Resources >

Still Complicated > Methodology

Report Chapters
  1. Acknowledgements
  2. Foreword
  3. Introduction
  4. Methodology
  5. How we define bi+
  6. Demographics
  7. Key findings
  8. Community and belonging
  9. Belonging to the LGBT+ community
  10. Belonging to a bi+ community
  11. Belonging to a ‘straight community’
  12. Summary (Community and belonging)
  13. Bi+ experiences in LGBTI+ services
  14. Biphobia in LGBTI+ spaces
  15. Other barriers to participation in LGBTI+ spaces
  16. Mainstream public services and the bi+ experience
  17. NHS services
  18. Sexual health services
  19. Police services
  20. Religious services
  21. Other services
  22. Summary (Mainstream public services and the bi+ experience)
  23. Bi+ intersectionality
  24. Employment
  25. Covid-19 pandemic and the bi+ experience
  26. Covid-19 related healthcare
  27. Social challenges
  28. Financial hardships
  29. Bi+ community groups
  30. Summary (Covid-19 pandemic and the bi+ experience)
  31. Good practice
  32. Recommendations
  33. Increased knowledge and understanding
  34. Avoiding assumptions and generalising
  35. Dealing with discrimination
  36. Bi+ specific support and inclusion
  37. Increase representation of bi+ people
  38. Resources and further reading
  39. Bibliography
  40. Glossary

Methodology

The 2022 Bi+ Survey took place mostly online, with a few sessions at bi+ events to allow people to take part in-person. The survey was promoted over the course of a year, primarily through Scottish bisexual online networks and Equality Network’s mailing list. Promotion ran from March 2022 to February 2023. We received a total of 480 responses, and 427 responses were then analysed following data cleaning – those were the responses from people who reported experiencing attraction towards more than one gender or who were unsure about it.

A different number of people answered each individual question, and so the actual number whose data has been reported will be made clear in the text and graphs as ‘N’.

Percentages have been rounded for easier reading; thus they may not always add up to 100%.

Some questions allowed for multiple answers and have been marked as such.

The 2022 Bi+ Survey was similar to the 2013 Survey for our ‘Complicated’ report (published in 2015). Most of the questions were aligned to allow for direct comparisons. However, some questions were changed to include a wider range of services. Thus, some of the services asked about are different from the 2013 Survey. For public services, the original ‘Complicated’ survey offered the options of social work, housing, and job centre/benefits. The 2022 Bi+ Survey only included “other public services”. Additionally, the original ‘Complicated’ survey asked about biphobia in companies/shops and sport/leisure centres, while the new survey asked for a broader “other services” category, which opened more possibilities for what respondents could be including. Comparisons were still made where possible, and the differences have been noted where they appear.

Intersectional groups of bi+ people were targeted to get a wider variety of experiences than in the 2013 Survey. This may have helped improve the representation of racially marginalised people, which increased from 3% in 2013, to 7% in 2022. This is higher than the 5% in the general Scottish population[3], but lower than the 18% in the UK overall[4]. More responses from racially marginalised voices would still have been desired, as these are less often heard, but this sample should still be representative of the general population.

Questions were added in 2022 around religion, as this was not an area covered in the 2013 research. This was included in response to feedback from racially marginalised communities, and to reflect the reality that religion is an important part of many bi+ people’s lives.

As noted in the demographics section, most of our respondents were also disabled, and a higher proportion identified as trans than in the general population.

Some quotes have been shortened, or very slightly adapted for readability, but have not changed in overall content or meaning. Following best practice accessibility advice, Latin abbreviations have been avoided, and the use of ellipses and brackets has been minimised.


Footnotes

  1. National Records of Scotland (2011) ‘Scotland’s Census’: Census results / At a glance / Ethnicity
    Our estimation of 5% is because the original census did not include Jewish or Roma people as racially marginalised. (Return to reference [3])
  2. UK Government Cabinet Office Race Disparity Unit (2021) ‘Ethnicity facts and figures’ (Return to reference [4])

Join our eNewsletter

Join 20,000 people and sign up to our mailing list today. View previous newsletters here.

30 Bernard Street
Edinburgh EH6 6PR