question in English, including the MRS and the Insights Association IDEA Council. There are myriad articles, including “It’s time to measure gender preference” by JD Deitch.

However, as Deitch acknowledges, definition and measurement of new approaches will be driven by the US and UK as “these are the countries where the topic of gender preference has gathered the most steam.” ¹

However, more than a third of UK market research is international.

Moreover, countries vary widely in their approach to the gender from both a legal and a cultural perspective. It is not appropriate to offer a more inclusive gender question in every market and, in some cases, it can be a life-or-death decision. Participants are not legally (or defacto legally) allowed to identify as anything other than male or female in 37 countries. In Saudi Arabia and elsewhere, it carries the death penalty.

On the other end of the spectrum, some cultures have long-standing traditions of third genders or gender fluidity, such as the Bakla in the Philippines and the Muxe in Mexico. Non-binary is not the prerogative of liberal western democracies, nor is it a ‘new’ identity.

So, what if we don’t have an intimate knowledge of gender inclusivity within the society we are researching?

The beating heart of all research is the language we use. This makes translation the pivotal tool with which you will engage or alienate ever-rarefied pools of participants. When it comes to adapting the gender question, knowing the right words to use requires not just linguistic knowledge, but complex legal and cultural navigation.

Complicating things further, some languages do not have different words for ‘sex’ and ‘gender’. The word used in Germany’s official statistics, ‘geschlecht’, does not explicitly follow either a biological or a social concept and in Romanian, the word ‘gen’ for gender also means species and sex—and so ‘identitate sexuala’ is used for both gender identity and sex identity.

Quite simply, it’s complicated. As I discovered on that fateful Tuesday, even asking for an honorific needs to be done thoughtfully.

That’s why we need to think carefully and conscientiously. Rather than reaching for the gender question as the most traditional tool in our research kit, we have to continue digging deeper; to rethink our approach on every level until all versions of our global surveys produce meaningful, relevant data that is representative of their specific societies.

So, before including the gender question in your multimarket questionnaire or screener, ask:

• Is my participants’ gender or sex mission-critical to my client?
• If yes, how will it impact my research and benchmarking?
• How can I ensure the question is adapted for the legal and cultural considerations of my target markets?
• What gender- and sex-based assumptions might be made by my team or our client?

Ruth Partington is CEO of Empower Translate, MRS Representation in Research Steering Committee member, and Chair of the Association of Translation Companies.

1: https://www.research-live.com/article/opinion/its-time-to-measure-gender-preference/id/5085392