Jo Caird: The trouble with statistics

Less
encouraging statistics from the survey were reported too: that only
57% of respondents list their agent as someone with whom they are
honest about their sexuality; that 35% of actors surveyed have
experienced homophobia at some point in their professional lives;
that 61% of respondents feel being openly gay might restrict the
roles available to them.

Now,
to be clear, I’m really pleased that this issue is getting media
coverage – until we can truly say that a person’s sexual preference
has no effect on their career prospects in this, or any other
industry, we need to keep shouting about it – but it’s wise to be
cautious when it comes to statistics.

Neither The Stage
nor The Guardian mention the numbers involved or
that respondents were self-selecting. The union has around 36,000
members and contacted everyone for whom it has email addresses (some
tens of thousands, hazarded Max Beckmann, the union’s equalities
officer), inviting them to complete the online survey last autumn.
Only 326 people responded and many people skipped several of the
questions asked (you can download the survey summary from Equity’s
website by clicking here).

The
trouble with self-selecting surveys (as opposed to ones where
respondents are chosen at random) is that the small number who choose
to respond tend to feel more strongly (either negatively or
positively) than the majority who choose not to respond. So rather
than getting a representative sample of the feelings of Equity’s gay
and lesbian members, a survey such as this will over or
under-represent particular experiences. Drawing any conclusions from
it must therefore be done with extreme caution, or ideally, not at
all.

A more
sensible course, and one already advocated by Equity’s LGBT
Committee, would be for the union to monitor its membership for
sexuality, as most UK trade unions do. Equity currently only monitors
its members for gender and age and therefore holds no data on the way
they break down along lines of sexual preference, disability or
ethnicity. The union’s argument against additional monitoring is that
it would make applying for membership more time-consuming than it
already is and might put people off joining, but I think this is
short-sighted. One of the most important roles that trade unions play
is advocating on behalf of their minority members – surely Equity
would be better placed to help its members if it had a clearer idea
of who they are?

This
post isn’t intended as a swipe at Equity, who do great work across a
whole range of issues affecting performers and creative
professionals, but rather a plea for a more nuanced approach to a
complex, emotive topic. If we really want to address the problem of
homophobic discrimination in the entertainment industry, we first
need to get our facts straight.