The Ozanne Foundation has today announced this:
The 2018 Faith & Sexuality Survey is designed to explore the impact of religious belief on people’s understanding and development of their sexual orientation and identity. It is as such not designed to understand in any depth people’s gender identity.
It is open to all individuals living in the UK who are over 16 and should take about 10 – 15 minutes to complete. Please be assured that your responses will be treated in the strictest of confidence.
To take the survey go here.
The research project is being managed by the Ozanne Foundation and is being overseen by an Advisory Board that consists of:
Dr Jamie Harrison, Chair of the House of Laity, Church of England
Rabbi Laura Janner-Klausner, Senior Rabbi to Reform Judaism
Martin Pollecoff, Chair of UK Council of Pyschotherapists
Teddy Prout, Director of Community Services Humanists UK
Khakan Qureshi, Founder of Birmingham South Asian LGBT+ – Finding a Voice
Professor Sir Bernard Silverman, Former President of the Royal Statistical Society
Rt Revd Dr David Walker, Bishop of Manchester
The survey will run until December 31st 2018 and the results will be presented at a fringe meeting of the General Synod of the Church of England in February 2019.
The December 9th 2018 Press Release is available here.
For more information please contact survey@ozanne.foundation.
I’ve just completed the survey, and I hope it proves valuable. Just one note however: it appears to assume that everyone is either in a relationship or looking for a partner. Some of us are happy as we are, and some are actually called to celibacy. It would have been good if the survey had included those options in the relevant section.
Thank you Janet for completing the survey, and also for your feedback. I hope others will do so too. I’ve checked the relevant question and it does have the option “Single, not interested in dating or seeing someone”, which I hope would cover “happy as we are”. It also has an “other” box which allows people to write things in, so if they felt that they had a positive call to celibacy which was stronger than “not interested….” then we do hope they will use that box to say so. When we do the analysis all that will be taken… Read more »
I thought it did, under something like ‘single and not looking’
I didn’t see that option, I don’t know how I missed it. Thanks for the clarification.
The survey asks for gender now and sex assigned at birth. For anyone with a GRC, sex assigned at birth has changed (s9 GRA 2004) and probably a new birth certificate issued. It means the survey won’t capture those who have a GRC.
Thank you for this, Kate. I was assured by the government that this was the correct way of asking this question. As you can imagine it is pretty difficult to incorporate every single option that exists, but I am sure that people will understand the intent behind these questions and will respect the good faith behind the way they are being asked.
Jayne, when I declined to define my gender now or at my birth, the survey terminated the process and I was unable to answer any more questions beyond the first page. I suppose I was terminated in 20 seconds flat and feel a bit disappointed not to have been able to contribute further, when all I did was tick options offered to me.
I hope the survey gathers useful data nonetheless.
I’m really sorry to hear that this has happened, but very grateful that you have drawn this to our attention. I have just checked the “logic” behind this question to see why this is and for some reason it had been pre-programmed by Survey Monkey to do this. I have removed this command, and it is now open to all participants whether they wish to define their gender or not. Please accept my apologies for this, and know that we would be very glad of your contribution.
@an anglican
I think a limited pilot would have been sensible before the main release
I deleted cookies on my computer and then had no problem working through the survey – not sure what happened the first time!
Yep. Everyone gets it wrong.s9 GRA 2004 is a very misunderstood piece of law.
For future, I’d suggest
“Do you have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment?”
The survey requires answers about who recommended or forced one to consider changing orientation etc., even when one has already answered that this never happened. There’s no option for ‘not applicable’ so the impression will be given that one ‘prefers not to say’ or ‘other’ was active in suggesting conversion therapy when actually no-one was. These sections on the survey cannot be ignored if one wants to progress to the next page. Badly designed. It’s like there’s an expectation we’ll all sing from the woe is me hymnbook… I do understand that gay folk, like me, who feel valued and… Read more »
Or it’s just a mistake in the coding. Given that a lot of the people answering are going to not be L, G or B many if not most people are going to be answering “no” to that question. Could you perhaps assume a little good faith on the part of the authors?
That’s odd, I was perfectly able to ignore that question and progress to the next page.
Good for you Andrew! This survey sets out to confirm the aims and objectives of the compilers.
Jill, which questions do you think confirm aims and objectives and how? The survey I took gave me opportunities to give very traditional answers if I wanted to.
i should imagine that traditional answers, whatever that means, will be in the minority. Gay people happily living their lives along with the rest of us who may well have discussed doubts and fears with their priest or minister with whatever outcome are unlikely to complete this survey, in my view. The Ozanne Foundation believes (I understand) that conversion therapy is effectively a cruel and inhuman practice without exception. I have no doubt some people have suffered miserably but there must be a place for gay (and trans) people who have doubts to be counselled and helped to find their… Read more »
Maybe you can encourage some of the traditionalist people to complete the survey. It’s neutral enough that members of Living Out could fill it in. If people don’t participate they can’t be counted. But that’s not the fault of the survey.
It’s hard enough living out a scriptural, sacramental Catholic faith, gay and straight together in an increasingly heretical Church of England. The self-indulgence of the Ozanne Foundation that seeks to impose its obsessions on the rest of is indeed yet another nail in the Church of England’s coffin.
I was asked to be a member of the Advisory Board and I can assure Jill Armstead and others that the analysis of the survey will be a completely fair summary of the responses received. Whatever one’s views on any topic, it is important wherever possible to have evidence, properly and impartially assessed, to inform discussion. The analysis will of course clearly state that it is only an analysis of the responses received; the survey does not pretend to be a random sample of the entire population. I have no idea whether “traditional answers, whatever that means, will be in… Read more »
Re: Ms Armstead’s ‘nail in coffin’ comment. Leaving aside all of these present concerns that captivate some and puzzle or alienate others, the lurking question is the genuine viability and future of the CofE. ASA for what is meant to be a ‘Church of England’ (England’s Church by law) is so small by proportion to the general English population, what is its bona fide future? It seems to me that the real question is this one. Is the CofE now a church for something on the order of 5% of the population, that same small percentage now manifestly divided or… Read more »
“This survey sets out to confirm the aims and objectives of the compilers.”
The survey was actually designed with the sought input of a member of Living Out to ensure that their answers could actively be incorporated and taken into account. As such many such people have responded.
I found the questionnaire very straightforward, and simple to answer with a click.
So much so I agreed to further contact if requested.
Fr John Emlyn