Psychosocial correlates of LGBTIQ+ experiences in selected African countries: Reimagining LGBTIQ+ research

Despite growing global interest in lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, intersex, and queer/questioning (LGBTIQ+) research, variations in measurement practices across countries have remained underexplored. In this work, we focused on two fundamental aspects of measurement vital to understanding the experiences of LGBTIQ+ people. Specifically, we documented current measures of sex, gender, and sexual orientation used in national mental well‐being‐related surveys and reviewed whether the mental well‐being scales in those surveys have been validated for LGBTIQ+ people. We employed a stratified sampling strategy and evaluated national surveys from a list of randomly selected countries representing 10% of global nations (N = 21). Fewer than half of the countries measured sexual orientation and fewer than one‐third measured gender beyond the binary in their national surveys. Among the countries that measured gender or sexual orientation, the response options and question phrasing were often not inclusive. In addition, most of the mental well‐being scales lacked validity evidence for LGBTIQ+ populations. Finally, we outline recommendations for the future of reimagining LGBTIQ+ research in terms of measurement, highlighting the importance of research engagement with the global LGBTIQ+ community.

Toward inclusive and equitable LGBTIQ+ measurement: Assessing gender and sexual orientation measures and scale validity in national surveys across 21 countries

Li,

van Berlekom,

Atwood

et al. 2024

Article 7: The damaging legacy of damage‐centered LGBTIQ+ research: Implications for healthcare and LGBTIQ+ health

Cipollina,

Ruben,

Maroney

et al. 2024

Research on LGBTIQ+ populations has focused primarily on identifying problems in the community (e.g., health disparities) and their predictors (e.g., minority stressors, discrimination). Scholars have argued that the approach of highlighting “damage” or deficits has been helpful for advocacy but has also harmed this community by perpetuating stereotypes (e.g., LGBTIQ+ individuals are unhealthy), ignoring or devaluing positive LGBTIQ+ experiences, and contributing to negative interactions in healthcare settings. To evaluate the extent to which a damage‐centered approach dominates the body of available research, the authors of this article conducted a content analysis of articles related to LGBTIQ+ health published in the Journal of Social Issues (JSI). The content analysis of 45 years of published manuscripts (1978–2023) revealed a strong emphasis on damage‐centered themes. In response, this article advocates for structural changes that may lead to an increase in research that focuses LGBTIQ+ experiences more holistically, with the overarching goal of reimaging LGBTIQ+ research. Such suggested changes include concentrated research funding and publishing opportunities, medical training that emphasizes a strengths‐based focus, and function‐oriented and autonomy‐promoting LGBTIQ+ research. This article suggests strategies to improve patient‐provider interactions in healthcare and enhance the overall well‐being of LGBTIQ+ communities. It advocates for a deliberate expansion towards a more holistic, less damage‐centered body of research in LGBTIQ+ psychology.

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.