Challenges for Researchers Studying Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Populations

Symposium Proposal Convenors:
James I. Martin & William Meezan

Contact Person and Lead Presenter:
James I. Martin
Shirley M. Ehrenkranz School of Social Work
New York University
1 Washington Square North
New York, NY 10003-6654 USA
Phone 212-998-9095
Fax 212-995-4588
Email: james.martin@nyu.edu

Second Presenter:
William Meezan
University of Michigan
School of Social Work
1080 South University
Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1106 USA
Phone 734-763-3428
Fax 734-763-3372
Email: meezan@umich.edu

Third Presenter:
Michael C. LaSala
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
School of Social Work
536 George Street
New Brunswick, NJ 08901-1167 USA
Phone 732-932-3580
Fax 732-932-8181
Email: mlasala@rci.rutgers.edu

Fourth Presenter:
Joan C. McClennen
Southwest Missouri State University
School of Social Work
901 S. National Avenue
Springfield, MO 65804 USA
Phone 417-836-7670
Fax 417-836-7688
Email: jcm334f@smsu.edu

Maximizing the Insider Advantage in Qualitative Studies of Lesbians and Gay Men
Michael C. LaSala

The Journey of a Non-LGBT Researcher Studying Gay and Lesbian Domestic Violence
Joan C. McClennen

Applying Ethical Standards to Research on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Populations
James I. Martin, William Meezan

Although research involving lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) populations appears more frequently in the social work literature, there has been hardly any attention to the particular challenges facing those who wish to conduct such studies.  This proposed symposium aims to provide attendees with both greater awareness of these challenges and specific strategies for overcoming them.

The symposium will consist of three papers that examine the issues of researcher bias, validity of data, and maintenance of ethical standards.  In the first paper, a study of the extradyadic sexual behaviors of gay men and a study of the impacts of intergenerational disapproval on gay and lesbian couples are used to examine the advantages and pitfalls of doing qualitative research as a member of the study population.  The second paper describes the challenges involved with not being a member of the study population when conducting research within lesbian and gay communities, and it draws upon two studies of domestic violence among lesbians and gay men to illustrate both the challenges and specific strategies designed to overcome them.  The third paper examines the major ethical challenges that researchers are likely to encounter in research on LGBT populations, and it provides recommendations for maintaining high ethical standards in such research.

Maximizing the Insider Advantage in Qualitative Studies of Lesbians and Gay Men

Investigators conducting research within their own communities or identity groups may have a unique perspective that can aid qualitative data collection and analysis (Davis, 1997; Gwaltney, 1981).  This paper will describe the strengths and potential weaknesses of the insider perspective when conducting qualitative research with gay men and lesbians, using examples from two studies: 1) an examination of the extradyadic sexual agreements and behaviors of 65 coupled gay men; and 2) an exploration of the intergenerational impacts of parental disapproval on 40 lesbian and gay couples.

Lesbian and gay investigators who study lesbians and gay men may bring special knowledge and understanding to their research.  Because these researchers share certain experiences with their gay and lesbian respondents they might be more able to communicate empathy to them and build the trust and rapport necessary for effective qualitative interviewing (Hayano, 1979; Rhodes, 1994).  Familiarity with lesbian and gay issues, gained through personal experience, can aid them in formulating relevant research hypotheses and interview questions.  Additionally, insider knowledge may help lesbian and gay researchers to analyze qualitative data accurately.

However, inside investigators may mistakenly assume common cultural understandings with interviewees and fail to explore their respondents’ unique perceptions (Aguilar, 1981; Kanuha, 2000).  Furthermore, social desirability effects can bias the reports of respondents, who might hope to “look good” in the presence of a member of their own group (Padgett, 1998).  Using examples drawn from experiences during the two aforementioned research projects, as well as the findings from these studies, the author will describe how to maximize the trustworthiness of insider research by maintaining self-awareness, and by using member checking, prolonged engagement, and peer debriefing.

The Journey of a Non-LGBT Researcher Studying Gay and Lesbian Domestic Violence

Debate exists about the possibility of doing meaningful and sensitive research within oppressed populations when the researcher is not a member of the study population.  The difficulties faced by such non-affiliated researchers are magnified when the topic is of a sensitive nature, such as domestic violence.  If they are to produce meaningful results, nonaffiliated researchers must overcome the methodological challenges of theoretical approaches, gaining access to the community, and maintaining their professional ethics (Jacobson, 1995; Zinn, 1979).  This paper will present the author’s personal journey as a heterosexual woman conducting studies on domestic violence among lesbians and gay men, and it will describe how applying several strategies based on the feminist participatory research model (Renzetti, 1992) helped to overcome methodological barriers and other difficulties.

The author’s six-year journey involved the design and conducting of two studies.  The purpose of the first study was to construct and validate a scale that assessed power imbalance resulting in abuse among lesbian partners, using a sample of 45 abused lesbians and 33 non-abused lesbians.  The second study examined the dynamics, help-seeking behaviors, and correlates of abuse among gay male partners, using a sample of 63 gay men.

This paper will describe the author’s motivation for engaging in the aforementioned studies, and it will examine eight strategies based on the feminist participatory research model (Renzetti, 1992) used to overcome methodological barriers.  Among them, particular attention will be paid to immersion into lesbian and gay culture.  The paper will also describe the exchange of rigor for relevance in research effort such as these, and the costs and benefits of conducting research within this stigmatized population.

Applying Ethical Standards to Research on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Populations

This paper will examine the application of standards for research and evaluation in the National Association of Social Workers’ (1996) Code of Ethics to research and evaluations involving LGBT participants.  Because the social and political context in which LGBT populations exist is characterized by marginalization, discrimination, and violence (Herek, Billis, Cogan, & Glunt, 1997; Hunter, Shannon, Knox, & Martin, 1998), there is a heightened potential for exploitation and harm to these participants and the communities they represent.  In addition, there is long and sordid history of medical and social science research on sexual minorities that violated contemporary ethical standards (Humphreys, 1970; Murphy, 1992; Plant, 1986) or were used to rationalize the oppression of LGBT persons (e.g., Cameron & Cameron, 1996).  Unfortunately, the social work literature has hardly examined the unique ethical dilemmas that may arise in the conduct of research involving LGBT populations or elaborated guidelines for protecting participants in such studies.

This paper will focus on the issues of voluntary informed consent, confidentiality, and bias, the need for appropriate supportive services, and the importance of considering the potential consequences of research on participants and the populations they represent.  The importance of the protections provided by Institutional Review Boards, and the ways they can be incorporated into the routine conduct of research within agencies serving LGBT populations, will be discussed.  Some of the specific recommendations for maintaining ethical standards that will be discussed include the use of anonymity in data collection, the avoidance of dual relationships, Certificates of Confidentiality, implied consent, and independent advocates to ensure the rights of participants who are minors.