The Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC), in partnership with The Other Foundation, hosted a critical webinar exploring how information about LGBTQI+ people in South Africa is  or isn’t collected, why that data matters, and how it can improve lives.

The session aimed to unpack what kind of data is currently missing, how collecting it responsibly could enhance services and shape inclusive policies, and what risks emerge when deeply personal information is gathered without cultural sensitivity or ethical safeguards. 

At the heart of the discussion was a powerful question: How can we collect data about queer communities in a way that is safe, respectful, and truly affirming?

This comes as the HSRC considers updating its 2015 national survey on attitudes toward homosexuality and gender nonconformity — a move that could help close long-standing gaps in South Africa’s understanding of LGBTQI+ lived realities.

The webinar also delved into the politics behind it, including the fact that data is not neutral, and is often shaped by unequal power structures and perspectives that privilege the global North.

The discussion signaled an important shift: a move toward data that doesn’t just count people, but includes them.

On the panel was Caio Simões de Araújo, Research Officer at the Other Foundation, who reflected on the decade-long collaboration with the Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC), which began with the first attitudinal survey on LGBTI issues in South Africa. 

“A lot has changed. It has been nearly 10 years,” he said, noting the increased complexity of the research landscape and the greater involvement of civil society. “The reason why we have rekindled this partnership today is to really think about the last 10 years… what still need to change?” he explained.

Araújo emphasised the importance of involving communities meaningfully in both research and advocacy. “Our business is supporting civil society organizations and advocacy,” he said. “So the research report is not the final output. There needs to be a process of activation of this data for political purposes.”

Anthony Brown, from UNISA’s School of Interdisciplinary Research and Graduate Studies, presented on “the politics of ethics in LGBTIQ+ research.” He questioned the assumptions that position all LGBTIQ+ studies as high risk. “Behind this process, there’s a bit of politics,” he said. Brown criticised ethics committees for pathologising LGBTIQ+ communities as inherently vulnerable.

He shared being told his research was “purple knowledge,” seen as unnecessary. Brown argued this blanket vulnerability lens results in delayed or denied ethical clearance and suppressed knowledge: “They delay, they exclude, and they deny knowledge.”

He added, “Not all the lives of LGBT identities are at risk. They have agency.”

Brown also raised the problem of requiring parental consent for research involving queer youth: “If we cannot get the consent… we miss out on epistemic justice.” He called for inclusive representation on ethics panels and for ethics training rooted in lived LGBTIQ+ realities.

Melanie Judge, a queer feminist activist, scholar, and Adjunct Professor in Public Law at the University of Cape Town made four key points on LGBTQI+ data and advocacy. 

“LGBTQ people have always been here. And so there’s always been data,” she said, emphasising that lived experience, oral histories, and community knowledge are legitimate data forms. 

She warned that a lack of big data should not excuse policy inaction. Her second point noted that “data doesn’t always tell us what we want to hear,” citing early research on victimisation that revealed complex, unexpected results. 

Third, she stressed that research questions are shaped by power and must be informed by lived realities: “Data is never neutral.” Participatory practices help ensure inclusivity and challenge institutional biases. 

Lastly, she called for strategic, ethical data advocacy to drive policy change and resist erasure, noting the 2022 Census excluded LGBTQI+ people. “Now is the time when hard-won gains for rights and justice are increasingly vulnerable to reversal,” she warned. “Let us continue to blind them with good science.”

Sthembiso Pollen Mkhize, a doctoral student at the University of Bristol, explored the “politics of visibility and belonging” in social survey research, focusing on the erasure of LGBTQI+ people from South Africa’s 2022 census. 

Drawing from his work on the Quality of Life Survey and his project Querying Social Survey Research, he highlighted how question design, language, and stigma affect disclosure. 

In 2021, derived data suggested 11.4% of respondents were non-heterosexual, but direct identity questions in 2023/24 showed only 2.5%—revealing that people are more likely to disclose attraction than claim a stigmatized identity.

Mkhize warned that insensitive translations and survey wording may deter responses, and stressed the importance of co-creating survey tools with queer communities. 

“We must move beyond collecting data to meaningfully interpreting it for queer justice,” he said, questioning who benefits from data and who might be harmed. “When is it time to act, and who needs to be part of that conversation?”

tracy-lynn.ruiters@inl.co.za

Weekend Argus 

Source link