Written Evidence Submitted by Professor Alice Sullivan, Professor of Sociology, University College London

(DIV0049)

My submission focusses on the following question posed in the call for evidence:

“What could and should be done by the UK Government, UK Research and Innovation, other funding bodies, industry and academia to address the issues identified?”

Accurate data collection is a vital foundation for equalities monitoring. Data must be collected on the representation of underrepresented groups, otherwise we cannot monitor change over time, or assess the effectiveness of policy interventions.

We have witnessed a general trend in recent years for organisations to cease data collection on sex in favour of gender identity. This phenomenon has affected data on education and employment. The Athena Swan charter provides a clear example affecting our ability to monitor women’s progress in STEM.

The Athena Swan charter was established in 2005 to advance the careers of female academics in science, technology, engineering, maths and medicine (STEMM). Yet Advance HE, which runs Athena Swan, recommended in 2020 that data be collected exclusively on gender-identity, not sex (Sullivan and Armstrong, 2021).

‘Advance HE recommends asking a question about gender rather than asking a question about sex. This ensures equality efforts are… inclusive of a diverse range of gender identities.’

Advance HE’s recommended question on ‘gender’ is intended to gather data on gender identity.

‘How would you describe your gender?

• Man
• Non-binary
• Woman
• In another way (specify, if you wish):
• Prefer not to say.’

This question muddles sex and gender identity, and as such captures accurate data on neither. If a question on gender identity was asked in addition to one on sex, this would provide useful insights into the experiences of trans and non-binary people of each sex. Intersectional analysis demands accurate data on each under-represented characteristic, not an attempt to combine them. Yet Advance HE have explicitly recommended against asking about both sex and gender-identity, though this guidance is currently under review.

We do not yet have UK population data that allows us to assess the size and distribution of the trans population, but international evidence suggests rapid change in this regard. Highly educated youths, particularly girls, are increasingly likely to identify outside of their natal sex. According to the American College Health Association (2021), one in 2,000 female undergraduates identified as transgender in 2008, rising steeply to one-in-twenty (five percent) by 2021. Accurate data on both sex and gender identity are therefore needed to understand trends in Higher Education, including participation in STEM. The common assumption that the numbers identifying outside their natal sex are too small to make a difference to data collection and analysis fails to take account of the changing nature of the population identifying as gender-diverse.

Given the slow growth in the numbers of women studying and pursuing careers in subjects such as physics and engineering, plausible rates of gender-diverse identification could obscure trends over time, making it impossible to monitor progress.

One reason for the erosion of sex-based data collection is that the view that collecting data on sex may constitute an unlawful violation of privacy has gained wide traction. The Government Equalities Office (2021) advice to employers on reporting the gender pay gap suggests that collecting data on sex would be unduly intrusive. A similar position has been put forward by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, although it has subsequently changed its view following a legal opinion commissioned by campaign group Woman’s Place UK (MurrayBlackburnMackenzie, 2021). 

In fact is that the vast majority of data collection exercises do not compel respondents to provide any particular, including sex. One exception is the census. There is a legal obligation to respond to the census and to its required particulars, including sex.  However, even in this case, it is now clear that requiring data on sex is lawful. Justice Swift, addressing this case for the Judicial Review of the sex question in the England and Wales Census brought by Fair Play for Women, ruled on this point that it was unlikely that there was any privacy breach in requiring information on a person’s sex, but that if it were, it would be justified, as the question would be posed in pursuit of a legitimate objective. He further noted the careful and confidential way in which census information is used (Sullivan 2021). Beyond the census, there is no obvious basis for the claim that sex should be deemed a particularly intrusive question, compared to other routinely collected particulars, such as salary or sexuality for example. There is an urgent need for clarity on this point from the UK Government.

The UK Statistics Authority has recently published guidance that recommends that “sex, age and ethnic group should be routinely collected and reported in all administrative data and in-service process data, including statistics collected within health and care settings and by police, courts and prisons” (UK Statistics Authority 2021). It also says that data producers should clearly distinguish between concepts such as sex, gender and gender identity.

Recommendations

• We need to monitor the progress of groups who are underrepresented in education, training and employment related to STEM, including women, certain ethnic minorities, people with disabilities and those from disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds. Without such monitoring, it will be impossible to assess the effectiveness of interventions.
• The UK Government and UKRI should publish guidance stating that it is lawful, proportionate and necessary to collect data on sex for this purpose and for equalities monitoring in general. They should ensure that the Higher Education sector routinely collects such data. Government should advise that equalities monitoring by public and private bodies should routinely include sex, age and ethnic group, in line with UK Statistics Authority guidance.
• Also in line with UK Statistics Authority guidance, the UK Government and UKRI should recommend that data producers clearly distinguish between concepts such as sex, gender and gender identity.

References

American College Health Association (2021) National College Health Assessment, Undergraduate Student Reference Group, Data Report, Spring 2021.

MurrayBlackburnMackenzie (2021) ' Diminishing the value of public sector data: How the Chief Statistician’s guidance lost sight of biological sex'. MurrayBlackburnMackenzie.

Sullivan, A. and Armstrong, J. (2021) Has Athena Swan Lost Its Way? British Educational Research Association. https://www.bera.ac.uk/blog/has-athena-swan-lost-its-way

Sullivan, A. (2021). Sex and the office for national statistics: A case study in policy capture. The Political Quarterly, 92(4), 638-651. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-923X.13029

UK Statistics Authority (2021) Inclusive Data Taskforce recommendations report: Leaving no one behind – How can we be more inclusive in our data?

(January 2022)