Conducting research within the acronym: Problematizing LGBTIQ+ research in psychology

ABSTRACT LGBTIQ+ research acknowledges shared experiences of groups marginalized due to gender identities, sexualities, and sex characteristics. This universalist coalition approach has resulted in much affirmational research and progressive policy development. However, it risks homogenizing the unique experiences and needs of specific groups; a risk lessened by a particularist subgroup approach. In this theoretical paper, we reflect on the challenges of a coalition or subgroup approach by considering interdependencies and boundaries between sex, gender, and sexuality‐based identities. Through tracing the historical development of LGBTIQ+ research and activism and using examples from intersex studies, intersectionality, and political actions, we explore tensions between the collective identities that make up the LGBTIQ+ acronym. We further offer suggestions for reimagining LGBTIQ+ research, advocating for community‐driven approaches that respect the situated knowledge of LGBTIQ+ individuals, and use adaptable and inclusive research practices that bridge academia and activism that aim to improve the lives of the marginalized.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Social Issues
Published
2024-09-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12634
Citations
20
Primary Topic
LGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
12.87

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Conducting research within the acronym: Problematizing LGBTIQ+ research in psychology

Miguel Roselló‐Peñaloza, Madison Gray, Jessica J. Glazier, Daniel J. Alonso et al.
20 citations
Journal of Social Issues
LGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
12.87
article

Conducting research within the acronym: Problematizing LGBTIQ+ research in psychology

Miguel Roselló‐Peñaloza, Madison Gray, Jessica J. Glazier, Daniel J. Alonso, Amanda Klysing, Yu‐Chi Wang, Sarah J. Swanson, Marta Prandelli
article en
20 citations

Abstract

ABSTRACT LGBTIQ+ research acknowledges shared experiences of groups marginalized due to gender identities, sexualities, and sex characteristics. This universalist coalition approach has resulted in much affirmational research and progressive policy development. However, it risks homogenizing the unique experiences and needs of specific groups; a risk lessened by a particularist subgroup approach. In this theoretical paper, we reflect on the challenges of a coalition or subgroup approach by considering interdependencies and boundaries between sex, gender, and sexuality‐based identities. Through tracing the historical development of LGBTIQ+ research and activism and using examples from intersex studies, intersectionality, and political actions, we explore tensions between the collective identities that make up the LGBTIQ+ acronym. We further offer suggestions for reimagining LGBTIQ+ research, advocating for community‐driven approaches that respect the situated knowledge of LGBTIQ+ individuals, and use adaptable and inclusive research practices that bridge academia and activism that aim to improve the lives of the marginalized.

Journal of Social IssuesVol. 80(3)
Clark University (US), Fordham University (US), Lund University (SE), University of Limerick (IE), University of Massachusetts Boston (US), University of the Americas (CL), Dublin City University (IE)
National Science Foundation, Stryker
Openalex Percentile: Top 1%
LGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
12.87
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.