Sexual and Gender Minority (SGM) Research Meets Household Panel Surveys: Research Potentials of the German Socio-Economic Panel and Its Boost ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
European Sociological Review, 2021, 1–15
doi: 10.1093/esr/jcab050
Data Brief
Sexual and Gender Minority (SGM) Research
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/esr/advance-article/doi/10.1093/esr/jcab050/6400293 by guest on 29 December 2021
Meets Household Panel Surveys: Research
Potentials of the German Socio-Economic Panel
and Its Boost Sample of SGM Households
Mirjam M. Fischer 1,*, Martin Kroh2,3, Lisa De Vries3, David Kasprowski2,
Simon Kühne3, David Richter3 and Zaza Zindel3
1
Institute of Sociology and Social Psychology, University of Cologne, Albertus-Magnus-Platz, 50923 Koeln,
Germany, 2Faculty of Sociology, University of Bielefeld, Universitätsstraße 25, 33615 Bielefeld, Germany
and 3German Institute for Economic Research, German Socio-Economic Panel, Anton-Wilhelm-Amo-
Straße 58, 10117 Berlin, Germany
*Corresponding author. Email: m.fischer@uni-koeln.de
Submitted June 2021; accepted August 2021
Abstract
There are numerous challenges to studying structural inequality in sexual and gender minority (SGM)
populations, from the difficulty of obtaining a representative sample to issues comparing data across
populations. This data brief illustrates how the largest household panel survey in Germany, the
German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP), and its recent nationwide boost sample of SGM households,
Sample Q, have addressed these challenges. We discuss the case of the SOEP and its boost sample to
illustrate the untapped potentials that lie in other national household panels for research into the lived
experiences of SGM people, couples, and families. Based on the SOEP example, we show the poten-
tial for cross-sectional comparative, retrospective, and longitudinal life course research using the
detailed information on the extended families (parents, children, siblings, and relatives) of SGM
respondents in household panel surveys.
Background This data brief illustrates how the largest household
Rapid changes in the legal and social environment panel study in Germany, the German Socio-Economic
around sexual and gender minority (SGM) people, cou- Panel (SOEP), and its recent nationwide boost sample of
ples, and families in many western societies are increas- SGM households, Sample Q, have addressed these
ing the demand for reliable, representative data to study challenges.
their lived experiences. There are numerous challenges First, in the past decades, SGM research has relied on
to studying structural inequality in SGM populations, convenience samples, in which participants are typically
from the difficulty of obtaining a representative sample recruited through SGM-specific venues, media outlets,
to issues comparing data across national populations. or social media (Kühne and Zindel, 2020). This reflects
C The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press.
V
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License (https://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com
2 European Sociological Review, 2021, Vol. 00, No. 0
the classic challenge of sampling SGM populations: the generally lies at about 1 per cent of all couples in the
lack of a complete list of all target population members. data (e.g. Lengerer and Bohr, 2019), and compared to
In fact, such a list would not be desirable, as it would in- census data, samples in general and small samples in
fringe on the privacy of a vulnerable group in society. A particular come with increased uncertainty regarding
variety of strategies have been developed in recent years population inference. Also, SGM-specific topics have
to facilitate population inference beyond convenience primarily been addressed up to now by convenience
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/esr/advance-article/doi/10.1093/esr/jcab050/6400293 by guest on 29 December 2021
samples (Valfort, 2017; OECD, 2019). Section 2 of this sample studies in the context of health or experiences of
article describes a strategy for recruiting a probability- discrimination (Pöge et al., 2020). The absence of SGM-
based sample of SGM households (SOEP Sample Q) specific topics in household surveys limits the possibil-
based on a large-scale screening that draws on a nation- ities to generalize prevalence and effects, and do not
wide dual frame of landline and mobile phone numbers. allow investigation of a wide range of mechanisms
The second challenge lies in creating a sampling underlying individual life-course differences between
frame. When pursuing the collection of data that are not SGM and non-SGM people. This is a missed opportun-
biased by convenience recruitment strategies, social sci- ity: despite some limitations, household surveys offer
entists have been turning increasingly to official popula- potential for population inference and comparability,
tion registers, census data, and, where possible, to both between groups in a single country and cross-
existing social surveys with household grids, which nationally. The SOEP boost sample of SGM households
allow for the identification of cohabiting same-sex cou- supplements an existing probability-based sample of res-
ples (Fischer, 2016). In some countries, it is possible to idents in Germany, thereby addressing the issue of an
identify the entire population of same-sex couples in reg- overall low number of observations. In Section 4, we de-
istered partnerships and marriages (e.g. Sweden; Kolk scribe the potential for cross-sectional comparison with-
and Andersson, 2018) or the population of cohabiting in the population of residents in Germany, for instance,
same-sex couples (e.g. The Netherlands; Steinmetz and comparative analysis of SGM and cis-heterosexual peo-
Fischer, 2019). These data have been used to study life ple across topics covered in the SOEP. In this section, we
transitions, such as divorce and parenthood (Kolk and also describe SGM-specific topics surveyed by SOEP,
Andersson, 2018), economic outcomes (Aldén et al., such as minority stress and resilience.
2015; Antecol et al., 2008), and academic achievement A fourth challenge lies in the fact that samples of the
of children with same-sex parents (Kabátek and Perales, target population of SGM people do not lend themselves
2021). Yet, the identification of same-sex couples in to explaining the social inequalities affecting this group,
these data remains error-prone (DeMaio et al., 2013). since the data lack a comparison group of cis-
By definition, it is limited to people in partnerships and heterosexual respondents. The study of social inequal-
a multiplicity of gender identities within relationships ities rests on comparative research designs, and without
remains invisible (Naylor, 2020). While these strategies a suitable comparison group, the direction and magni-
are appropriate for addressing some research questions tude of unequally distributed resources and power can-
pertaining to partnered people, we argue that there is not be quantified. The SOEP addresses both these issues
untapped potential in representative household surveys by surveying SGM and non-SGM respondents with
for the field of SGM research beyond partnerships. In identical questionnaires and by using an additional
Section 3 of this article, we discuss alternative SGM-specific survey module with the target group.
approaches to identifying SGM households in existing A fifth and final challenge to research on structural
household panel surveys, in particular, the approach inequality in SGM populations arises from the fact that
taken by the SOEP in introducing direct questions on longitudinal data on SGM populations are rare, particu-
sexual orientation and gender identity into the survey. larly probability-based longitudinal data. This is a major
We also examine the number of interviews with SGM problem, as key life transitions remain largely unexam-
people in the SOEP over time, before and after adding ined. In their review of a decade of SGM family research
the boost Sample Q. between 2010 and 2020, Reczek (2020) identified the
A third challenge arises from the limited range of re- lack of integration of SGM experiences across the life
search topics that can be addressed with census and course, from childhood to old age, as one of the primary
register data from official statistical agencies. gaps in existing SGM family research. Panel data also
Academically driven household surveys offer an alterna- offer other advantages over cross-sectional data, in add-
tive, and have a key advantage of covering a broad range ition to improving our fragmented understanding of so-
of topics. They also have disadvantages: the number of cial forces in the lives of SGM people to date (Halaby,
observations of same-sex couples in these studies 2004; Brüderl et al. 2019). Lazarsfeld and Fiske (1938)
European Sociological Review, 2021, Vol. 00, No. 0 3
noted in their classic article on panel studies that panel information about sexual orientation could only be
data allow for analysis not only of short-term individual inferred from same-sex partnerships and information on
change, but also of rare but critical life events (see also marital status.
Elder et al., 2003). Studying these effects across people In 2019, the SOEP began work to expand the exist-
who are affected by them and who are not may function ing Samples A–P through a randomized boost sample of
as a ‘substitute for the use of a control group’ SGM households, Sample Q. Recruitment was done in
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/esr/advance-article/doi/10.1093/esr/jcab050/6400293 by guest on 29 December 2021
(Lazarsfeld and Fiske, 1938, p. 597), thus improving two phases. In the first phase, the SOEP screened a large
causal inferences from observational data.1 Also, infor- probability-based sample of the general population
mation on the household contexts and relationships be- using computer-assisted telephone interviewing (CATI),
tween members of a family in household panel surveys whereby 70 per cent were contacted at their landline
provide unique perspectives on linked life courses numbers and 30 per cent at their mobile phone numbers.
(Bengtson et al., 2005); in Germany, there is only one By taking a dual-frame approach (e.g. Buskirk and Best,
study using the PAIRFAM panel to study intergenera- 2012), we are able to infer sampling probabilities based
tional ties of about one hundred people who currently on the mixture of mobile and landline sub-samples.
are or ever were in a same-sex relationship (Hank and Moreover, these sampling probabilities and resulting de-
Salzburger, 2015). In Section 5 of this article, we de- sign weights were augmented by estimated non-response
scribe the potentials of SOEP data for life course re- weights to compensate for refusals in subsequent field-
search on SGM people. In it, we report the number of work phases (for details, de Vries et al., 2021).
interviews by cohort and period, the number of inter- Of the overall total of 74,998 households that were
views by person, the number of critical life events screened nationwide, 53,497 completed the screening
observed by prospective as well as retrospective survey interview (see Table 1). SGM people were identified by
data, and finally, the number of family members inter- asking whether they identified as heterosexual (attracted
viewed in the SOEP. to the ‘other’ gender), lesbian/gay (attracted to the same
In light of the challenges discussed here, the German gender), bisexual (attracted to ‘both’ genders), or an-
Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP) and its boost Sample Q other sexual orientation. The items were expanded by
of SGM households address a number of key challenges providing a write-in option for respondents who chose
in the current data infrastructure. In Germany, the ‘another sexual orientation’, which resulted in answers
SOEP and its SGM boost sample comprise the first data such as queer, pansexual, asexual, polysexual, or demis-
source of this kind. Due to their unique characteristics exual. All respondents who did not select ‘heterosexual’
and deliberate inclusion in a general household panel, were screened in as part of the target group. Gender was
the SOEP data are likely to be of interest to the inter- surveyed using an internationally established two-step
national SGM research community. method. In the first step, respondents indicate whether
they were assigned female or male at birth (in their ori-
ginal birth certificate). In the second step, respondents
Study Design report their current gender identity, which may be fe-
The SOEP is a nationwide, probability-based panel sur- male, male, transgender, or none of these (again with a
vey of private households in Germany with a large num- write-in option). People who identified as transgender or
ber of respondents (currently over 30,000 people in over none of these genders were screened in, as well as people
20,000 households surveyed every year). The SOEP has whose current gender identity did not align with the gen-
been running since 1984. All household members are der they were assigned at birth. Besides the sexual orien-
surveyed on various life domains on an annual basis. tation and gender identity (SOGI) items, the interview
The majority of the SOEP interviews are conducted by included a number of other questions, such as family
professional interviewers in computer-supported, per- situation, household composition, and a range of gen-
sonal interviews. The panel is based on a number of eral opinion items.
probability samples (Samples A–P) of the general Based on the SOGI questions, 2,824 households were
German population as well as different boost samples of identified as belonging to the target population of SGM
specific subpopulations such as migrants (for an over- households. If people were identified as members of the
view, see Siegers et al., 2021). As a consequence, SGM target population, they were invited to take part in the
respondents have always been part of the SOEP due to SOEP survey in the second phase. The final gross boost
the random sample of the entire population of sample of households with complete contact informa-
Germany. However, the SOEP did not include a direct tion and willingness to participate in the main survey
question on sexual orientation until 2016. Before that, consisted of 835 households. Overall, 477 households4 European Sociological Review, 2021, Vol. 00, No. 0
Table 1. Results of the random telephone screening and response for 2019 SOEP boost Sample QTotal screening
interviews
N Per cent of total Per cent of valid Per cent of identified Per cent of gross
screening interviews screening interviews target group sample Q
74,998 100
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/esr/advance-article/doi/10.1093/esr/jcab050/6400293 by guest on 29 December 2021
Non-response to SOGI items 21,501 28.7
Completed screening interviews 53,497 71.3 100
Not in SGM target group 50,673 94.7
In SGM target group 2,824 5.3 100
Refusal to participate in SOEP 1,731 61.3
No contact information provided 70 2.5
Assumed false positive screenings 188 6.7
Final gross boost 835 29.6 100
sample Q
Not eligible 17 2.0
Refusal 170 20.3
Other not completed interviews 171 20.6
Completed interviews 477 57.1
Bold numbers correspond to the entire samples after screening, selecting the target group and the final gross boost sample.
Source: Gross telephone screening Sample Q.
Table 2. Sexual orientation and gender identity in the 2019 SOEP boost Sample Q
Sample Q total SGM only
N % un-weighted % weighted N % un-weighted % weighted
Sexual orientation
Heterosexual 127 22.52 26.49 0 0.00 0.00
Lesbian/gay 231 40.96 33.32 231 53.60 45.98
Bisexual 182 32.27 34.41 182 42.23 47.48
Other 17 3.01 4.67 17 3.94 6.44
No information 7 1.24 1.10 1 0.23 0.09
Gender identity
Male 302 53.55 53.89 240 55.68 56.55
Female 253 44.86 44.77 182 42.23 41.61
Diverse 8 1.42 1.16 8 1.86 1.60
No information 1 0.18 0.18 1 0.23 0.25
Note: The column Sample Q total refers to the overall sample; the column SGM only refers to respondents who reported their sexual orientation to be lesbian/gay,
bisexual or other, and/or their gender identity to be transgender or other.
Source: SOEP v36 2019.
were successfully interviewed, which corresponds to a identified as heterosexual. These respondents also did
response rate of 57 per cent. The fieldwork period of the not report a minoritized gender identity nor did they re-
main data collection was from April to November 2019. port a history of transitioning genders (i.e. they are cis-
Tables 2 and 3 report some basic descriptive statistics gender heterosexual in all but one case). The right col-
for Sample Q in 2019. Table 2 gives an overview of the umn shows the distribution of sexual and gender iden-
distribution of sexual and gender identities in the boost tity for those respondents who reported a minoritized
Sample Q. The left columns show this distribution for sexual and/or gender identity (SGM only). Table 3
all respondents in Sample Q, both raw and weighted. shows socio-demographic information for Sample Q,
Despite the initial screening on SOGI items, 22 per cent again for the entire boost sample and SGM people only.
of respondents indicated in the main interview that they Around 40 per cent of respondents in the boost sampleEuropean Sociological Review, 2021, Vol. 00, No. 0 5
Table 3. Socio-demographics in the 2019 SOEP boost Sample Q
Sample Q total SGM only
N % un-weighted % weighted N % un-weighted % weighted
Age (in years)
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/esr/advance-article/doi/10.1093/esr/jcab050/6400293 by guest on 29 December 2021
18–24 71 12.59 17.07 55 12.76 18.01
25–34 108 19.15 22.60 91 21.11 25.58
35–44 92 16.31 16.41 83 19.26 19.49
45–54 116 20.57 16.74 90 20.88 16.17
55–64 84 14.89 11.26 64 14.85 10.91
65þ 93 16.49 15.93 48 11.14 9.84
Education
No degree/in education 8 1.42 1.57 3 0.70 0.80
Lower secondary degree 71 12.59 12.42 42 9.74 9.13
Middle secondary degree 160 28.37 27.87 122 28.31 27.43
Advanced technical degree 48 8.51 8.17 37 8.58 8.72
Higher secondary degree 243 43.09 42.12 205 47.56 47.68
Other 20 3.55 5.20 12 2.78 4.02
No information 14 2.48 2.65 10 2.32 2.23
Partnership
No 229 40.60 42.57 177 41.07 43.28
Yes 333 59.04 57.13 252 58.47 56.31
No information 2 0.35 0.30 2 0.46 0.41
Children under 16 in Household
No 507 89.89 85.54 391 90.72 85.96
Yes 57 10.11 14.46 40 9.28 14.04
Note: The column Sample Q total refers to the overall sample; the column SGM only refers to respondents who reported their sexual orientation to be lesbian/gay,
bisexual or other, and/or their gender identity to be transgender or other.
Source: SOEP v36 2019.
are unpartnered, which illustrates the necessity to imple- reported sexual orientation only in recent years, if at all.
ment measures beyond partnership inference. For instance, UKHLS and HILDA introduced measures
of sexual orientation in 2012 and SOEP in 2016 (Uhrig,
2013; Wooden, 2014; Kühne et al., 2019). In 2016,
SGM Respondents in the SOEP, 1984–2019 respondents were asked whether they identified as het-
Existing national household panel surveys, such as the erosexual (that is, attracted to the other gender), lesbian/
Panel Study of Income Dynamics in the United States of gay (that is, attracted to the same gender), bisexual (that
America (PSID), the Socio-Economic Panel in Germany is, attracted to both genders), or another sexual orienta-
(SOEP, see Goebel et al., 2018), the Household, Income tion. Pretesting of the measure showed that people
and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) survey, the needed the explanations in parentheses to understand
Swiss Household Panel (SHP), and Understanding the identity labels, but unfortunately, this led to the use
Society in the United Kingdom (UKHLS) include sub- of terminology that reinforces outdated binary notions
stantial numbers of SGM respondents by design. The of gender. The SOEP did not survey gender-diverse pop-
limitation of these longitudinal data on the national ulations prior to 2019. In the 2019 survey, trans*
population lies in their possibilities for identifying SGM respondents could be identified in the boost sample
respondents. only; the core questionnaire included a binary measure
Partnership-inferred sexual orientation based on for gender. As of 2021, gender will be measured in a
household grids misses a substantial part of the general non-binary way, and respondents will be asked about
sexual minority population, and it glosses over any gen- any changes that may have been made to their birth cer-
der diversity within these partnerships. While many tificate over the life course. At present, the number of
household panel surveys have been going on for decades, trans* observations that can be identified in the panel is
some of them started to introduce measures of self- very small (N ¼ 38).6 European Sociological Review, 2021, Vol. 00, No. 0
Considering that sexual and gender diversity remain information from which sexual orientation could be
stigmatized in contemporary societies, the disclosure of inferred (bars in the middle). This remains the only
minoritized sexualities and genders is considered sensi- source of information for any respondent who attired
tive, and prior research has shown evidence of mode prior to 2016. In more recent panel waves, less than 10
effects on the reporting of sexual orientation (Kühne per cent of adult respondents reported information on
et al., 2019). Not every survey mode is equally suited to cohabitation or civil partnerships. In contrast, the num-
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/esr/advance-article/doi/10.1093/esr/jcab050/6400293 by guest on 29 December 2021
obtaining valid SOGI data. The SOEP is conducted by ber of respondents who self-reported their sexual iden-
computer-assisted personal interviewing. For sensitive tity has increased over time to more than 80 per cent in
questions on topics around SOGI, interviewers turn the 2019 (bars on the outer left).2 For about 10 to 20 per
laptop toward the respondents and let them answer the cent of adult respondents, we do not have any informa-
respective questions in privacy. This strategy is aimed at tion on sexual orientation for any of these three meas-
minimizing social desirability bias. ures (bars on the outer right).
Figure 1 shows the distribution of different sexual Based on all sources of information on sexual orien-
orientation information (self-identification, same-sex tation and gender identity combined, the SOEP panel in
partnership, same-sex civil partnership) for the respond- 2019 includes 7,762 interviews of 1,522 adult respond-
ents in SOEP in each survey year. In this figure, we con- ents between the years 1984 and 2019. Each of these
sider sexual orientation to be time-invariant. Before self- respondents either cohabitated with a same-sex partner
reported sexual orientation was introduced in the survey and/or self-identified as non-cis-heterosexual. The num-
in 2016, particularly in the 1980s and 1990s, cohabiting ber of available interviews that can be ascribed to SGM
partnership data and legal civil partnerships (legally rec- respondents increases after 2000 with the legal introduc-
ognized since 2001) were the primary sources of tion of same-sex civil partnerships and almost doubles
Figure 1. Information used to classify adult respondents by sexual orientation
Source: SOEP v36 2019.European Sociological Review, 2021, Vol. 00, No. 0 7
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/esr/advance-article/doi/10.1093/esr/jcab050/6400293 by guest on 29 December 2021
Figure 2a. Number of Interviews with SGM Respondents by Panel Wave (Total 7,762).
Source: SOEP v36 2019.
to a total of 1,077 annual person-interviews with SGM Modifying such questions involves a low implementa-
respondents in 2019 with the introduction of Sample Q tion cost and is crucial to avoid alienation of SGM
(Figure 2a). respondents. The SOEP has opted to add the category of
social mother or social father to the existing option of
biological mother or biological father. Households com-
Questionnaire Content
plete an additional questionnaire when a child was born
The coverage of topics in the SOEP is broad, ranging into the household since the previous interview. This
from employment, income, and education to health, questionnaire used to be aimed at the biological mother
well-being, social relationships, fertility, and attitudes.3 of the child, and the questions pertained to the circum-
Respondents in the SGM boost Sample Q completed the stances of the birth. As of 2021, this questionnaire first
same questionnaire as the core SOEP sample in 2019. In asks about the relationship to the new child (i.e. bio-
addition, the SGM boost Sample Q also completed an logical, social or adoptive parenthood, or other relation-
SGM-specific module. Therefore, SOEP combines a ship). If the respondent completing the questionnaire
wide range of general topics (and their comparability gave birth to the child, there is another set of items ask-
with non-SGM respondents) with SGM-specific topics. ing about the circumstances of conception (i.e. whether
Table 4 in the appendix gives an overview of topics that medical assistance was provided in the form of hormo-
overlap between the questionnaire of the boost Sample nal therapy or IVF treatments). These minor alterations
Q and all other SOEP Samples A–P as well as the SGM- make the questionnaire inclusive to SGM respondents at
specific questions. minimal cost.
When integrating SGM samples into existing house-
hold surveys, it must be considered that surveys tend to
use gendered language and gendered concepts at various Life Course Research Potentials
points in their questionnaires. Questions pertaining to The extended period of observation of SGM respondents
parenthood may use terms like ‘mother’ and ‘father’ and in SOEP holds unique analytical potential for research
presume a biological relationship with the child. across the life course and across generations8 European Sociological Review, 2021, Vol. 00, No. 0
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/esr/advance-article/doi/10.1093/esr/jcab050/6400293 by guest on 29 December 2021
Figure 2b. Number of Interviews of Respondents with Different Sexual Orientations (N ¼ 1,522 SGM respondents and N ¼ 99,509
all other respondents).
Source: SOEP v36 2019.
Table 5. Number of SGM Respondents by age and cohort
Age groups
Cohorts 17–19 20–29 30–39 40–49 50–59 60–69 70þ Total
1914–1939 8 42 68 112 230
1940–1949 6 69 159 272 211 717
1950–1959 2 34 130 276 221 663
1960–1969 18 221 378 710 537 1,864
1970–1979 33 211 678 631 1,553
1980–1989 92 650 684 1,426
1990–2001 506 803 1,309
Total 649 1,887 1,780 1,548 1,014 561 323 7,762
Note: The total of 7,762 observations refers to 1,522 unique SGM adult respondents.
Source: SOEP v36 2019.
(Mannheim, 1928; Ryder, 1985). The 7,762 interviews Section 3 already documents the number of inter-
on SGM respondents cover cohorts between 1914 and views with SGM respondents from a perspective of
2001, with age at the time of interview ranging from 17 repeated cross-sections. Owing to the long period of ob-
to 88 years (see Table 5). servation in the SOEP, some respondents have beenEuropean Sociological Review, 2021, Vol. 00, No. 0 9
Table 6. Family-of-origin characteristics reported by SGM respondents (N ¼ 972), SOEP 1984–2019
SGM boost SOEP Samples Total Outcome
Sample Q
A–P
Parental socio-demographic information
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/esr/advance-article/doi/10.1093/esr/jcab050/6400293 by guest on 29 December 2021
Birth year father 377 498 875 90.0%
Birth year mother 383 522 905 93.1%
School education (father) 368 465 833 85.7%
School education (mother) 381 498 879 90.4%
Professional education (father) 387 491 878 90.3%
Professional education (mother) 376 517 893 91.9%
Religious affiliation (father) 387 429 816 84.0%
Religious affiliation (mother) 388 471 859 88.4%
Nationality (father) 383 499 882 90.1%
Nationality (mother) 394 516 910 93.6%
Country of origin (father) 60 411 471 48.5%
Country of origin (mother) 56 428 484 49.8%
Father’s current location 401 514 915 94.1%
Mother’s current location 413 529 942 96.9%
Occupational and class classifications
Current occupational classification KldB10 (father) 335 434 769 79.1%
Current occupational classification KldB10 (mother) 266 361 627 64.5%
ISEI (father) 335 432 767 78.9%
ISEI (mother) 266 360 626 64.4%
ISCO (father) 335 432 767 78.9%
ISCO (mother) 266 360 626 64.4%
Treiman’s standard int. Occupational prestige score (ISCO; father) 335 432 767 78.9%
Treiman’s standard int. Occupational prestige score (ISCO; mother) 266 360 626 64.4%
EGP Class scheme (father) 270 417 687 70.7%
EGP Class scheme (mother) 240 357 597 61.4%
EGP Class scheme (combined, at least one parent information) 347 482 829 85.3%
Parental information during adolescence (at the age of 15 years)
Main residence during childhood 433 531 964 99.2%
Still living at residence of childhood 433 514 947 97.4%
Years cohabiting with parent(s) 429 503 932 96.0%
Father’s occupational status at age 15 380 467 847 87.1%
Mother’s occupational status at age 15 387 481 868 89.3%
Fight with father at age 15 434 434 868 89.3%
Fight with mother at age 15 434 436 870 89.5%
Siblings
Information on siblings general 431 528 959 98.7%
Having at least one sibling 369 463 832 86.8%
At least one sister 1 103 104 12.5%
At least one brother 1 300 301 36.2%
Twins 0 10 10 0.01%
Source: SOEP v36 2019.
interviewed in more than 30 different panel waves so far comparable across SGM and cis-heterosexual respond-
(Figure 2b). While the peak in the number of interviews ents, with a mean of 8 and 5 panel waves, respectively.
with SGM respondents results from the boost sample, In the SOEP data, a number of critical life events can
the number of panel waves per respondent appears be observed in SGM respondents. For instance, there are10 European Sociological Review, 2021, Vol. 00, No. 0
447 unemployment spells in 345 SGM respondents. time. Initial cross-sectional reports based on these data
Moreover, we can trace a total of 847 births to SGM confirm that there is considerable inequality between
respondents, and we observe 692 partnerships during SGM and non-SGM populations in different life
their participation in SOEP. Beyond partnerships, there domains (De Vries et al., 2020; Kasprowski et al.,
are other family relationships that can be analysed. For 2021). These descriptive reports are suggestive of the po-
instance, 274 respondents in the SOEP are mothers of tential of these data for studying people with minori-
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/esr/advance-article/doi/10.1093/esr/jcab050/6400293 by guest on 29 December 2021
SGM (adult) children; 229 respondents are fathers of tized sexual and gender identities.
SGM (adult) children. In addition, a total of 447 SOEP The SOEP project fills an important gap because sur-
respondents are siblings of an SGM respondent. Hence, vey respondents provide their sexual and gender identity
the SOEP data offer unique analytical potential for the directly, hence including singles and non-cohabiting
study of social ties in families and partnerships over the couples and a suitable comparison group within the
life course. Information on parents, siblings, children, same dataset. The boost sample ensures a large enough
and partners can be obtained not only from interviews group size to make meaningful comparisons with the
with the respective people in the same household but non-SGM population. The survey covers general topics
also from biographical information reported by such as work, family, and health as well as population-
respondents, for instance, when they were 15 years of specific topics such as openness about sexual orienta-
age. Table 6 shows the available biographical informa- tion, minority stress, and experiences of sexual stigma
tion on parents and siblings of SGM respondents. and discrimination. The inclusion of the SGM sample
into the general panel means that there will be longitu-
dinal data that are unique and direly needed. Overall,
Conclusions
data with all of these features are exceptionally rare. In
Using the example of SOEP and its boost sample of light of this, the SOEP data may be of interest to the
SGM respondents, we have illustrated the untapped larger field of LGB studies in Europe, beyond the scope
potentials of household panels for research into SGM of Germany alone.
populations. The SOEP has taken advantage of the op- The data are available to employees and students at
portunity to maximize its panel structure to make empir- universities and other research institutes for non-
ical longitudinal inferences with sufficient statistical commercial scientific research, and are provided based
confidence in service of a rigorous SGM Sociology. Due on a data use contract (www.diw.de/en/soep).
to its probability-based sampling, the SOEP already
included SGM people even before the introduction of
the SGM boost sample. In 2016, respondents were asked Endnotes
about their sexual orientation, making lesbian, gay, and 1 Lazarsfeld and Fiske (1938) also note that the survey
bisexual panellists visible in the core SOEP samples (A– experience of respondents in longitudinal surveys
P). This created analytical possibilities through the use may increase the reliability of measurement (for sup-
of retrospective existing data on these respondents. The portive empirical evidence, see Kroh et al., 2016).
latest boost sample of SGM households (Sample Q) is The main disadvantages of panel data are the possi-
integrated into the larger panel as of 2019 and offers bility of selection bias due to attrition as well as
sufficient supplementary observations to obtain unique panel conditioning, that is, the reactivity of
probability-based, longitudinal survey data with annual responses to previous waves of the panel (Lazarsfeld
interviews of SGM respondents as the panel progresses. and Fiske, 1938).
We have illustrated the unique potential of house- 2 Besides the raw data on indicators of sexual orienta-
hold panel surveys to provide detailed accounts of fam- tion, the SOEP team provides two generated sum-
ily constellations, not just of couples and SGM parents mary indicators of sexual orientation: sexor is
but of all family relationships (siblings, parents, rela- categorical and time-invariant and distinguishes be-
tives). These data make it possible to conduct SGM fam- tween (probably) lesbian/gay and bisexual respond-
ily research in context of wider family relationships, a ents on the one hand and (probably) heterosexual
key avenue for future research outlined by Reczek respondents on the other hand. The second variable,
(2020). The identification and inclusion of SGM people sexorinfo, distinguishes the source of information
in panel surveys take advantage of this potential. We that was used for this classification. Researchers
provided examples of de-gendering of survey items that who wish to restrict their samples to respondents
may alienate SGM respondents. They were minor and who self-reported their sexual orientation can do so
inexpensive, and they maximize comparability across with the sexorinfo variable.European Sociological Review, 2021, Vol. 00, No. 0 11
3 Many of these questions are surveyed annually; Weekly Report (36/2020). Berlin: DIW. https://doi.org/10.
others are part rotating modules. We recommend the 18723/diw_dwr:2020-36-1.
DeMaio, T. J., Bates, N. and O’Connell, M. (2013). Exploring
online SOEP Companion to anyone interested in
measurement error issues in reporting of same-sex couples.
using these data (http://companion.soep.de/). It con-
Public Opinion Quarterly, 77, 145–158.
tains an overview of all topics covered, variables, Elder, G. H., Johnson, M. K. and Crosnoe, R. (2003). The emer-
technical documents, fieldwork reports, and prac- gence and development of life course theory. In Mortimer, J.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/esr/advance-article/doi/10.1093/esr/jcab050/6400293 by guest on 29 December 2021
tical tips on how to get started. T. and Shanahan, M. J. (Eds.), Handbook of the Life Course.
Boston, MA: Springer, pp. 3–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-
0-306-48247-2_1.
Funding Fischer, M. M. (2016). Identifying same-sex couples in
This data collection was funded by the Federal Ministry of cross-national survey data: a comparison of same-sex couples’
Education and Research, Berlin, Germany (BMBF) [ref. demographic and socio-economic traits in six European coun-
01UW1803A, 01UW1803B] and it is part of a larger research tries. In Meuleman, R., Kraaykamp, G. and Wittenberg, M.
project into Sexual and Gender Diversity in Germany (GesMin) (Eds.), Nederland in Context: Verschillen en
[ref. 01UW2002A, 01UW2002B]. Both projects are conducted Overeenkomsten. Den Haag: DANS Symposium.
in collaboration between the German Institute for Economic Goebel, J. et al. (2018). The German Socio-Economic Panel
Research and the University of Bielefeld. The DFG funded the (SOEP). Journal of Economics and Statistics, 239, 345–360.
research network Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in Halaby, C. N. (2004). Panel models in sociological research: the-
Germany (SOGI-GER) Bundling Interdisciplinary Expertise to ory into practice. Annual Review of Sociology, 30, 507–544.
stimulate interdisciplinary scientific collaboration and research Hank, K. and Salzburger, V. (2015). Gay and lesbian adults’ re-
based on the SOEP-LGB data [ref. FI 2490/1-1]. lationship with parents in Germany. Journal of Marriage and
Family, 77, 866–876.
Kabátek, J. and Perales, F. (2021). Academic achievement of
References children in same- and different-sex-parented families: a
Aldén, L. et al. (2015). Effect of registered partnership on labor population-level analysis of linked administrative data from
earnings and fertility for same-sex couples: evidence from the Netherlands. Demography, 58, 393–418.
Swedish register data. Demography, 52, 1243–1268. Kasprowski, D. et al. (2021). LGBTQI people in Germany face
Antecol, H., Jong, A. and Steinberger, M. (2008). The sexual staggering health disparities LGBTQI people in Germany face
staggering health disparities. In DIW Weekly Report
orientation wage gap: the role of occupational sorting and
(5/2021). Berlin: DIW. https://doi.org/10.18723/diw_
human capital. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 61,
dwr:2021-5-1.
518–543.
Kolk, M. and Andersson, G. (2018). Two decades of same-sex
Bengtson, V. L., Elder, G. H. Jr. and Putney, N. M. (2005). The
marriage in Sweden: a demographic account of developments
lifecourse perspective on aging: linked lives, timing, and his-
in marriage, childbearing and divorce. Social Policy and
tory. In Johnson M. L. (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of
Family Dynamics in Europe, 2, 1–37.
Age and Ageing. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press,
Kroh, M., Winter, F. and Schupp, J. (2016). Using person-fit
pp. 493–509.
measures to assess the impact of panel conditioning on reli-
Brüderl, J., Kratz, F. and Bauer, G. (2019). Life course research
ability. Public Opinion Quarterly, 80, 914–942.
with panel data: an analysis of the reproduction of social in- Kühne, S., Kroh, M. and Richter, D. (2019). Comparing
equality. Advances in Life Course Research, 41. https://doi. self-reported and partnership-inferred sexual orientation in
org/10.1016/j.alcr.2018.09.003. household surveys. Journal of Official Statistics, 35, 777–805.
de Vries, L. et al. (2021). SOEP-Core-2019: Design, nonres- Kühne, S. and Zindel, Z. (2020). Using Facebook and Instagram
ponse, and weighting in the Sample Q (queer) (No. 940). to recruit web survey participants: a step-by-step guide and
SOEP Survey Papers. application. Survey Methods: Insights from the Field, Special
Buskirk, T., and Jonathan B. (2012). “Venn Diagrams, Issue, 1–14.
Probability 101, and Sampling Weights Computed from Dual- Lazarsfeld, P. and Fiske, M. (1938). The “panel” as a new tool
Frame Telephone RDD Designs.” JSM Proceedings, Survey for measuring opinion. Public Opinion Quarterly, 2,
Research Methods Section, American Statistical Association, 596–612.
3696–3710. Lengerer, A. and Bohr, J. (2019). Is there an increase in same-sex
de Vries, L. et al. (2020). LGBTQI people on the labor market: couples in Germany? Theoretical considerations and empirical
highly educated, frequently discriminated against. In DIW findings. Zeitschrift Fur Soziologie, 48, 136–157.12 European Sociological Review, 2021, Vol. 00, No. 0
Mannheim, K. (1928). Das Problem der Generationen. Kölner Until 2019). SOEP survey papers 960: Series C. Available
Vierteljahreshefte Für Soziologie, 7, 157–184. from: https://www.diw.de/surveypapers.
Naylor, L. A. (2020). Counting an invisible class of citizens: the Steinmetz, S. and Fischer, M. M. (2019). Surveying persons in
LGBT population and the U.S. Census. Public Integrity, 22, same-sex relationships in a probabilistic way—an example
54–72. from the Netherlands. Journal of Official Statistics, 35,
OECD. (2019). Society at a Glance 2019: OECD Social 753–776.
Indicators. Paris: OECD Publishing. Uhrig, S. C. N. (2013). An examination of poverty and sexual
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/esr/advance-article/doi/10.1093/esr/jcab050/6400293 by guest on 29 December 2021
Pöge, K. et al. (2020). Die gesundheitliche Lage von lesbischen, orientation in the UK (No. 2014-02). University of Essex,
schwulen, bisexuellen sowie trans- und intergeschlechtlichen Colchester: Institute for Social and Economic Research work-
Menschen [The health situation of lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans ing paper series.
and inter people]. Journal of Health Monitoring, 5, 1–120. Valfort, M.-A. (2017). LGBTI in OECD countries: a review. In
Reczek, C. (2020). Sexual- and gender-minority families: a 2010 OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers,
to 2020 decade in review. Journal of Marriage and Family, 82, Vol. No. 198 (Issue June). pp. 185. https://doi.org/10.1787/
300–325. d5d49711-en.
Ryder, N. B. (1985). The Cohort as a concept in the study of so- Wooden, M. (2014). The Measurement of Sexual Identity in
cial change. In Mason, W. M., Fienberg, S. E. (Eds.), Cohort Wave 12 of the HILDA Survey (and associations with mental
Analysis in Social Research. New York, NY: Springer. https:// health and earnings). HILDA PROJECT DISCUSSION
doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-8536-3_2. PAPER SERIES, University of Melbourne. Retrieved from
Siegers, R., Steinhauer, H. W. and Dührsen, L. (2021). Data https://melbourneinstitute.unimelb.edu.au/assets/documents/
Documentation: Documentation of Sample Sizes and Panel hilda-bibliography/hilda-discussion-papers/hdps114.pdf.
Attrition in the German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP) (1984
Mirjam Fischer is a postdoctoral researcher in
Sociology at the University of Cologne. Her re- Lisa de Vries is a doctoral researcher at the Faculty
search interests include inequlities in (mental) of Sociology and a member of the Bielefeld
health, well-being, social networks, and family ties Graduate School in History and Sociology at
between people with minoritized sexual and/or gen- Bielefeld University. Current research interests com-
der identities and the cis-heterosexual majority, and prise discrimination and inequality in the labor
sampling and measurement issues related to market, career paths of sexual and gender minor-
LGBTQI* populations. ities, and LGBTQI*-parent families.
Martin Kroh is a Professor of Quantitative David Kasprowski is a doctoral researcher in the
Methods of Empirical Social Research at the Socio-Economic Panel Research Infrasturcture at
Faculty of Sociology of Bielefeld University and re- the German Institute for Economic Research in
search fellow at the Socio-Economic Panel at the Berlin. He is a member at the Berlin Graduate
German Institute for Economic Research (DIW School for Social Sciences at the Humboldt
Berlin). His research interests include the link be- University. Current research interests comprise sex-
tween social and political inequality. He also works ual orientation and gender diversity as stratifying
on political attitudes and behaviors in the context factors, particularly of education and labor market
of families and generations. outcomes.European Sociological Review, 2021, Vol. 00, No. 0 13
Simon Kuehne is a Professor of Applied Social Data researcher and survey manager at DIW Berlin. He is
Science at the University of Bielefeld. His research interested in the development of emotions, well-
interests include survey methodology, social media, being, and life satisfaction across the adult life-span
and dimensions of social inequality such as gender, and the influence of life-events on the development
sexuality, or health. His work has been published in of life satisfaction and well-being.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/esr/advance-article/doi/10.1093/esr/jcab050/6400293 by guest on 29 December 2021
journals, such as Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences (PNAS), Sociological Methods Zaza Zindel is a doctoral researcher at the Faculty
& Research, and Journal of Official Statistics. of Sociology and a member of the Bielefeld
Graduate School in History and Sociology at
David Richter is a Professor of Survey Research at Bielefeld University. Her research interests include
the Department of Educational Science and survey research and methodology, social media re-
Psychology at the Freie Universität Berlin and a search, discrimination, and social inequality.14 European Sociological Review, 2021, Vol. 00, No. 0
Appendix
Table 4. Questionnaire content of SOEP SGM boost Sample Q
Overlap with SOEP Samples A–P Unique to the boost Sample Q
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/esr/advance-article/doi/10.1093/esr/jcab050/6400293 by guest on 29 December 2021
Identification of sexual orientation Sexual orientation (self-identifying),
same-sex partner, marital status:
registered civil partnership
Sexual orientation Disclosure of sexual orientation,
identification with sexual orientation,
sexual orientation, and the society
Identification of gender identity Gender, birth gender (registered)
Gender identity Disclosure of trans* identity,
identification with trans* identity,
trans* identity and the society
Discrimination Experienced discrimination on the basis Areas of discrimination
of 10 different characteristics
Family situation Marital status, relationship status,
partner in same household, financial
support, changes in family situation
Children Detailed information about every child in
the household depending on age:
parenting goals, parenting role,
parenting style, big five, Strengths and
Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ),
temperament, Vineland Adaptive
Behaviour Scales, child care, school,
pregnancy and birth, health
Partner Detailed information about partner in
household
Household Housing situation, neighbourhood,
detailed information about every
Person in the Household, household
composition, household income
Childbirth preferences Desire to have children Realization, barriers, contact to donor
Situation in the last year Paid work, maternity leave/statutory
parental leave, statutory period of
care, officially registered unemployed,
education or training, finish education,
left a job
Employment situation Employment status, occupational status,
job search, occupational change, job
position, sector of business/industry,
type of employment contract, type of
company, income, sources of income,
working time, extra hours, duty stroke,
side jobs, volunteer jobs, bonuses or
extra pay, retirement/pension
Asset Residential properties, real properties,
building loan contract, financial
investments, companies, vehicles,
tangible properties, liabilities,
inheritance
(continued)European Sociological Review, 2021, Vol. 00, No. 0 15
Table 4. (Continued)
Overlap with SOEP Samples A–P Unique to the boost Sample Q
Health and illness Current health, sleeping hours, diseases,
severely disabled, partially incapable
of work, trips to the doctor, hospital
stay, sick leaves, health insurance
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/esr/advance-article/doi/10.1093/esr/jcab050/6400293 by guest on 29 December 2021
Timing schedule Everyday Life, leisure time
Well-being
Cognitive well-being General life satisfaction, satisfaction in
11 further domains
Affective well-being Affective well-being, emotional well-
being
Risk aversion Risk aversion in general
Attitudes and opinions Big five, justice, attitudes towards
LGBT*s, political interest, political
opinion, worries, social networks
Biography/socio-demographics Origin, nationality, migration, stays
abroad, occupation, childhood, educa-
tion, parents, grandparents, siblings,
children
Migration history, religion Citizenship, residency status, language
skills, contact to Germans and non-
Germans, attachment to place of resi-
dence, contacts abroad, religionYou can also read
