Advertisement

Queer Literacy

Visibility, Representation, and LGBT+ Research Ethics
  • Mark EdwardEmail author
  • Chris Greenough
Living reference work entry

Abstract

Qualitative research embraced a reflexive turn in the 1970s and 1980s and since that time has been particularly useful for exploring the experiences of nonnormative individuals. This chapter explores the ethical value of “queer literacy,” which allows readers intending on undertaking work with LGBT+ groups to have a nuanced understanding of various nonheterosexual and noncisgender identifications. There is the potential for there to be anxiety around contemporary discussions of gender/sexuality often due to the variety of terms used, as well as concerns for sensitivity when engaging with intimate details of others’ experiences. The aim of queer literacy is to equip readers with the ability to form knowledge and to develop understanding in order to engage with queer experiences. This allows researchers of LGBT+ lives to discuss issues confidently, accurately, and critically.

The themes emerging from this discussion of queer literacy include identification, authenticity, representation, and visibility, all of which are important when engaging with nonnormative lives. For LGBT+ individuals, authenticity is often perceived as achievable through self-representation and visibility: “coming out.” Yet, in terms of ethics, visibility is problematized because of the real concern for possible prejudice-based attacks on participants. This chapter takes the heat out of such concerns by shedding light on how to engage effectively with LGBT+ groups. Finally, the chapter argues how queer literate ethical researchers of/with LGBT+ communities must adhere to Viviane Namaste’s three key principles of relevance, equity in partnership, and ownership when conducting ethical ethnographic research.

Keywords

Ethics LGBT+ Queer literacy Nonnormative Visibility Representation 

References

  1. Butler J (1990) Gender trouble. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  2. Cook T (2009) The purpose of mess in action research: building rigour though a messy turn. Educ Action Res 17(2):277–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Edward M (2018a) Mesearch and the performing body. Palgrave, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Edward M (2018b) Between dance and detention: ethical considerations of “Mesearch” in performance. In: Iphofen R, Tolich M (eds) The sage handbook of qualitative research ethics. Sage, London, pp 161–173Google Scholar
  5. Fielder B, Ezzy D (2018) Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Christians. Bloomsbury, LondonGoogle Scholar
  6. Greenough C (2017) Queering fieldwork in religion: exploring life stories with non-normative Christians online. Fieldwork Relig 12(1):8–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Iphofen R (2011) Ethical decision making in social research: a practical guide. Palgrave Macmillan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  8. Jowitt K (2017) The amazing invisible bisexual Christian. In: Robertson B (ed) Our witness: the unheard stories of LGBT+ Christians. Darton, Longman and Todd, London, pp 115–120Google Scholar
  9. Miller N (1991) Getting personal: feminist occasions and other autobiographical acts. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  10. Namaste V (2009) Undoing theory: the “transgender question” and the epistemic violence of Anglo-American feminist theory. Hypatia 24(3):11–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Plummer K (1995) Telling sexual stories: power, change and social world. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  12. Rich A (1980) Compulsory heterosexuality and lesbian existence. J Women’s Hist 15(3):11–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Scott JW (1991) The evidence of experience. Crit Inq 17(4):773–797CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Sieber JE, Tolich MB (2013) Planning ethically responsible research. Sage, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Spelman EV (1988) Inessential woman: problems of exclusion in feminist thought. Beacon, BostonGoogle Scholar
  16. Tufford L, Newman PA, Brennan DJ, Craig SL, Woodford MR (2012) Conducting research with lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: navigating research ethics board reviews. J Gay Lesbian Soc Serv 24(3):221–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Warner DN (2004) Towards a queer research methodology. Qual Res Psychol 1(4):321–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Performing ArtsEdge Hill UniversityOrmskirkUK
  2. 2.Department of Secondary EducationEdge Hill UniversityOrmskirkUK

Personalised recommendations