Theory Making from the Middle: Researching LGBTQ Communities in Small Cities

Abstract

Urban lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) community research in sociology has largely ignored LGBTQ communities in the most common urban form: small cities. In this article, I argue that LGBTQ communities in small cities are an underexplored source of theory making about LGBTQ communities more broadly, and I highlight the ways such research enhances LGBTQ community research. I first discuss a definitional framework of LGBTQ communities in small cities. In other words, what do we mean by small cities, and what do we mean by LGBTQ communities within them? I then discuss the handful of examples of research on LGBTQ communities in small cities, describing the kinds of theoretical questions such research raises. I examine specifically how small‐city LGBTQ communities shift our thinking about urban LGBTQ community research in the following four areas: social networks, spatial and temporal dimensions of community, identity intersections, and allyship. Next, I identify three reasons why a focus on small cities is necessary to theory making in LGBTQ and community research more broadly, including and moving beyond questions of representation. I conclude by highlighting the methodological diversity needed to effectively research LGBTQ communities in small cities and briefly address a few challenges in moving this field of research forward.

‘Creating the community I want to be part of’: Affinity-based organising in a small, progressive rustbelt city

“…While research documenting LGBTQ experiences in large cities has provided important analysis of activist movements and communities, attending to the experiences of LGBTQ people in smaller cities is necessary to fully account for the diversity of LGBTQ lives. Additionally, it is not clear that trends in large urban areas will translate to smaller cities (Forstie, 2020a;Stone, 2018); nevertheless, the focus on large urban centres has meant that urban queer communities have become the model against which other queer lives are measured (Brown, 2008;Brown-Saracino, 2019;Myrdahl, 2013). This urban-centrism is also gendered.…”

“…Next, I examine the organising process and the resulting event by focusing on the framework (love, resilience, action) and its relationship to the pre-protest gathering, march through the streets and post-event resource sharing. I conclude by reflecting on the organising process and the urban setting, joining calls to expand queer urban research beyond large cities (Brown, 2008;Brown-Saracino, 2011Brown-Saracino and Parker, 2017;Forstie, 2020a;Myrdahl, 2013;Stone, 2018).…”

Who Are the People in Your Gayborhood? Understanding Population Change and Cultural Shifts in LGBTQ+ Neighborhoods

“…This important endeavor was intended to affirm the critical importance and relevance of these sites for generations to come (Bitterman and Hess 2021). The survival of smaller gay districts (and gay districts located in small-and mid-sized cities (Forstie 2008)) is more threatened than established gay districts in larger metropolitan areas with critical mass in LGBTQ+ communities (Ghaziani 2021) and some locations have informally commemorated LGBTQ+ significant places within or near gay neighborhoods, as shown in Fig. 1.8.…”

Reaching the “Hard-to-Reach” Sexual and Gender Diverse Communities for Population-Based Research in Cancer Prevention and Control: Methods for Online Survey Data Collection and Management

“…These populations can face different challenges than SGD populations in urban areas due to the complexity associated with socially conservative locals where they may not feel safe being “out” ( 14 , 15 ). Juxtaposed with this notion, much of the extant SGD studies have been conducted in large urban cities, with these populations considered as “hard-to-reach” ( 16 , 17 ). To address this gap, we sought to understand the determinants to cancer prevention practices (e.g.…”