Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Gender-based power dynamics within intimate relationships such as controlling behaviours are driven by inequitable gender norms that perpetuate intimate partner violence (IPV). Yet, the ways in which we understand and measure gender-based power dynamics focus on the relationships of monogamous, cisgender, white, heterosexual women. This paper outlines our process of planning and implementing a qualitative, youth-led, community-based research (CBR) study exploring how diverse youth with intersecting identities perceive existing measures of gender equity and understand gender equity based on their own relationships. Between August-November 2022, we used purposive sampling to recruit 30 gender-inclusive young women and non-binary youth aged 17–29 with diverse identities, who live in British Columbia (BC), and have recent experience in a non-heterosexual and/or non-monogamous relationship (within prior 12 months). Using CBR methods, we hired and trained three Youth Research Associates (YRAs) and convened a 10-member Youth Advisory Committee (YAC) comprised of youth aged 19–28 years with queer, trans, and/or non-monogamous identities and experiences to consult on all aspects of our study. YRAs conducted cognitive interviews using an interview guide co-developed and piloted in partnership with the YAC and YRAs. Cognitive interviews explored youth perceptions of gender equity and two gender equity measures widely used in health research today. Interview data will be analyzed collaboratively using intersectional descriptive and thematic analysis. Results from our CBR study will be used to make recommendations to advance gender equity measurement to be more inclusive of and applicable to a diversity of youth relationships, experiences, and identities.

Keywords

community based research critical feminist theory methods in qualitative inquiry participatory action research social justice

Background

Gender-based power dynamics within intimate relationships such as controlling behaviours and unequal decision-making power are driven by inequitable, cis-heteropatriarchal gender norms that privilege cisgender men and heterosexuality (Ingraham, 1994; Smith, 2015) and perpetuate high levels of intimate partner violence (IPV) faced by one in four women globally (Amaro, 1995; Longobardi & Badenes-Ribera, 2017; Pulerwitz et al., 2002). Inequitable gender-based power dynamics begin early in the lifecourse, with Canadian data showing that in 2018, 29% of ever partnered young women aged 15–24 reported past year sexual, physical, or emotional IPV five times the rate of women 25 or older (Savage, 2021). While gender-based power dynamics in intimate relationships, including the causes and consequences of IPV, have been more frequently studied in heterosexual, cisgender, and monogamous or married women, a growing body of literature suggests that gender non-binary youth, trans women, young women of colour, and lesbian and bisexual women may face greater levels of IPV than white cisgender heterosexual women (Barrett & St. Pierre, 2013; UNAIDS, 2019). In a 2010 US national survey, 43% of lesbian and 61% of bisexual women reported experiencing IPV compared to 35% of heterosexual women (Basile et al., 2011). Findings from British Columbia (BC), further reveal the inequitable distribution of violence by age and gender, as non-binary youth are twice as likely to experience IPV compared to their cisgender peers (14% of non-binary youth vs. 7% of cisgender women and men) (Smith et al., 2019). As gender and sexual diverse identities become more visible, younger generations are increasingly rejecting gender binary identities (Allen et al., 2022), requiring engaged efforts to understand intimate relationship power dynamics that drive experiences and perpetration of IPV within young queer and trans relationships. However, these dynamics and experiences can be challenging to measure as current conceptualizations of gender-based power dynamics in intimate relationships have focused on the experiences and outcomes of cisgender, heterosexual married women. While efforts have been made to conceptualize and measure power dynamics within the relationships of gay men (Dworkin et al., 2017), there are limited data and tools for understanding power dynamics within the intimate relationships of gender and sexuality diverse young women and non-binary youth.

Study Justification

Gender Equity Measurement

Efforts to prevent IPV and advance gender equity require valid and reliable measures that are inclusive to individuals of diverse genders, sexual orientations, and relationship experiences. For example, commonly used measures of gender-based power dynamics within intimate relationships focus almost exclusively on heterosexual monogamous ciswomen’s experiences. These measures include the Sexual Assertiveness Scale (Morokoff et al., 1997), Sexual Relationship Power Scale (Pulerwitz et al., 2000), and the Sexual Pressure Scale (Jones & Gulick, 2009). Emerging concerns regarding increased experiences of IPV among queer and trans individuals require additional information on how relationship dynamics impact experiences of IPV in a diversity of relationships. For example, while there is little understanding of the power dynamics occurring within queer and trans relationships, evidence suggests that IPV may be more bidirectional in these relationships than in heterosexual cisgender relationships (Coulter et al., 2019; Rolle et al., 2018). Prior work conducted by members on our study team in partnership with South African youth revealed several measurement gaps of the Sexual Relationship Power Scale, including the need for more inclusive (e.g., that consider queer, trans, and non-monogamous youth experiences), more contemporary (e.g., that consider how technology impacts youth relationships), and more strength-based measures that move beyond risk-based narratives to explore relationship equity or positive relationship norms (Closson et al., 2022). While this work aimed to be inclusive of a diversity of perspectives, it was clear that efforts to address IPV through improved gender equity require data that is inclusive of queer and trans youth with diverse identities and relationship experiences (Pryor & Seck, 2019). Learning from this prior work with South African youth, and to address critical data gaps in the advancement of gender equity within the relationships of queer and trans young women and non-binary youth, we designed the Relationship and gender Equity Measurement Among Gender-inclusive young women and Non-binary Youth in British Columbia (RE-IMAGYN BC) study. Through RE-IMAGYN BC we aim to support efforts to improve gender and relationship equity data that is informed by the lived and living experiences of queer and trans youth, to inform future research and programming aimed at supporting healthy romantic relationship development that is efficacious and inclusive. This paper outlines our process of planning and implementing a qualitative, youth-led, community-based research (CBR) study exploring how diverse youth with intersecting identities perceive existing measures of gender equity and understand gender equity based on their own relationships.

RE-IMAGYN Objectives

(1) Build a youth participatory approach to gender and relationship equity measurement development;

(2) Explore perceptions of existing gender and relationship equity measures;

(3) Identify recommendations for adapting and developing gender equity measures for use within the relationships of diverse young women and gender non-binary youth; and

(4) Explore how youth of diverse genders and relationship experiences understand gender equity in their relationships.

Methods

Theoretical Frameworks

The RE-IMAGYN BC study is grounded in critical feminist theory and CBR principles, focusing on productions of power in our society and seeking to explore the origins and consequences of cis-heteropatriarchal gender relations. This includes a commitment to utilizing an intersectional framework at all stages of the research process (Crenshaw, 2017). We work closely with our community partners and youth to ensure that study processes consider the perspectives across intersecting identities.

CBR is an approach to exploring the social, structural, and environmental inequities of a given phenomenon through participatory involvement of community members in the research process (Israel et al., 1998). Community members contribute their expertise from their lived and living experiences to be integrated within the study design and benefit the community involved (Israel et al., 1998). We seek to incorporate meaningful and intersectional participation from young women and non-binary youth in all their diversity to ensure our research is relevant and produces outcomes that are beneficial to their communities. Often, communities are exploited in research and rarely reap the benefits of the extractive process. Therefore, the RE-IMAGYN study has committed to supporting and providing opportunities for youth to meaningfully engage in the decision-making processes that shape their lives, including research. By engaging with youth in each step of our research, including design, data collection, and analyses, RE-IMAGYN will provide recommendations to ensure that measures of gender and relationship equity are inclusive for use within a diversity of youths’ relationships.

Objective 1: The RE-IMAGYN BC Youth-Engagement Approach

RE-IMAGYN BC’s youth engagement approach has been carried out in two distinct operations of the study: The hiring of, training of, and partnering with Youth Research Associates (YRAs) and the formation of the Youth Advisory Committee (YAC).

Our youth engagement approach is supported and enriched by our collaboration with community organizations. Our community collaborators include (1) YouthCO, a BC-based youth-led organization that aims to reduce the impact of HIV and Hepatitis C on youth through queer and trans affirming programming, and (2) the Afro-Canadian Positive Network of BC (ACPNet), an organization that works to affirm the rights of all individuals impacted by HIV/AIDS (particularly immigrants, refugees, and Canadians of African backgrounds) by building networks for culturally appropriate peer education and knowledge sharing. Our study has recruited YAC members and YRAs that resemble the study population for this project, which we hope will help make our study relevant, reciprocal, and comfortable for participants. All YAC members and YRAs are self-identified women and non-binary youth (cis- and trans-inclusive) who share social identities (race, sexual orientation, or non-normative relationship status) and lived/living experience with the communities of young women and non-binary youth who’s experiences we are aiming to represent in our research. The YAC and YRAs have been engaged as equal partners in all stages of the research process so far: from defining the research priorities, designing, and piloting the survey questions, through participant recruitment, data collection, data analysis, and dissemination. YRAs are provided ongoing opportunities to facilitate conference presentations and workshops, co-author manuscripts, and engage with traditional and online media.

The RE-IMAGYN Youth Research Associates

Hiring YRAs

Criteria for involving youth in the YRA roles were developed to ensure the inclusion of a diversity of perspectives. To recruit young women and non-binary youth for this position, we leveraged our existing connections and community collaborators. The job description and hiring process was modelled after lessons learned from members on our team who have been conducting and leading CBR for over a decade (Closson et al., 2016; Kaida et al., 2019). This process aimed to be age appropriate and accessible in its format and questions. Details of the position were posted on the YouthCO website from March 1st to April 1st, 2022. Recruitment was promoted through study team networks, including community organizations (YouthCO, ACPNet, CBR Centre), researchers conducting similar research (with youth and queer/trans folks), queer/trans Facebook community groups, and departments and student groups across BC universities.

From a total of 37 applicants, three YRAs with diverse gender identities, sexual orientations, geographical locations, ethnicities, and experience with research were selected. A sub selection of applicants who were eligible for the position but not selected, were invited to join the YAC (described below).

Training YRAs

After hiring the YRAs, the RE-IMAGYN team designed an eight-hour, tailored training curriculum for them inspired by a peer-research associate (PRA) training developed by community experts and researchers from the Canadian HIV Women’s Sexual and Reproductive Health Cohort Study (CHIWOS) (Loutfy et al., 2016) and the following, virtual adapted training by the British Columbia CARMA CHIWOS Collaboration’s (BCC3) Study (BCC3 PRA Training Collaborative, 2020; CHIWOS PRA Training Working Group, 2013; Kaida et al., 2019). The YRA training was created with input from community collaborators, using similar modules outlined in the CHIWOS and BCC3 Peer Research Associate manuals but re-designed according to RE-IMAGYN’s subject matter and audience. YRAs underwent four two-hour sessions covering (1) the study background, (2) qualitative research methods, (3) research ethics, logistics of the job, and interviewing skills, and (4) safety and self-care. They each also completed the Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans (TCPS-2) online training (Government of Canada, 2018) and conducted three pilot interviews (twice with their fellow YRAs and RE-IMAGYN’s Co-Investigator KC). Pilot interviews provided YRAs opportunities to practice their interview skills, provide feedback on the interview guide, and ask questions about the interview process prior to commencing interviews with participants.

The Youth Advisory Committee

The YAC was primarily formed from YRA applications that were not selected for the YRA position, with additional active community recruitment from a local Indigenous youth organization. Ten youth aged 19–28 (45% racialized youth) that self-identify as members, allies, and leaders of the same communities and spaces as the study population (36% non-binary or trans and 45% in non-monogamous relationships) agreed to join our study team as part of the YAC to inform and influence the RE-IMAGYN research process. Over the course of the study, YAC members will attend five 2-hour YAC meetings to consult on different aspects of the study as it progresses and will support participant recruitment and knowledge translation and exchange (KTE) efforts through their extensive networks. At each YAC meeting, members are compensated $50 for their time and participation. To date, four YAC meetings have taken place in which members provided feedback on the gender equity measures to be included in the cognitive interview guide, reviewed the interviewee demographic form, established community guidelines for the YAC, and generated ideas and discussion regarding the initial emerging data from the interviews. After each YAC meeting, members are invited to provide feedback on their experiences, which will be summarized to evaluate RE-IMAGYN’s youth engagement approach and inform best practices for engaging queer and trans youth in qualitative research.

Study Design

The remaining three objectives are being undertaken through cognitive interviews exploring perceptions of and identifying recommendations for improving existing relationship and gender equity measures. Cognitive interviews are a common qualitative research method used to assess construct validity in measurement science (Beatty & St. Willis, 2013). Often used as a means to pretest survey items before conduction, they can also be effective in understanding how participants answer items in a survey (Willis & Miller, 2011) and how participants’ lived/living experiences relate to the construct of interest (Closson et al., 2022). For RE-IMAGYN, we are using cognitive interviews to examine the ways in which young women and non-binary youth mentally process and respond to existing relationship and gender equity measures. By exploring whether measures are relevant to youth and their experiences of gender equity in relationships, we hope to identify any potential measurement errors. This is being done through a ‘think-aloud’ procedure where the YRAs ask participants to respond to the items in the interview guide and then talk through the reasoning behind their response. YRAs then ask a series of probes to understand whether the participant thought the question was confusing, if the response they wanted to give was available, if they thought there was a ‘right’ answer, and if the item was relevant to them and their relationship(s). This approach has been previously successful at gaining young South African’s perspectives on the Sexual Relationship Power Scale (Closson et al., 2022).

Developing the cognitive interview guide

The cognitive interview guide was developed through an iterative process in which YAC members and YRAs provided feedback on selected measures of gender and relationship equity. Both groups also provided early feedback on gaps in existing measures. The YAC and YRAs were initially presented four measures of relationship and gender equity that were selected based on one or more criteria including: (1) Commonly used in the literature; (2) Specific to youth in North America; or (3) Developed for non-heterosexual relationship experiences. The scales included (1) The Sexual Relationship Power Scale (with Relationship Control and Decision-making dominance subscales) (Pulerwitz et al., 2000); (2) The Gay and Lesbian Relationship Scale (with Relationship Satisfaction and Social Support sub-scales) (Belous & Wampler, 2016); (3) The Sexual Health Indicators Survey for Youth-Canada (with sexual limit-setting self-efficacy, sexual assertiveness, and partner victimization sub-scales) (Smylie et al., 2013); and (4) the Sexual and Reproductive Empowerment Scale (with comfort talking to partner, parental support, sexual safety, self-love, and sexual pleasure sub-scales) (Upadhyay et al., 2021).

YAC members and YRAs provided feedback on measures through discussion and activities presented via virtual whiteboard (Jamboard) sessions during the first YAC meeting and training sessions, respectively. Overall, these feedback sessions provided early insight into the scales or sub-scales’ ability to conceptualize the relationship experiences of queer and trans young women and non-binary youth in BC.

In both feedback sessions, youth pointed out that none of the items measured the impacts of systemic financial inequities or community and family influences on romantic relationship dynamics. Youth also indicated that many of the scale items have limited applicability to youth who are asexual or have certain disabilities.

Given the wide range of feedback received during these sessions, selecting the items to include in the interview guide was challenging. Thus, as a research team we had to centre back on the original objective of the study, focused on gender equity in relationships and decided to exclude measures that were focused mainly on relationship satisfaction (e.g., Gay and Lesbian Relationship Scale and many of the sub-scales in the Sexual and Reproductive Empowerment Scale). We then analyzed the items in the remaining scales, considering what youth told us about what gender equity in relationships meant for them in their own lives and relationships. We narrowed down the measures to two subscales (total 13-items): the Decision-Making Dominance subscale of the Sexual Relationship Power Scale and the Partner Victimization sub-scale of the Sexual Health Indicators Survey for Youth in Canada. While recognizing the limitations of these sub-scales, limiting the interview guide to 13-items allowed us to gain feedback on some of the items while keeping the interviews to a reasonable length of time.

Items and response options were adapted to be inclusive of youth in multiple relationships and piloted by the YRAs before beginning recruitment. Feedback from the second YAC meeting and the pilot interviews was incorporated into the final cognitive interview guide (see Appendix A).

Sampling/recruitment

Convenience and snowball purposive sampling techniques were used to recruit 30 cognitive interview participants. Purposive sampling involves a deliberate process to select participants based on their ability to provide rich data (Creswell, 2014; Creswell & Poth, 2018). It is often used when examining phenomena that are rare and occur among small and hard-to-identify “hidden populations,” such as the population in question (Gerassi et al., 2017). Participants were recruited until saturation of the data occured and there was enough diversity in our sample to explore themes across intersecting identities (e.g., gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, relationship type) to explore themes across intersecting identities. This was estimated to require approximately 30 interviews, based on recommendations on thematic analysis and cognitive interviewing, as well as prior experience (Closson et al., 2022; Vasileiou et al., 2018). All study team members and community collaborators, particularly YAC members and YRAs, acted as initial key informants who helped to identify individuals from their circles (such as pride groups, partners, and friends). YAC members were also invited to participate in the interviews if eligible. Potential participants completed a screening form containing questions regarding demographics (e.g., age, ethnicity, sexual orientation), relationship status, details of their relationship(s) (e.g., relationship length, gender of partner, type of relationship [casual; platonic; common-law]) and availability for interview (see Appendix B for details on the screening form). The screening also allowed potential participants to indicate whether they would like to be matched with an interviewer based on overlapping identities, where available. Screening forms were reviewed by the research coordinator as they were submitted and participants were selected to ensure a diversity of perceptions, work in accordance to our intersectionality framework and in attempt to off-set purposive sampling’s limitation of recruiting similar participants (James & Platzer, 1999). In addition, community collaborators, other community organizations, and individuals with networks of queer and trans youth in BC were identified by the study team and contacted to help support the recruitment of participants through advertisement flyers, posters, and word of mouth.

Inclusion criteria

Eligibility requirements for the cognitive interviews were as follows: (a) age of 16–29 years; (b) self-identification as a young woman or non-binary youth (cis- and trans-inclusive); (c) current or recent (within the last 12 months) experience in a non-heterosexual relationship and/or non-monogamous relationship; and (d) current residence in BC, Canada.

Data collection

From the screening forms, the study coordinator assigned participants to YRAs based on overlapping schedules and matched characteristics where indicated. After being assigned a participant, YRAs were responsible for contacting the participant to schedule the consenting process and cognitive interview. All interviews were conducted over Zoom starting in August 2022. As of December 1st, 2022, all 30 interviews have been completed, with the average cognitive interview taking 44 min (from 19 to 89 min). Before joining the call, YRAs changed participants name to their study ID and on entry let them know they can keep their study ID or choose a pseudonym that will be used to identify any quotes from that participant during the interview. Before starting the recording, the cognitive interview began with a short warm-up activity that allowed the YRA and participant time to practice the ‘think-aloud’ procedure. To facilitate intersectional data analysis, the demographic survey included questions about age, gender identity, sexual orientation, ethnicity, geographical location, housing status, financial situation, relationship status, and relationship dynamics, including partner(s)’ gender, relationship length(s), and whether and how their relationships have changed in the last 12 months. After the demographic data was collected, YRAs asked participants what gender equity means to them, what it looks like to them to have gender equity in a relationship, and what they would ask their peer/friend if they wanted to know whether they had gender equity in their relationship. The YRAs then led participants through the ‘think-aloud’ procedure for each of the 13-items selected for the cognitive interview guide. YRAs were equipped with several probes to understand participants’ perspectives on the relevance of the items, clarity, comprehension, and response process. Finally, YRAs closed the interview by asking participants what items they thought measured gender equity in relationships well, which items did not measure gender equity in relationships well, and whether and what items or topics related to gender equity in relationships they thought were missing from the measures (Appendix A).

Following the interview, YRAs emailed participants to provide information on how to receive the $30 honorarium, and additional resources were sent to any participant who seemed in distress during the interview.

Data handling/analysis

Cognitive interviews were audio recorded and transcribed using Zoom and Otter.ai transcription software. Auto-generated transcripts are then reviewed against the recording by a study team member and any identifying features of the transcript are removed prior to data analysis. De-identified transcripts are uploaded into NVivo for analysis.

Transcripts will be analyzed collaboratively with insight from the entire study team, including the YAC, YRAs, and community collaborators.

For objective 2, an intersectional descriptive analysis will explore youth perceptions of existing gender equity measures. Within NVivo, transcripts will be coded based on Tourangeau’s four-stage cognitive model of survey response (a. Comprehension [how participants understand the intent and meaning of the item] b. Retrieval [how easily can the participant retrieve relevant information from memory] c. Judgement [how accurate is the participant’s judgement when forming responses] and 4. Response [how easily can the participant match their response to the given answer categories]) (Tourangeau, 2020). As interviews are completed, differences and similarities between participants’ understandings are being discussed and compared across diverse experiences with the study team. Documented information from these conversations will be used to describe and compare perceptions of the scale items across different intersecting identities.

For objective 3, codes and participant recommendations for inclusive gender equity measurement will be reviewed in bi-weekly YRA meetings and during YAC meetings to develop recommendations for adapting existing gender and relationship equity measures and/or creating new measures that are inclusive to a range of youth identities and relationship experiences. These will include suggestions for rephrasing existing measures as well as recommendations for new gender and relationship equity measures.

For objective 4, transcripts will be analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2021) to identify main themes characterizing participants’ understanding of gender equity in their relationships. The coding process will begin by reading the transcripts and achieving familiarity with the data. As interviews were conducted, bi-weekly check-ins with YRAs included discussions of how meanings in the data can be understood and how participants’ understandings of gender equity in their relationships can be explained by the participants’ unique lived and living experiences. Initial coding will be reviewed and discussed with the YAC to identify themes, which will then be reviewed and revised by the RE-IMAGYN team. Finally, themes will be collaboratively defined before producing the final outputs of the project (reports, manuscripts) and youth-identified KTE outputs (e.g., TikTok videos, infographics) (Braun & Clarke, 2021; Flicker & Nixon, 2015).

Throughout our collaborative data analysis, the RE-IMAGYN team will engage in active reflection and reflexive praxis exploring and analyzing our own values and judgements as they relate to the data.

Ethics

After participants were screened and assigned to the YRAs, the YRAs scheduled the interview with the participant, sending them a copy of the informed consent form to review prior to the scheduled interview. At the interview, YRAs reviewed the informed consent with participants and provided an overview of the study, highlighting the aims of the study, the participants' right to participate or withdrawal from the study at any time without penalty, the length of the study, and details of how the participants information will be kept confidential.

After the completion of the interviews YRAs uploaded the transcript and audio recording to a secure virtual storage facility and transcripts were de-identified and password protected. Any participants in distress during the interview were sent a list of resources that included information on signs of stress, safe coping skills, and resources such as numbers to crisis lines, child and youth mental health intake, and university sexual assault services (Appendix C). If the participant was in obvious distress during or at the end of the interview, the YRA invited the interviewee to contact the study Elder who is a trained clinical social worker at no cost to the participant.

The study Elder and social worker is available to YRAs and any other study staff who may need to debrief after a particularly challenging interview or for support at any time throughout the study.

All study procedures have been approved by the Harmonized Research Ethics Boards of the University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University (H22-00011).

Rigor

The RE-IMAGYN team aims to ensure rigor throughout the study process by engaging in activities to build trust, practice reflexivity, ensure credibility, and encourage transferability. Table 1 highlights common biases in qualitative research and the steps the RE-IMAGYN study has taken to address bias.

Table 1.

Steps Taken by the RE-IMAGYN Study to Avoid Bias and Uphold Rigor (Shah, 2019).

Types of biases		How to avoid bias + uphold rigor
Participant	Acquiescence bias or friendliness bias occurs when the participant chooses to agree with the moderator or researcher. Some participants may agree just to complete the interview, and this typically happens once fatigue sets in.	YRAs were guided to use probes to help gain more detailed responses from participants. Questions were open-ended to prevent the participant from simply agreeing or disagreeing and guide them to provide a truthful and honest answer. The cognitive interview also asked participants more direct questions so they were able to select from a range of potential choices rather than a ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ choice.
		YRAs checked in with participants as the interview progressed, checking if participants had any access needs, to help participants feel at ease. YRAs also checked-in with participants if they needed to take breaks and let them know that they could skip certain sections.
	Social desirability bias or social acceptability bias. Many participants respond inaccurately just so that they could be liked or think that they would be better accepted, especially in cases of sensitive questions or questions on personal or controversial topics.	YRAs let participants know that there is no right answer and probed participants to ask what a third party would do in a particular situation with certain challenging questions that participants might not have felt comfortable answering. This can help the participant to project their own feelings onto others and provide accurate, truthful, and more representative answers.
		We hired YRAs to conduct the interviews to help create safer spaces in which participants felt comfortable sharing challenging situations with someone who is their peer. Social desirability bias can be reduced when rapport between the participant and interviewer is built so that participants feel more comfortable discussing topics that feel personal.
Researcher bias	Confirmation bias. This most common and highly recognized bias occurs when a researcher interprets the data to support their hypothesis. Researchers may also omit data that does not favour their hypothesis.	During data analysis our team will consider all the data obtained. Throughout the data analysis we will continually re-evaluate the impressions and responses and ensure that pre-existing assumptions are kept at bay. This is part of reflexivity. As a study team, we ask that all team members continually reflect on our positionalities, values, and pre-existing biases and how these may be influencing how we are interpreting the data.
		In community-based research we also want to ensure that the results are acceptable and in line with community perspectives. We will do this by conducting community debriefing sessions where early results and theme development are shared with community (e.g., during YAC meetings)
	Leading questions and wording bias. Questions that lead or prompt the participants in the direction of probable outcomes may result in biased answers.	In cognitive interviewing we are asking participants Likert-type scales (which by nature are leading) however YRAs have been trained to avoid providing their opinions on what the items we are asking about are trying to measure. During cognitive interview YRAs remained neutral and relayed to the participant that some questions may be confusing and that this information provided by the participant is valuable and helps in our understandings of what might be confusing about the questions, so that we can help make gender and relationship equity measures better for future studies conducted with participants’ peers.

The one-on-one interviews described herein were conducted by YRAs who have similar lived experiences as the interviewees as they were recruited under the same eligibility requirements. This helped to facilitate trust, build rapport, and reduce incidence of age-influenced interviewer bias, and/or social desirability bias (Alessi et al., 2020). As all research is influenced by subjective worldviews, throughout the research process the study team emphasises reflexivity and how our positionality shapes interpretation, noting how pre-existing worldviews, assumptions, expectations, and motivations influence the interpretation of the results (Chepp & Gray, 2014). This collaborative reflexive approach to the data analysis will help to prevent a single worldview from overshadowing the interpretation of the data (Adam et al., 2017). In the write-up of our results, we will present quotes from the data to highlight the themes discussed. This will demonstrate how the themes emerged from the participants’ words rather than just the researchers’ understanding of the data. The credibility and transparency of our data analysis is also strengthened through the publishing of our protocol and the details of our analysis plan.

Much of the process described here has been based on lessons learned from a similar project conducted with youth in South Africa (Closson et al., 2022), highlighting that this approach can be transferred across contexts and populations. Our team aims to continue to expand and adapt this approach to other global settings and populations to investigate how inclusive relationship and gender equity measures can be explored and compared across global populations.

Discussion

RE-IMAGYN aims to engage with priority populations of young women and gender non-binary youth to identify, critique, and make recommendations for improvements to gender equity measures. This will support future research and positive actions that better monitor, assess, and act to improve gender equity and the sexual and reproductive health and rights of diverse young women and non-binary youth across the life course.

Against the backdrop of increasing visibility of queer, gender non-conforming, and trans identities among young people (Allen et al., 2022), efforts to understand and measure gender and relationship equity can only be achieved through direct and meaningful engagement with queer and trans youth. As such, RE-IMAGYN is using novel qualitative methods, including intersectional cognitive interviews and thematic analysis that is grounded in CBR approaches, that meaningfully involve youth and community partners in all stages of the research process. In establishing our team, we have cultivated new partnerships with community-based organizations that have been instrumental in supporting our youth participatory approach and intersectional engagement of a diverse group of queer and trans young women and non-binary youth––a growing population that has been historically left out of important conversations, research, programming and policies on health and gender equity. We anticipate that this study will have benefits for a variety of knowledge users engaged and invested in the health and wellbeing of queer and trans youth, including youth themselves, academics, community-based organizations, and policy makers. Early data based on feedback from the YAC and initial review of the interviews has already highlighted several limitations of existing gender and relationship equity measures, including that they are not inclusive to the lived and living experiences of the youth engaged in our study. Thus, the data emerging from RE-IMAGYN will be used to provide important recommendations for how to better measure gender equity in the relationships of queer and trans young women and non-binary youth not only in BC, but globally. Building off RE-IMAGYN results, our team aims to develop measures of relationship and gender equity that are based on the lived and living realities of queer and trans youth. These results can help to support policies geared toward improving equitable gender-based power dynamics in the relationships of youth across diverse and inclusive relationship dynamics and experiences. The social innovation approach undertaken by this project builds bridges for youth leaders in CBR and aims to create sustainable impacts on future youth-centered data collection.

The results from our study will be shared with diverse audiences through youth-led KTE outputs (e.g., podcasts, videos, plain language summaries) that will highlight lived and living experiences of how gender equity shows up in queer and trans youth relationships. These KTE outputs will be shared with the general public, youth organizations, and researchers working with queer and trans youth.

Ultimately, results from RE-IMAGYN will be used to address gender equity data gaps to better understand, effectively monitor progress, and ultimately dismantle societal power structures, norms, and practices that prevent a diversity of girls, women, femmes, non-binary, and gender diverse young people from accessing and enjoying equal rights.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material - Relationship and Gender Equity Measurement Among Gender-Inclusive Young Women and Non-Binary Youth in British Columbia (RE-IMAGYN BC): Planning a Youth-Led, Community-Based, Qualitative Research Study

Supplemental Material for Relationship and Gender Equity Measurement Among Gender-Inclusive Young Women and Non-Binary Youth in British Columbia (RE-IMAGYN BC): Planning a Youth-Led, Community-Based, Qualitative Research Study by Kalysha Closson, Tadiwa Nemutambwe, Zoë Osborne, Gem Y. Lee, Colby Hangle, Sadie Stephenson, Patience Magagula, Ivan Leonce, Anita Raj, Valerie Nicholson, and Angela Kaida in International Journal of Qualitative Methods

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material - Relationship and Gender Equity Measurement Among Gender-Inclusive Young Women and Non-Binary Youth in British Columbia (RE-IMAGYN BC): Planning a Youth-Led, Community-Based, Qualitative Research Study

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material - Relationship and Gender Equity Measurement Among Gender-Inclusive Young Women and Non-Binary Youth in British Columbia (RE-IMAGYN BC): Planning a Youth-Led, Community-Based, Qualitative Research Study

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

The RE-IMAGYN team would like to thank our community collaborators and all the youth who have shown interest in our study. We especially want to thank the Youth Advisory Committee members for their valuable insights into our study process and youth engagement approach. Thank you to the Community Based Research Centre (CBRC),YouthCO,and the Afro-Canadian Pacific AIDS Network of BC for supporting and promoting the hiring and recruitment of youth engaged in our study and for your valuable insight and feedback on our study procedures. Thank you to the Women’s Health Research Institute for the financial support in conducting this work and for your contributions to the communication tools used for this study.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,authorship,and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research,authorship,and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Women’s Health Research Institute (Catalyst Grant). KC is supported by a Canadian Institutes of Health Research Banting Postdoctoal Fellowship.

ORCID iDs

Kalysha Closson

Zoë Osborne

Angela Kaida

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Adam

B. D.

Hart

T. A.

Mohr

Coleman

Vernon

(2017). HIV-Related syndemic pathways and risk subjectivities among gay and bisexual men: A qualitative investigation. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 19(11), 1254–1267. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691058.2017.1309461

Alessi

E. J.

Greenfield

Manning

Dank

(2020). Victimization and resilience among sexual and gender minority homeless youth engaging in survival sex. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(23-24), 11236–11259. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260519898434

Allen

Cuthbert

Hall

J. J.

Hines

Elley

(2022). Trailblazing the gender revolution? Young people’s understandings of gender diversity through generation and social change. Journal of Youth Studies, 25(5), 650–666.

Amaro

(1995). Love, sex, and power. Considering women’s realities in HIV prevention. The American Psychologist, 50(6), 437–447. https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066x.50.6.437

Barrett

B. J.

St. Pierre

(2013). Intimate partner violence reported by lesbian-, gay-, and bisexual-identified individuals living in Canada: An exploration of within-group variations. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 25(1), 1–23.

Basile

K. C.

Black

M. C.

Breiding

M. J.

Chen

Merrick

M. T.

Smith

S. G.

Stevens

M. R.

Walters

M. L.

(2011). National intimate partner and sexual violence survey: 2010 summary report.

BCC3 PRA Training Collaborative . (2020). BCC3 peer research associate remote training manual. British Columbia CARMA CHIWOS Collaboration.

Belous

C. K.

Wampler

R. S.

(2016). Development of the gay and lesbian relationship satisfaction scale. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 42(3), 451–465. https://doi.org/10.1111/jmft.12158

Braun

Clarke

(2021). One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis? Qualitative Research in Psychology, 18(3), 328–352.

10.

Chepp

Gray

(2014). Foundations and new directions. In Cognitive interviewing methodology (p. 7–14).

11.

CHIWOS PRA Training Working Group . (2013). CHIWOS peer research associate training manual: English Version. Canadian HIV Women’s sexual and reproductive health Cohort study (CHIWOS). www.chiwos.ca

12.

Closson

McNeil

McDougall

Fernando

Collins

A. B.

Baltzer Turje

Howard

Parashar

(2016). Meaningful engagement of people living with HIV who use drugs: Methodology for the design of a peer research associate (PRA) hiring model. Harm Reduct J, 13(1), Article 26. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12954-016-0116-z

13.

Closson

Zharima

Kuchena

Dietrich

J. J.

Gadermann

Ogilvie

Beksinska

Kaida

(2022). “I feel like it is asking if he is a stalker … but I also feel like it is asking if he cares”: exploring young South African women and men’s perceptions of the Sexual Relationship Power Scale. BMC Public Health, 22(1), Article 1368. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-022-13686-9

14.

Coulter

R. W. S.

Egan

J. E.

Kinsky

Friedman

M. R.

Eckstrand

K. L.

Frankeberger

Folb

B. L.

Mair

Markovic

Silvestre

Stall

Miller

(2019). Mental health, drug, and violence interventions for sexual/gender minorities: A systematic review. Pediatrics, 144(3). https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2018-3367

15.

Crenshaw

K. W.

(2017). On intersectionality: Essential writings. The New Press.

16.

Creswell

J. W.

(2014). Chapter 1: The selection of a research approach. In Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approache (pp. 3–23). Sage Publications Inc.

17.

Creswell

J. W.

Poth

C. N.

(2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). SAGE.

18.

Dworkin

S. L.

Zakaras

J. M.

Campbell

Wilson

Grisham

Chakravarty

Neilands

T. B.

Hoff

(2017). Relationship power among same-sex male couples in New York and san Francisco: Laying the groundwork for sexual risk reduction interventions focused on interpersonal power. Journal of Sex Research, 54(7), 923–935. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2017.1279258

19.

Flicker

Nixon

S. A.

(2015). The DEPICT model for participatory qualitative health promotion research analysis piloted in Canada, Zambia and South Africa. Health Promot Int, 30(3), 616–624. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/dat093

20.

Gerassi

Edmond

Nichols

(2017). Design strategies from sexual exploitation and sex work studies among women and girls: Methodological considerations in a hidden and vulnerable population. Action Res (Lond), 15(2), 161–176. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476750316630387

21.

Government of Canada . (2018). Tri-Council policy statement: Ethical conduct for research involving humans- TCPS 2. https://ethics.gc.ca/eng/education_tutorial-didacticiel.html

22.

Ingraham

(1994). The heterosexual imaginary: Feminist sociology and theories of gender. Sociological Theory, 1994, 203–219.

23.

Israel

B. A.

Schulz

A. J.

Parker

E. A.

Becker

A. B.

(1998). Review of community-based research: Assessing partnership approaches to improve public health. Annual Review of Public Health, 19, 173–202. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.19.1.173

24.

James

Platzer

(1999). Ethical considerations in qualitative research with vulnerable groups: Exploring lesbians’ and gay men’s experiences of health care--a personal perspective. Nursing Ethics, 6(1), 73–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/096973309900600108

25.

Jones

Gulick

(2009). Reliability and validity of the sexual pressure scale for women-revised. Research in Nursing & Health, 32(1), 71–85. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20297

26.

Kaida

Carter

Nicholson

Lemay

O’Brien

Greene

Tharao

Proulx-Boucher

Gormley

Benoit

Bernier

Thomas-Pavanel

Lewis

de Pokomandy

Loutfy

(2019). Hiring, training and supporting peer research associates: Operationalizing community-based research principles within epidemiological studies by, with, and for women living with HIV. Harm Reduction Journal, 16(1), Article 47. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12954-019-0309-3

27.

Longobardi

Badenes-Ribera

(2017). Intimate partner violence in same-sex relationships and the role of sexual minority stressors: A systematic review of the past 10 years. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 26(8), 2039–2049. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-017-0734-4

28.

Loutfy

Greene

Kennedy

V. L.

Lewis

Thomas-Pavanel

Conway

de Pokomandy

O’Brien

Carter

Tharao

Nicholson

Beaver

Dubuc

Gahagan

Proulx-Boucher

Hogg

R. S.

Kaida

Anema

Becker

Ogunnaike-Cooke

(2016). Establishing the Canadian HIV Women’s sexual and reproductive health Cohort study (CHIWOS): Operationalizing community-based research in a large national quantitative study. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 16(1), Article 101. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-016-0190-7

29.

Morokoff

P. J.

Quina

Harlow

L. L.

Whitmire

Grimley

D. M.

Gibson

P. R.

Burkholder

G. J.

(1997). Sexual Assertiveness Scale (SAS) for women: Development and validation. J Pers Soc Psychol, 73(4), 790–804.

30.

Pryor

E. C.

Seck

P. A.

(2019). Improving gender data is essential for progress on equity and empowerment. SSM Popul Health, 9, Article 100494. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmph.2019.100494

31.

Pulerwitz

Amaro

De Jong

Gortmaker

S. L.

Rudd

(2002). Relationship power, condom use and HIV risk among women in the USA. AIDS Care, 14(6), 789–800. https://doi.org/10.1080/0954012021000031868

32.

Pulerwitz

Gortmaker

S. L.

DeJong

(2000). Measuring sexual relationship power in HIV/STD research. Sex Roles, 42(7/8), 637–660.

33.

Rolle

Giardina

Caldarera

A. M.

Gerino

Brustia

(2018). When intimate partner violence meets same sex couples: A review of same sex intimate partner violence. Front Psychol, 9, Article 1506. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01506

34.

Savage

(2021). Intimate partner violence: Experiences of young women in Canada.

35.

Shah

(2019). 7 biases to avoid in qualitative research. https://www.editage.com/insights/7-biases-to-avoid-in-qualitative-research

36.

Smith

(2015). Heteropatriarchy and the three pillars of white supremacy: Rethinking women of color organizing. Transformations: Feminist Pathways to Global Change, 264, 66–73.

37.

Smith

Forsyth

Poon

Peled

Saewyc

Society

M. C.

(2019). Balance and connection in BC: The health and well-being of our youth. McCreary Centre Society

38.

Smylie

Clarke

Doherty

Gahagan

Numer

Otis

Smith

McKay

Soon

(2013). The development and validation of sexual health indicators of Canadians aged 16–24 years. Public Health Reports, 128(Suppl 1), 53–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/00333549131282S106

39.

Tourangeau

(2020). Survey reliability: Models, Methods, and Findings. Journal of Survey Statistics and Methodology. https://doi.org/10.1093/jssam/smaa021

40.

UNAIDS . (2019). Women and HIV: A spotlight on adolescent girls and young women.

41.

Upadhyay

U. D.

Danza

P. Y.

Neilands

T. B.

Gipson

J. D.

Brindis

C. D.

Hindin

M. J.

Foster

D. G.

Dworkin

S. L.

(2021). Development and validation of the sexual and reproductive empowerment scale for adolescents and young adults. J Adolesc Health, 68(1), 86–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2020.05.031

42.

Vasileiou

Barnett

Thorpe

Young

(2018). Characterising and justifying sample size sufficiency in interview-based studies: Systematic analysis of qualitative health research over a 15-year period. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 18(1), Article 148. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0594-7

43.

Willis

G. B.

Miller

(2011). Cross-cultural cognitive interviewing: Seeking comparability and enhancing understanding. Field Methods, 23(4), 331–341. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X11416092

Relationship and Gender Equity Measurement Among Gender-Inclusive Young Women and Non-Binary Youth in British Columbia (RE-IMAGYN BC): Planning a Youth-Led,Community-Based,Qualitative Research Study

Abstract

Keywords

Background

Study Justification

Gender Equity Measurement

RE-IMAGYN Objectives

Methods

Theoretical Frameworks

Objective 1: The RE-IMAGYN BC Youth-Engagement Approach

The RE-IMAGYN Youth Research Associates

Hiring YRAs

Training YRAs

The Youth Advisory Committee

Study Design

Developing the cognitive interview guide

Sampling/recruitment

Inclusion criteria

Data collection

Data handling/analysis

Ethics

Rigor

Discussion

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material - Relationship and Gender Equity Measurement Among Gender-Inclusive Young Women and Non-Binary Youth in British Columbia (RE-IMAGYN BC): Planning a Youth-Led, Community-Based, Qualitative Research Study

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material - Relationship and Gender Equity Measurement Among Gender-Inclusive Young Women and Non-Binary Youth in British Columbia (RE-IMAGYN BC): Planning a Youth-Led, Community-Based, Qualitative Research Study

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material - Relationship and Gender Equity Measurement Among Gender-Inclusive Young Women and Non-Binary Youth in British Columbia (RE-IMAGYN BC): Planning a Youth-Led, Community-Based, Qualitative Research Study

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

Declaration of conflicting interests

Funding

ORCID iDs

Supplemental Material

References