Conceptually defining populations, such as those defined by race and ethnicity, and developing methods to operationally identify members of those populations, have continually challenged researchers (LaVeist, 2002). Today, as scientists begin to treat sexual orientation as a demographic variable like race and ethnicity, it is important to critically examine and clarify our conceptualizations of sexual orientation as well as critically examine measures used to operationally identifying the sexual orientation of research subjects.
There is much evidence that researchers are often confused as to what they are studying when they assess sexual orientations in their research. Several literature reviews have found that researchers' conceptual definitions of these populations are rarely included in reports of their research and, when they are included, they often differ theoretically. Further, the methods used to measure sexual orientations in these studies do not always correspond with the most common conceptualizations of sexual orientation (Shively, et al. 1985; Sell and Petrulio, 1995; Chang and Katayama, 1996). Sell and Petrulio recommended that researchers work to develop uniform conceptual definitions of terms used to label sexual orientations and that uniform methods of operationally identifying sexual orientations be agreed upon for use in research studies. They believe it is imperative that researchers who claim to be studying these populations begin to clarify what it is they are actually studying and recognize more explicitly the effect their research methods have upon their findings. Sell and Petrulio’s recommendation’s echo the much earlier work of Henry who conducted one of the most detailed studies of homosexuality ever produced (Henry, 1941). Henry concluded that: “Unless the word homosexual is clearly defined, objective discussion regarding it is futile, and misunderstanding and erroneous conclusions are inevitable (Henry, 1955).”
To clear up some of this confusion, this website reviews the measures used to identify and classify subjects' sexual orientations that have been proposed and used by scientists and laypersons from the 1860s to the present. Obviously definitions and preferred terms vary significantly from researcher to researcher and across time. While, it is not possible from this review to say one definition or set of terms is “better” than another, it is possible to make a few modest recommendations. First, all researchers who intend to collect sexual orientation data should dedicate time to choosing one of the definitions currently in the literature or developing their own definition before beginning their research. It is hoped that this will encourage researchers to be more critical of the methods they use to identify and label the sexual orientation of research subjects.
There is much evidence that researchers are often confused as to what they are studying when they assess sexual orientations in their research. Several literature reviews have found that researchers' conceptual definitions of these populations are rarely included in reports of their research and, when they are included, they often differ theoretically. Further, the methods used to measure sexual orientations in these studies do not always correspond with the most common conceptualizations of sexual orientation (Shively, et al. 1985; Sell and Petrulio, 1995; Chang and Katayama, 1996). Sell and Petrulio recommended that researchers work to develop uniform conceptual definitions of terms used to label sexual orientations and that uniform methods of operationally identifying sexual orientations be agreed upon for use in research studies. They believe it is imperative that researchers who claim to be studying these populations begin to clarify what it is they are actually studying and recognize more explicitly the effect their research methods have upon their findings. Sell and Petrulio’s recommendation’s echo the much earlier work of Henry who conducted one of the most detailed studies of homosexuality ever produced (Henry, 1941). Henry concluded that: “Unless the word homosexual is clearly defined, objective discussion regarding it is futile, and misunderstanding and erroneous conclusions are inevitable (Henry, 1955).”
To clear up some of this confusion, this website reviews the measures used to identify and classify subjects' sexual orientations that have been proposed and used by scientists and laypersons from the 1860s to the present. Obviously definitions and preferred terms vary significantly from researcher to researcher and across time. While, it is not possible from this review to say one definition or set of terms is “better” than another, it is possible to make a few modest recommendations. First, all researchers who intend to collect sexual orientation data should dedicate time to choosing one of the definitions currently in the literature or developing their own definition before beginning their research. It is hoped that this will encourage researchers to be more critical of the methods they use to identify and label the sexual orientation of research subjects.