A Critical Response to the UK's ‘Sullivan Review’ Into Sex and Gender in Research and Data
Todd & Felicity Callard
What the paper says
This intervention argues that the UK Government‐commissioned independent review of data, statistics and research on sex and gender (the ‘Sullivan Review’) implicitly promotes the erasure of trans and gender diverse people from research and data collection protocols and carries worrying implications for the inclusion of trans people within UK institutions and for critical social science research. Set in a context where trans and gender diverse people's rights are being rolled back in the United Kingdom and elsewhere, the Review attempts to install a singular model of binary, immutable, ‘biological’ sex as incontrovertible across data gathering on sex and gender across public bodies including government, universities, the health service and research organisations. It does so via appeals to science and to ‘clarity’, and by proposing to limit or even in certain cases remove default ethical review processes. The intervention argues that the Review can be situated within broader attempts to erase critical inquiry into the complex, intersectional production of social categories including sex, gender and sexuality, as well as inquiries that extend what ethical principles and governance involve. In sum, we contend that the Review carries deleterious consequences for geography and other social scientific disciplines and call upon scholars to refuse its vision and implications.
Evidence weight
Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40
| F · citation impact | 0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20 |
| M · momentum | 0.50 × 0.15 = 0.07 |
| V · venue signal | 0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03 |
| R · text relevance † | 0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20 |
† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.