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

The open science (OS) movement has the potential to fundamentally shape how researchers conduct research and distribute findings. However, the implications for research on lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, intersex, and queer/questioning (LGBTIQ+) experiences present unique considerations. In this paper, included in the special issue on Reimagining LGBTIQ+ Research, we explore how the OS movement broadens access to and comprehension of LGBTIQ+ experiences while simultaneously imposing limitations on the representation of these identities and raising concerns about risks to LGBTIQ+ researchers and participants. Our research focuses on three facets of the OS movement. First, we examine practices related to open data, which advocates that data should be accessible to other researchers to analyze. Yet, providing access to such data challenges may compromise trust between the research team and study participants. Second, we examine practices related to open replicable research, particularly as it has the potential to both highlight and erase the experiences of groups within the LGBTIQ+ community. Finally, we consider how open access, making scholarly articles free to the public, may help educate a broader audience on the lived experiences of LGBTIQ+ people, but in regions where these identities remain heavily stigmatized and/or criminalized, access may be blocked or individuals could be penalized for retrieving this information.

The opportunities and limits of open science for LGBTIQ+ research

Leskinen,

Horne,

Ryan

et al. 2024

Understanding variations in LGBTIQ+ acceptance across space and time: The importance of norm perceptions and political dynamics

Sweigart,

Galván‐Hernández,

Hässler

et al. 2024

The 21st century has seen dynamic social, legal, and political change regarding the rights and acceptance of lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, intersex, and queer/questioning (LGBTIQ+) people. This article argues that social norm perceptions—perceptions of other people's opinions in a given social context—and the political dynamics that shape those perceptions are important for understanding differences in LGBTIQ+ acceptance across sociopolitical environments and time periods. Instead of emphasizing “actual” norms—people's opinions on average in different groups—we focus on norm perceptions since people often conform to the attitudes and behaviors held and endorsed by others to achieve social belonging and accuracy in their judgments. We review evidence regarding structural (e.g., laws and institutional decisions), group (e.g., social identities), and individual (e.g., ideology) factors that influence perceptions of, and conformity to, norms of LGBTIQ+ inclusion or exclusion. Drawing on this review, we consider how political dynamics—the ways that civic and political actors make salient, promote, and frame issues, values, and norms in contesting or maintaining the status quo—influence interpretations of, and responses to, norm signals, thus shaping differences in LGBTIQ+ rights norms across contexts and time periods. In conclusion, we chart future areas for research, policy, and practice.

The influence of essentialist and social constructionist notions on perceptions of “realness”: Implications for LGBTIQ+ experiences

Bartels,

Le Forestier,

Hug

et al. 2024

Essentialism is an ontological belief that social groups share underlying “essences,” while social constructionism suggests social groups are formed and upheld by cultural understandings. We aim to highlight that essentialist and social constructionist beliefs regarding LGBTIQ+ identities underlie psychological evaluations of whether an LGBTIQ+ identity is real (social recognition of existence). These evaluations have tangible consequences for LGBTIQ+ people such that LGBTIQ+ identities considered real are (de)valued while those considered not real are marginalized. Central to our examination is the concept of “naturalness,” which often affords realness. This is reflected through essentialist thought at the individual level when evaluating the realness of LGBTIQ+ identities. However, while LGBTIQ+ people may embrace essentialist rhetoric to defend their identities as real, many draw instead on social constructionist notions. Lastly, we examine how essentialist and social constructionist rhetoric are evident in structural systems to either deny or legitimize LGBTIQ+ identities as real. By reimagining LGBTIQ+ research, we seek to expand the understanding of these identities.