LGBTQ+ research tends to be scrutinized for several reasons, including the relative historical recency of this work, the fact that LGBTQ+ researchers are often part of the communities they study, and bias on the part of reviewers and the public. But you can make rejoinders that address many of these concerns, said Cindy Veldhuis, PhD, an assistant professor in Northwestern University’s Department of Medical Social Sciences and lead author of the APA Division 44 (Society for the Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity) Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity Research Manuscript Writing Guide. She offers these ways to respond to reviewers and others:
Critique: This study is simply “me-search”—the researcher’s efforts to better understand their own issues and problems. Hence, it is not real science.
Response: Being part of the LGBTQ+ community gives researchers a deeper understanding of the underlying issues these communities face and makes participants more likely to trust them. LGBTQ+ researchers are also more likely to be aware of their own potential biases and power differentials than someone outside the community would be. What is more, a lot of non-LGBTQ+ psychological research could also be considered “me-search.”
Critique: The study lacks a heterosexual or cisgender comparison group.
Response: A heterosexual or cisgender comparison group is important if the researcher is trying to demonstrate health inequities in a marginalized group versus a majority group. But it is not necessary for conducting in-group comparisons on a particular topic or understanding specific issues within a particular community.
Critique: The researcher’s data do not generalize to the wider population.
Response: The LGBTQ+ population is growing, as gains in visibility and rights make it more possible for people to come out and live openly as LGBTQ+. In fact, some 28% of Gen Z adults now identify as LGBTQ+, according to the nonprofit research organization PRRIopens in new window. That’s a significant portion, and such data suggest the need for more research on this population, particularly given the significant health and mental health inequities faced by LGBTQ+ people.
Critique: Sample sizes are too small to be meaningful.
Response: For many reasons—lack of funding, the relative newness of the area, and people’s reluctance to come out in studies—there remains a dearth of population-based data on the LGBTQ+ community at large and on LGBTQ+ subpopulations specifically. It is also difficult to recruit truly diverse samples of LGBTQ+ people because participants may fear that the data will be misused or will not be kept confidential, a particular concern in the current sociopolitical environment.
That said, large sample sizes aren’t always necessary depending on the analyses being done, for example, if it’s a simple group comparison versus a study with multiple variables. And even when a study is not amply powered, it may still provide important directions for future research.
[Related: Researchers sharpen their strategies for publishing on LGBTQ+ topics]
