This article critically examines academic scholarship in the field of nonprofit studies that pertains to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people and issues. We introduce the key tenets of queer theory, a critical theory which encourages questioning social constructs, to nonprofit studies as a lens through which to examine the nonprofit sector. Using a queer approach, we analyze the past research on LGBTQ issues along the continuums of whether the research subjects are active or passive participants, and whether the focus on LGBTQ issues is ancillary or central. We find a minority of articles, most written between 2015 and 2019, which position LGBTQ people as central and active participants in the research. We conclude by providing a research agenda for how queer theory can be applied to the nonprofit sector and argue that placing LGBTQ people and organizations as central constituencies in nonprofit research will facilitate social change.

No abstract

Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Intersex, and Asexual plus (LGBTQIA+) communities are underrepresented in public and nonprofit affairs research. This has led to an incomplete picture of how public and nonprofit organizations can better support LGBTQIA+ individuals and communities. In this article, we discuss how researchers can include the LGBTQIA+ community, why they should care about this community, and the appropriate terminology and distinctions within the LGBTQIA+ community. This article is a call to arms: LGBTQIA+ individuals are an important part of the work in the public and nonprofit sector; and as such the language used to describe their experiences should be supportive and affirming.

How do public administrators understand social equity toward lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) individuals and communities? To better understand social equity, this study uses data on the views of public and nonprofit administrators in 33 countries in Africa on LGB people. Based on these responses, we gain a better understanding of homophobia in public administrators. Furthermore, this data helps public administrators to explore how social equity might look differently to public and nonprofit administrators in different countries. Building on this foundation, this study proposes understanding social equity from both a Micro (individual) and a Macro (cultural)‐perspective. Bringing in this micro‐ and macro‐perspective can help public administrators and researchers to discuss how individuals and organizations identify “vulnerable” populations and appropriate ways to support vulnerable groups.

No abstract