(PS7-B29) Social Science Researchers' Perceptions of Inclusive Research Practices for Transgender and Gender Diverse Communities

Psychological research has historically excluded or marginalized transgender and gender diverse (TGD) people. Research materials that are affirming encourage TGD people to participate in research and help improve relationships among academic institutions and TGD communities , but these sorts of materials are not standard practice. The present study aims to determine if social scientist researchers (SSR) are willing to incorporate affirming practices into their research and what factors are associated with willingness.

SSR viewed a mock flyer, consent form, demographic form, procedures, and questionnaires for a common psychological research paradigm (alcohol use and sexual behavior) that were modified to be affirming for TGD people. For each material, they rated their perceived affirmation and their willingness to use similar materials. Participants completed the Competency Assessment Tool for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Clients (LGBT-CAT), Sexual Orientation Counselor Competency Scale (SOCCS), and Contemporary Critical Consciousness Measure II (CCCM-II). They answered questions about using affirming materials, including the benefits/drawbacks, people in their lives and work who would be supportive/unsupportive , and facilitators/barriers to using them. Two coders independently coded by using thematic analysis.

Thirty-two SSR completed the study. The mean age of participants was 32.47 years old (SD = 11.65). They were primarily White (65.6% of participants), women (50.0%) , and graduate student researchers (62.5%). There were significant positive correlations between the willingness rating to use the flyer in a participant’s own research and the mean score of the LGBT-CAT (r = .35, p = .047), the SOCCS skills subscale (r = .40, p = .025), the SOCCS total score (r = .36, p = .041), the CCCM-II cissexism subscale (r = .39, p = .026), and the CCCM-II total score (r = .40, p = .025).

Common themes identified as benefits included: TGD participant comfort (mentioned by 46.9% of participants), more accurate data (40.6%), inclusivity (37.5%), and more representative samples (28.1%). Common themes identified as downsides included: no cons (40.6%), time consuming (18.8%), lack of accessibility (18.8%) , and backlash (15.6%). Common themes identified as supportive people included: colleagues (43.8%), advisors (31.3%), family (28.1%), and friends (25.0%). Common themes identified as unsupportive people included: family (34.4%), no one (25.0%), advisors (12.5%), institutions (12.5%). Common themes identified as facilitators included: template (56.3%), training (37.5%), supportive people (25.0%), standardization (15.6%). Common themes identified as barriers included: unsupportive people (37.5%), time consuming (21.9%), lack of training (12.5%), and maintaining inclusivity (12.5%).

Results from this study outline how affirming materials are perceived by SSR. The SSR who completed this study are interested in creating a more affirming research space, but often lack the training or resources to make those changes in their own work. By expanding the literature about conducting research with TGD participants, future SSR will have more resources available to them.