The shifting landscape of LGBT organizational research

Over the past generation, sexual minorities—particularly lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) persons—have gained increased visibility in the public arena. Yet organizational research has lagged behind in recognizing and studying this category of organizational members. This article offers a critical review of this growing body of research. More specifically, we identify and discuss four dominant scholarly frames that have informed LGBT organizational research from the late nineteenth century to date. The frames include a “medical abnormality,” “deviant social role,” “collective identity,” and “social distinctiveness” view of sexual minorities. We argue that these frames have profoundly shaped the scope and range of organizational scholarship devoted to sexual minorities by showing that scholars using such contrasted frames have been drawn to very different research questions with respect to sexual minorities. We document and discuss the main and contrasted questions asked within each of these frames and show how they have both enabled and constrained LGBT organizational research. We conclude by calling for more attention to the frames organizational scholars adopt when studying sexual minorities, but also for more research on both minority and majority sexual orientations in organizations.     

The Cat and the Cloud: ACT for LGBT Locus of Control,Responsibility, and Acceptance

Advocating acceptance, committed action, and value-guided behavior over experiential avoidance, Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) may aid lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) clients affected by hetero/homonormative social pressure. By conceptualizing LGBT paradigms of internal/external control/responsibility (IC-IR; EC-IR; IC-ER; EC-IR), ACT may be adapted to a myriad of multicultural worldviews. This article presents locus of acceptance as the attributed worth of internal/external cues perceived necessary by the client to achieve self-acceptance. Recognizing visibility and isolation as recurrent LGBT issues, locus of acceptances balances identity as individual (internal acceptance) with identity as community (external acceptance).     

Separation and Post‐Separation Parenting within Lesbian and Gay Co‐parenting (Guild Parented) Families

Gay men and lesbian women have a long history of jointly creating families and co‐parenting their children together. This qualitative study aims to explore the experiences of separation and post‐separation parenting within same‐sex parented families. This involved semi‐structured in‐depth interviews with 22 separated same‐sex parents in Adelaide, Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane, and regional Victoria. An adaptive theory approach was used for the collection and analysis of the data. The paper explores data from a cohort of six participants who came from three different multi‐parent families who had experienced a separation – either their own, or that of other parents in their parenting group. The term ‘co‐parenting families’ was found to be confusing due to the different connotations within separation/divorce and same‐sex parent literature. Consequently, the term ‘guild parented families’ was created to describe these families. Participants from these multi‐parent families had very different experiences of family formation and separation compared to others within the wider separated same‐sex parent study. Separation of one or more of the parent couples within these families complicated their original plans and kinship ideals. Each of the families resolved this differently in their post‐separation arrangements. After separation, whole family narratives and/or the role of individual parents, were either questioned or revised as a way of resolving the complexity of their new kinship situation. Following separation, parents often relied on Western kinship norms that privilege biological kinship and the dual‐parent family to construct their post‐separation kinship arrangements. More awareness of families that begin with more than two parents is needed within separation research and amongst separation services and service providers.     

How Have Other Journals Compared to “The Top Seven” Journals in Family Social Science with Respect to LGBT-Related Research and Reviews? A Comment on “A Content Analysis of LGBT Research in Top Family Journals 2000–2015”? An Editorial Analysis

Van Eeden-Moorefield, Few-Demo, Benson, Bible, and Lummer (2018) recently reviewed the content of seven family social science journals with respect to theory and methods used in 153 articles featuring LGBT research or reviews of LGBT research. They concluded that less than three percent of 6,832 articles published in those journals between 2000 and 2015 were LGBT-related and that most had not used explicit theory and had used purposive cross-sectional samples consisting mostly of White and middle-class participants. During the tenure of the present editor, between 2010 and 2017, Marriage & Family Review featured 14 research reports, reviews, or commentary on LGBT-related issues out of 250 articles, not counting brief editorials or biographies between 2010 and 2017, an odds ratio of over 2.0 compared to the other “top-tier” journals. Likewise, the Journal of Family Theory & Review published at least 15 articles, mainly reviews or commentaries, on LGBT-related issues between 2009 and 2017. Articles in Marriage & Family Review and Journal of Family Theory & Review were more likely to be reviews of the literature, or feature explicit theory, to be qualitative in methodology, or to involve interviews or surveys, while other characteristics were similar to those in the other seven journals. Thus, even if some mainstream family journals did not publish often on LGBT-related issues, other important family science journals have done so. Furthermore, there are numerous scholarly journals that welcome LGBT-related research and reviews almost exclusively.     

The Normativity of the Concept of Heteronormativity

The aim of the article is to analyze and to critically examine use of the concept of heteronormativity. We find it important to adjust the concept to some extent in order to analyze, for example, changes occurring in homosexual families, contemporary gender-equal families, or the progressive youth culture. We find two approaches when using the concept. One minimizes the importance of how sexual practices are embedded in social institutions. The first approach becomes too idealistic, whereas the second approach often is based on a structural view of society. This approach makes it hard to imagine a transformation of the family that could lead to more equal and democratic relations in contemporary families. We suggest a third approach, and the possibility of finding creative ways of analyzing actual change and contestations of heteronormativity. An approach containing a space of reflexivity and aiming at political change both involving subjects as well as structures.     

Negotiating the Intersection of Racial Oppression and Heteronormativity

This qualitative study examines the narratives of seven heterosexual, cisgender individuals who identify both as persons of color and as positively disposed toward LGB and transgender-identified persons. Using psycho-discursive qualitative methodology, the authors will present the narrative strategies taken up by these positively disposed cisgender heterosexuals of color as they attempt to position themselves as supportive of LGB and transgender persons while negotiating the discourse of heteronormativity. The three narrative strategies have been titled differentiation, empathy, and coherence. In addition to mapping the three narrative strategies, the authors also explore why informants may choose certain strategies over others and argue that the intersection of social identities must be considered when attempting to understand social oppression. Implications for the human services fields will be discussed.     

Exploring experiences of heterosexism and coping strategies among lesbian,gay, bisexual,and transgender persons in Swaziland

Social, cultural, and institutional processes which see heterosexuality as natural and universal discriminate against individuals who differ from this norm. This article draws on interviews with lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people in Swaziland to provide an enhanced understanding of the ways in which heterosexism operates in practice and impacts the sexual rights of LGBT communities in Swaziland, where same-sex practices are criminalised. These narratives show the importance of solidarity and activism in coping strategies to challenge social exclusion, improve lives, and advocate for social changes. These strategies include reframing, navigating interpersonal relationships, and advocacy. We consider key lessons that emerge from our research for policy, programmes, and activism in Swaziland, as well as other low- and middle-income contexts.     

Yet another minority issue or good news for all? Approaching LGBT issues in European social work education

ABSTRACT

This article addresses the questions of why to include and how to approach LGBT issues in the context of European social work education. Referring to social work’s commitment to LGBT people, the article points out its ongoing relevance as questions of marginalisation and discrimination point far beyond formal equality in legislation and normalisation of homosexuality within existing societal institutions. Furthermore, new questions and dynamics in rapidly changing and highly diverse societal contexts bring about new challenges in addressing LGBT issues. Against this background, the article discusses problems of representation and knowledge and underlines the potential of a queer approach. A queer perspective questions taken-for-granted assumptions about sexual orientation, gender identity and intimate relationships. It challenges normalising categories of sex, gender and desire and brings out possibilities existing beyond the heteronormative order. This way, it offers social work education a powerful theoretical lens to address issues on sexual orientation and gender identity not only as yet another minority issue, but as transversal matter and as good news for all. In this article, we use the acronym LGBT to refer to lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans people. LGBT is meant to include and at the same time emphasise the differences between people who do not (exclusively) define themselves as heterosexual and who cannot or do not want to match or identify with binarities of sex, gender and desire. We do not use the acronym LGBTI because we find it problematic to include intersex people without taking explicitly into account their specific situations and needs. Making a plea for a queer approach, we share – of course – a critical view on categorisations and identity labels.     

An Examination of School Counselors’ Competency Working with Lesbian,Gay and Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) Students

This study aims to investigate school counselors’ competency level in working with lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) youth. Using a sample of 125 school counselors who are currently practicing in schools, this study found school counselors perceived themselves with very low competency levels. Spearman's rho correlation results indicated that only three demographic variables were significantly correlated with school counselors’ self-perceived competency level: sexual orientation, whether having received any postmasters trainings and geographic regions. Counselors identifying as nonheterosexual, those who received postmasters trainings or workshops, and those who reside in the West tend to have a higher self-perceived competency working with youth identifying as LGBT.     

Using social support levels to predict sexual identity development among college students who identify as a sexual minority

This study examined the impact of five domains of social support (a campus group for individuals who identify as a sexual minority, family, friends, significant others, and faith communities) on eight aspects of sexual minority identity development (identity uncertainty, internalized homonegativity, identity affirmation, acceptance concerns, identity superiority, concealment motivation, identity centrality, and difficulty in the identity development process). Support from a sexuality-specific campus group was the strongest predictor, followed by support from family members. Supports from friends and significant others had no significant impact on any aspect of sexual minority identity development, while faith community support was not correlated with identity development. Identifying as lesbian, bisexual, or as another sexual minority compared to identifying as gay also impacted sexual minority identity development.