Best Practices When Writing Data-Driven LGBTQ+ Stories
Data on LGBTQ+ individuals can often be scarce, inconsistent, or lacking the methodological rigor that data journalists typically depend on. Despite these challenges, the gist of good LGBTQ+ data journalism remains rooted in the principles of robust data journalism. This entails thorough research, meticulous analysis, and a steadfast commitment to accuracy and ethical reporting.
Journalists can put the focus on the unique experiences and issues of the LGBTQ+ community by adhering to these principles, ensuring their stories are conveyed with the depth, accuracy and empathy they deserve. Ultimately, producing high-quality LGBTQ+ data journalism is about upholding the same standards of excellence that define the best practices in the field.
Behavior is Not Directly Related to Identity
Data can be a powerful tool to challenge stereotypes about LGBTQ+ lives, revealing the nuanced realities of these communities. For instance, despite the Catholic Church's stance on homosexuality, similar proportions of heterosexual and queer people identify as Catholic, showing diversity in religious affiliations. Nonetheless, collecting and interpreting LGBTQ+ data presents challenges. Behavior-based data, such as historical U.S. Census data on same-sex couples, often underrepresents certain groups like lower-income queer couples and excludes bisexual and transgender individuals. This results in an incomplete understanding of LGBTQ+ experiences.
Accurately representing the LGBTQ+ community requires looking beyond surface-level metrics and considering diverse experiences and identities. Critical assessment is needed to determine when data can be generalized to the entire community. Evolving data collection methods, including more inclusive survey questions and recognizing various living arrangements, can lead to a more accurate understanding of LGBTQ+ experiences. This will help researchers and policymakers make better decisions and promote effective advocacy.
Keeping a Healthy Amount of Skepticism of LGBTQ+ Data Collection
In 2022, the Williams Institute released updated estimates that seemed to double the number of trans youth, leading to headlines about a "sharp rise." But researchers clarified that this wasn't due to an actual increase, rather to new data sources that had not been available before, making old and new estimates incomparable. Similar issues occur in new data collections, as institutions adopt different methods and definitions at varying times, leading to inconsistencies. Additionally, concerns about safety and privacy may make LGBTQ+ individuals reluctant to share information. Consequently, data on LGBTQ+ populations can change rapidly, with small groups experiencing sudden, noticeable shifts in reported numbers.
Enlisting the Help of Outside Experts
In any data-driven story, interviewing data experts is as important as analyzing the data itself. This becomes even more critical when dealing with newer, non-standardized, and smaller-scale datasets. Expert insights can significantly enhance the story, identifying potential errors in trend interpretation or providing much-needed context. This is particularly vital with LGBTQ+ data, as surveys in this area are often pioneering efforts. Consulting with experts who have conducted qualitative studies on these issues can further validate the story to make sure its accuracy and depth is there.
When the Data Does Not Exist, Just Write About It
Struggling to find accurate data or facing unanswered questions due to missing demographic information doesn't have to halt the story. Instead, journalists can explore the impact of this data gap. Demographic data is important for resource allocation, grant funding, and informed decision-making, affecting health researchers, scientists, nonprofits, and lawmakers. LGBTQ+ individuals often distrust data collection systems, fearing misuse, as seen with educational tech companies outing students by flagging LGBTQ+ terms. Newsrooms need to handle data responsibly, making certain that privacy and safety remains intact. Addressing the data gap can bring light to a glaring issue and advocate for better data practices.
