Open Research and Gender Congruence, Body Image and Quality of Life in Trans Men

Pre-registering this has allowed us to maintain transparency and increase confidence in our findings.

- Liam Cahill

Tell us a bit about you and your research.

My name is Dr Liam Cahill, a senior lecturer and researcher in LGBTQ+ Psychology focusing on exploring the health and well-being of LGBTQ+ individuals. My research primarily focuses on body image among sexual and gender-minoritised men. My projects are currently focused on exploring these factors in trans men and bisexual cisgender men. I am particularly passionate about promoting Open Research principles and ensuring my work is transparent, accessible, and inclusive. As the LGBTQ+ Research Group Lead and co-chair of the International Partnership for Queer Youth Resilience, I collaborate with global networks to advance impactful and ethical research. My work aims to challenge systemic inequalities, foster inclusivity, and improve the mental health and well-being of underrepresented individuals and communities.

Tell us about a project you were involved in which used Open Research practices and principles?

My research focuses on body image issues within trans and gender-diverse (TGD) populations, specifically trans men. Body image is a critical public health concern, significantly impacting TGD individuals who face societal pressures to conform to gender norms (Jones et al., 2016; Röder et al., 2018). Poor body image is linked to negative health outcomes, including disordered eating and diminished quality of life (Cahill et al., 2023). This study aims to understand how poor body image affects the quality of life in trans men and explore the protective role of gender congruence—happiness with one's gender identity. Given the focus of trans health services on promoting gender congruence, emphasising its importance could mitigate the adverse effects of poor body image on the quality of life. This research seeks to inform health strategies that support TGD individuals more effectively.

Describe the open research practice(s) employed in your study. Why did you select them?

Pre-registration: We pre-registered our two studies (quantitative and qualitative) on the Open Science Framework (OSF). For our quantitative study, we pre-registered our rationale, hypotheses, sampling, and analysis procedures. This became very important as we had to make minor deviations from our pre-registration, meaning that we could easily be transparent and honest in our paper about these deviations. Our qualitative pre-registration likewise allowed us to ensure our research questions, sampling and analysis procedures were clearly documented. Pre-registering this has allowed us to maintain transparency and increase confidence in our findings.

Open Data and Analysis: For our quantitative data, we uploaded our fully anonymised data and R scripts to the OSF. Consistent with FAIR data, this data has an associated DOI and is openly accessible to all interested parties. We also included a ReadMe file alongside our R script, which includes detailed information about what each column in our dataset refers to. This ensures any user is easily able to find, access and reproduce our findings. These steps ensure reproducibility and transparency.

For our qualitative data, we uploaded the pseudo-anonymised transcripts to the UK Data Service. This was only done with explicit participant consent. Eighteen of twenty participants consented to sharing their data in this way. As the data contains confidential information, we opted to use the UKDS as it allows data to be submitted behind a safeguarded access approach. This means that only users who agree to the UKDS End User license can access the data (meaning it is only used for research purposes). With this controlled access, the data remains FAIR, while also ensuring the data is handled appropriately. Alongside the pseudo-anonymised transcripts, this data also contains a ReadMe file, outlining what each data file contains and a data list, which outlines key information about each transcript (e.g., when the interviews took place). This ensures the data is easily reusable.

Open Materials: We also shared the materials used in both our studies, including our interview schedule, survey questions and our information, consent and debrief sheets. Combined with our pre-registration details, this ensures that any future researchers can easily replicate our study.

Co-design: In the project's initial stages, we collaborated with the Nottingham Centre for Transgender Health to align research with community needs and gather early feedback. We met with key stakeholders individually to discuss our research plan and consider what questions were most important to ask. This meant that our research question was shaped not only be existing research but also the needs of stakeholders who are practically engaged in the topic. Any research that involves working with marginalised populations can benefit from co-design.

Open Publishing: We wanted to ensure that the journal articles are published open access. We are exploring our options with the Library’s Open Research Team to discuss the best place for our research and achieving Open Access either through a library deal or self-archiving. Our preference is to publish fully Gold, but it is also critically important we select the right publication venue for research. We also aim to make use of preprints. To make findings accessible beyond academia, a non-academic jargon-free version will be created. This will involve creating a concise summary that eliminates academic jargon and technical details, such as statistical analyses, and instead presents the findings in a clear and engaging narrative format. This approach is vital to ensure our research is relevant and applicable outside of academic settings. We will disseminate this by uploading it to our OSF, BlueSky and sharing it with our existing contacts involved with the LGBTQ+ Health and Wellbeing Research Group.

Did you face any challenges in the project, and how did you overcome them?

Our primary challenge was working with a minoritised population (trans men) who often face prejudice, even within academic settings. Implementing open research practices with such populations involves careful consideration of data privacy. For our quantitative data, we assured participants that no identifying information would be saved. The qualitative data posed a higher risk of identification due to the personal nature of the conversations. We allowed participants to choose whether to share their data to address this. We uploaded pseudo-anonymised transcripts to the UK Data Service UKDS under a safeguarded data approach, ensuring access is restricted to researchers agreeing to the UKDS end-user license. This approach balanced openness with the need for confidentiality, adhering to the principle of making research “as open as possible, closed as necessary.”

One of the biggest challenges we faced was dealing with fake or bot responses when recruiting participants through opportunity sampling. These inauthentic responses threatened the quality of our data, so we had to carefully identify and remove them. Pre-registration was incredibly helpful here, as it allowed us to be upfront about the issue and explain how we handled it. This kind of transparency is important for building trust in the research process. We uploaded an amendment to our pre-registration and included a discussion of this issue in our paper to ensure it was handled transparently.

Being open about challenges like this is also vital for showing the realities of research. Many studies likely encounter similar issues but don’t report them, which can give a false impression that research always runs smoothly. For students and early-career researchers, this can create unrealistic expectations. Pre-registration helps to break this illusion by encouraging researchers to document everything—the successes and the struggles.  By sharing these experiences, we can paint a more honest picture of research and help future researchers feel better prepared for the inevitable ups and downs.

Additionally, we aim to upload a full set of criteria used to determine the authenticity of responses. This ensures that other researchers can become aware of this problem and understand our resolution approach, fostering better research practices.

What has been the impact of adopting open research practice(s) in your project?

Adopting open research practices has significantly impacted our project's transparency, reproducibility, and accessibility. Pre-registrations, open materials, and data allow us to document our thinking and considerations during each project stage, which benefits early career researchers. Typically, researchers only see the end product of a research project (post-peer-review) and not the decisions that need to occur between those time points. These practices ensure our research is reproducible, reliable, and accessible to everyone, free from paywalls. By sharing our data and materials on the OSF, we increase confidence in our analysis and findings. Our approach establishes a best practice in qualitative research, particularly involving vulnerable populations, by balancing openness and confidentiality. Limited research has attempted to make qualitative data, especially from minoritised populations open and available. Finally, our decisions mean that our research incorporated the opinions and needs of those working with the TGD community.

What did you learn from making this project ‘open’? Do you have any advice for others considering adopting open research practices?

Despite using Open Research practices for years, this project allowed me to develop further. It was my first project using co-design. It showed me the potential benefits of co-designing research from the onset of the project. It ensures that your project is not only relevant to academic spaces (via the limitation in the research that it fills), but also for more practical spaces. I focused on making my research accessible by creating a jargon-free version for non-academic partners. This is important as many working with TGD populations come from non-academic backgrounds. It was also my first project making qualitative research open, providing a better understanding of this process, especially with minoritised populations, and sharing this knowledge with others. This required a different set of considerations, such as ensuring the research is done ethically, and the data handled with care (fully pseudo-anonymised). It also meant ensuring participants were fully aware of how their data would be used. However, I found that our participants were very happy for their data to be shared. Many were also pleased to see research being conducted in this area that adopted an affirming position. One participant even contacted us after to discuss the possibility of doing research with us in future!

My main advice is not to view research as either open or not. Engaging with open research does not need to be perfect. Instead, aim to make your research as open as possible but as closed as necessary. Even if researchers cannot engage with all open research principles, they can still make positive changes to ensure their research is inclusive, accessible, reproducible, and reliable.

What are you working on now?

I’m currently working on several exciting projects, all at different stages of completion. One of my main priorities is to wrap up this research project. This has been my first time leading a project of this scale as an early career researcher, and it’s been both challenging and incredibly rewarding. We’re on track to submit both studies from this project by February 2025. Beyond its findings, this project has also set the stage for my first grant application, which feels like an exciting next step. I genuinely believe this work has the potential to make a real impact.

I’m also developing a project focusing on bisexual men’s body image, particularly how bi-negativity influences their experiences. This is still in its early stages, but it’s an area I’m really passionate about, as it addresses issues that are often overlooked. Alongside this, I’m collaborating with colleagues in the UK and abroad on a range of projects, from exploring LGBTQ+ resilience to tackling health inequalities and developing new methods for conducting inclusive research. These collaborations have been fantastic opportunities to learn from others and strengthen connections across the field.

In my role as co-chair of the UK network for the International Network for Queer Youth Resilience (INQYR), I’m working on initiatives that bring together researchers and community organisations. One highlight is an upcoming symposium we’re hosting, which will focus on resilience and digital landscapes in LGBTQ+ communities. It’s been a privilege to play a part in building collaborations and amplifying important voices.

I’m also contributing to an LGBTQ+ Handbook, writing a chapter on Open Research with marginalised populations. The chapter looks at how transparency and inclusivity can be integrated into research, especially when working with underrepresented communities. This ties in closely with my commitment to promoting Open Research practices and ensuring that marginalised voices are at the heart of what we do.

I’m also continuing to be involved with Open Research at both the department (psychology) and University level and continue to work with our amazing colleagues from the library. I’m currently pitching a textbook about Open Research (quantitative and qualitative), so watch this space!

If you’d like to chat more, you can find my contact details on my LinkTree.

Publications

The specific link to the project that supports this case study is here: https://osf.io/t6y37/. This includes the project page and the pre-registration for this project.

This links to my Open Science Framework (OSF) outlining my ongoing research projects. You can see my commitment to Open Research in my research and teaching (with my project students) at https://osf.io/64myn/.

While not related to this project, the following are my recent research papers/ projects, each employing open research practices (e.g., pre-registration, open data, materials and analysis script). This includes my PhD thesis, which fully employed best practices in open research.

• Cahill, L., Malik, M., Jones, B. A., Perera, A. T.-M., & McDermott, D. T. (2024). Tackling bisexual erasure: An explorative comparison of bisexual, gay and straight cisgender men’s body image. Body Image, 51, 101763. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2024.101763
• Jones, B. A., Nguyen, Alisha. L., Sequeira, G. M., Morrison, S. D., & Cahill, L. (2024). The gender congruences and life satisfaction scale for transgender and gender-diverse youth (GCLS-Y): A validation study with samples from the UK and US. International Journal of Transgender Health, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/26895269.2024.2397720
• Cahill, L. (2024). The Influence of Situational Threat Cues on Men’s Body Shape and Size Preferences [Doctoral Thesis, Nottingham Trent University].
• Cahill, L., Leunissen, J. M., Marriott, M., & Dunn, A. (2023). Quality of Life and Body Dissatisfaction in Cisgender Men Reporting Sexual Attraction Toward Men or Women. OSF Prepint. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/xybp2. Manuscript accepted for publication in Europe’s Journal of Psychology.
• Jones, B. A., Cahill, L., & McDermott, D. T. (2023). Gender, traditional gender ideology, gender essentialist beliefs, and masculinity threat as determinants of attitudes toward trans and gender diverse people in a U.K. sample. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity. https://doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000658

References:

• Jones, B. A., Haycraft, E., Murjan, S., & Arcelus, J. (2016). Body dissatisfaction and disordered eating in trans people: A systematic review of the literature. International Review of Psychiatry, 28(1), 81–94. https://doi.org/10.3109/09540261.2015.1089217
• Röder, M., Barkmann, C., Richter-Appelt, H., Schulte-Markwort, M., Ravens-Sieberer, U., & Becker, I. (2018). Health-related quality of life in transgender adolescents: Associations with body image and emotional and behavioral problems. International Journal of Transgenderism, 19(1), 78–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/15532739.2018.1425649