Collaborative Community-Based Research as Activism: Giving Voice and Hope to Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Youth

SUMMARY.

Psychologists, psychiatrists, and other mental health professionals who work with lesbian, gay, and/or bisexual (LGB) youth are in an ideal position to engage in activism aimed at improving societal conditions for LGB youth and to assist them in their quest for compassion, understanding, and basic human rights. In this paper, the authors discuss ways in which psychologists, psychiatrists, and other mental health professionals can engage in LGB youth activism through structural-level change efforts, with a specific focus on: (1) raising awareness within the academy about the issues that confront LGB youth and the need for activism, while also working to elevate the status of LGB research within these academic institutions; (2) creating safe settings in which LGB youth can be affirmed and validated when they engage in self expression; and (3) improving the capacity of local community organizations to advocate for LGB youth. The authors purport that one way to affect structural-level factors is through the development and execution of collaborative participatory research projects that engage community members and community-based organizations (CBOs) that serve LGB youth.

INTRODUCTION

Adolescence is marked by increased exploration of sexual, occupational, political, and cultural roles as the adolescent attempts to form a unique and mature personal identity. Some theorists consider the formation of an individual identity to be the primary developmental goal of the adolescent years (Adams, Gullotta and Montemayor, 1992; Erikson, 1968). Failure to form an integrated identity can result in identity diffusion and role confusion, which may be associated with poor psychological functioning and psychiatric disorders (Crawford, Cohen, Johnson, Sneed, & Brook, 2004; De Goede, Spruijt, Iedema, & Meeus, 1999; Erikson, 1968; Offer, Kaiz, Howard, & Bennett, 1998). An adolescent’s identity is not unidimensional; instead it can be conceptualized as a mosaic of multiple identities within various realms of the adolescent’s life. Each of these identities may form at varying rates and be influenced by both similar and unique factors.

For lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) youth, the identity formation process can be complicated by experiences of heterosexism, stigma, homophobia, and prejudice as their exploration of sexual identity involves participation in behaviors (i.e., same gender sexual attraction and activity) that are not generally accepted by the larger society (Ryan and Futterman, 1998; Harper and Schneider, 2003). In addition to the “normal” developmental difficulties that adolescents must face, LGB youth must also manage what Ryan and Futterman (1998) define as a “stigmatized identity” since these youth must contend with the adverse impact of living in a heterosexist and homophobic society. Stigma related to being LGB and the concomitant isolation, rejection, and discrimination that many LGB adolescents face has been shown to be related to a range of adverse behavioral, social, health, and mental health outcomes (Blake et al., 2001; Garofalo and Harper, 2004; Rosario, Hunter, Maguen, Gwadz, & Smith, 2001; Rotheram-Borus, Reid, Rosario, & Kasen, 1995; Waldo, Hesson-McInnis and D’Augelli, 1998).

SEXUAL IDENTITIES AND ETHNIC IDENTITIES

During adolescent development, the value and importance of having a strong ethnic identity also becomes clear, and the individual establishes a more coherent sense of personal identity that includes ethnicity. For youth, especially youth of color, integrating a sense of ethnic identity into their overall sense of self is an important developmental task (Phinney, 1992). A positive and clear ethnic identity will likely facilitate a sense of freedom, security, and comfort, whereas a negative and ambiguous identity may lead to confusion and ambivalence. The unsuccessful resolution of ethnic identity development for ethnic minority adolescents has been associated with a host of adverse mental health outcomes such as low self-esteem or alienation (Phinney, 1992; Phinney and Chavira, 1992; Rotheram-Borus, 1990), negative affective states (Parham and Helms, 1985), behavioral and adjustment problems (Rotheram-Borus, 1989; 1990) and poorer academic achievement (Bowman and Howard, 1985).

Youth of color in particular experience unique challenges to ethnic identity formation due to experiences of both individual-level and institutionalized racism. Racism can be defined as the “beliefs, attitudes, institutional arrangements, and acts that tend to denigrate individuals or groups because of phenotypic characteristics or ethnic group affiliation” (Clark, Anderson, Clark, & Williams, 1999, p. 805). LGB youth of color must not only contend with the negative societal reactions to their sexual orientation, but also may experience racial prejudice, limited economic opportunities and resources as a consequence of racism, and limited acceptance of their sexuality within their own ethnic cultural community (Diaz, 1998; Harper, Jernewall and Zea, 2004; Martinez and Sullivan, 1998).

Some LGB youth of color may feel that they must choose between being “gay” and being a member of their own ethnic/racial group (Dube and Savin-Williams, 1999). This pressure to choose is perpetuated by a belief that the gay liberation movement and gay identification are White middle class phenomena, and that people of color who identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual reject their culture and family of origin to join the White oppressor (D’Emilio, 1983; Fukuyama and Ferguson, 2000). Unfortunately, youth of color also may experience racial prejudice and marginalization within the larger, predominately-White, mainstream gay community. This may be manifested through objectification and eroticization of gay/bisexual youth of color by White gay and bisexual men seeking to fulfill an exotic or sexual fantasy (Diaz, 1998; Han, 2001; Martinez and Sullivan, 1998).

HETEROSEXISM AND LGB YOUTH

Heterosexism is a pervasive oppressive force that can harm LGB youth at multiple levels, including the personal, interpersonal/relational, and social/community (Harper, 2004). Although it has been defined in various ways, heterosexism is generally viewed as an ideological system that privileges heterosexuality and serves to subordinate and stigmatize non-heterosexual people and communities (Herek, 1995; Niesen, 1990). Although LGB youth and adults may experience heterosexism and oppression in multiple forms within various ecological systems, Herek (1992) and Hunter, Shannon, Knox, and Martin (1998) assert that heterosexism is manifested in two primary ways: through societal customs and institutions (cultural heterosexism) and through individual attitudes and behaviors (psychological heterosexism).

LGB youth and adults primarily experience cultural heterosexism in either of two ways: (1) LGB people are hidden from the rest of society so that institutions and people of power do not acknowledge their accomplishments or existence, or (2) they are stigmatized and discriminated against (Herek, 1992; Hunter et al., 1998). Consequently, LGB youth often do not learn about the accomplishments of LGB people throughout history. Additionally, many youth do not have access to positive LGB role models in their environments since fear of harassment or victimization causes many adults to conceal their sexual orientation. The invisibility of positive LGB role models and historical figures denies LGB youth a sense of connection to successful others who share their sexual orientation, and restricts them from experiencing the positive impact that such an affiliation could have on their self-esteem. Cultural heterosexism may also adversely influence LGB youth through oppressive legal ordinances and laws that restrict LGB-identified individuals from having the same basic human rights and privileges as heterosexual cohorts (Swan, 1997; Wetzel, 2001).

Psychological heterosexism represents individual-level heterosexism that may be manifested through feelings, attitudes and behaviors. This phenomenon is usually discussed in terms of how it promotes and perpetuates prejudice, harassment, and violence against LGB people. Research has documented an alarming frequency of LGB harassment and violence that occurs among youth and adults, and the adverse effect it has on people who experience it (D’Augelli, 1989; D’Augelli and Hershberger, 1993; Garnets, Herek and Levy, 1990; Rosario, Rotheram-Borus and Reid, 1996; Schneider, 1991; Waldo, 1998). This is especially true for adolescents, who may experience bullying, harassment, and physical abuse from peers, parents, and teachers (Rivers and D’ Augelli, 2001). This violence can occur within multiple settings as well, including the young person’s neighborhood, home, and school, further adding to the traumatic nature of these events.

PSYCHOLOGISTS, PSYCHIATRISTS AND OTHER MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONALS AS LGB ACTIVISTS

Given the range of interpersonal and societal level factors that affect the development and psychological functioning of LGB youth, it is critical that adults who have varying levels of power and privilege in society work toward the amelioration of these negative forces. Adolescents often have a limited voice in public policies that affect their daily lives. Although LGB youth may work to change the negative societal views that others have of them (which often influence public policy) through community organizing and activism, they need the support of allied adults who can encourage those in positions of power to listen. Psychologists, psychiatrists and other mental health professionals who work with LGB youth–and who consequently have insight into the struggles that these young people face–are in an ideal position to engage in activism aimed at improving societal conditions for LGB youth.

Mental health professionals have strongly advocated for LGB youth through the development and delivery of affirming and supportive individual-level psychotherapeutic approaches (Lemoire and Chen, 2005; Hershberger and D’Augelli, 2000; Ryan, 2001; Ryan and Futterman, 1998; Stone, 1999). Although some may focus their clinical and research activities on traditional psychotherapy, they also may engage in other forms of behavior change efforts in the service of LGB youth. While individual-level approaches need to continue, psychologists, psychiatrists, and other mental health professionals can also expand their efforts to focus on societal or structural-level activism efforts that have the potential for long-term sustainable change. A structural-level change effort focuses on features of the environment that exist outside of individual action or control–ones that are built into the structure of the environment within which people develop and interact with others (Fisher, 1995; Mulroy & Austin, 2004; Revenson et al., 2002). This perspective maintains that most people are not consciously aware of the influence that these factors have on their behavior. For LGB youth, particularly those from ethnic minority and/or low-income backgrounds, structural determinants may include factors such as poverty, oppression, gender inequality, racial ethnic discrimination, and heterosexism/homophobia. They may also include more tangible intermediate structural-level factors such as availability of resources, physical structures in the environment, organizational structures, and laws and policies.

In order to improve the healthy development and functioning of LGB youth, psychologists, psychiatrists and other mental health professionals must consider exploring their current level of social problem analysis, and consider addressing the ways that historical, social, and structural factors may adversely affect LGB youth. These professionals also may consider taking an integrated and multidisciplinary approach to improving the well-being of LGB youth. Such an approach includes both altering individual behavior with psychotherapeutic interventions and seeking to change the societal structures (including public policies and laws) that oppress LGB youth. Psychologists, psychiatrists, and other mental health professionals are in an ideal position to affect positively the lives of LGB youth in a range of health-promoting efforts that extend beyond conducting psychotherapy, such as research, mentoring, teaching, training, and community work.

What follows are ways in which psychologists, psychiatrists and other mental health professionals can engage in LGB youth activism through structural-level change efforts, with a specific focus on: (1) raising awareness within the academy about the issues that confront LGB youth and the need for activism, while working to elevate the status of LGB research within these academic institutions; (2) creating safe settings in which LGB youth can be affirmed and validated when they engage in self expression; and (3) improving the capacity of local community organizations to advocate for LGB youth. One way mental health professionals can affect these extra-individual level factors and engage in LGB youth activism that has the potential to affect structural-level factors is through the development and execution of collaborative participatory research projects that engage community members and community-based organizations (CBOs) that serve LGB youth.

YOUTH-FOCUSED LGB COLLABORATIVE RESEARCH AS ACTIVISM

Collaborative research, strongly grounded in the knowledge of community-based organizations and community members, is a vehicle through which psychologists and psychotherapists can engage in critical forms of activism. This is especially true in working with agencies and organizations that serve individuals who experience varying degrees of oppression and marginalization in society, such as LGB youth. Serving as liaisons between grassroots activism and academic power structures, psychologists and psychotherapists have the opportunity to disseminate information about the concerns of people and communities who are rarely included in academic and policy discourse. For example, our research team has been using our collaborative research as a way to raise awareness of the issues that confront LGB youth of various ethnicities within scientific communities. Further, in the role of liaison, we offer LGB youth support by giving them a forum for sharing their life stories and provide community organizations with scientific data that can be used in policy and advocacy campaigns.

The study used here as an exemplar for promoting activism through research explores the relationship between multiple identities for gay/bisexual/questioning (GBQ) male youth from different ethnic backgrounds (African American, Latino and White youth) and sexual risk behaviors and substance use. This study has utilized elements of collaborative and participatory community research (Harper, Conteras, Bang & Pedraza, 2003; Oja and Smulyan, 1989; Suarez-Blacazar, Harper and Lewis, 2005) whereby GBQ youth are involved in various phases of the study. This includes involving them in the initial pilot testing of instruments, modification of the qualitative interview guide, validation of preliminary themes discovered after initial data collection, validation of final conceptual/theoretical models, and creation of modules and exercises for a new HIV prevention program based on the data.

The use of qualitative methods that give GBQ youth the opportunity to discuss the phenomena of interest in their own words and the collaborative involvement of youth in the interpretation of the qualitative data, model building, and development of the intervention will hopefully result in a more culturally grounded emic approach to the study of GBQ youth. This methodology is especially important with understudied groups such as GBQ youth since it incorporates the views of the culture-sharing group, as opposed to the more traditional etic approach that relies heavily on outsiders’ interpretations of the culture-sharing group’s experiences (Creswell, 1998). Additionally, CBO’s have assisted in identifying participants for the study and staff from these agencies and other knowledgeable community experts have provided feedback on preliminary findings to assist in interpretation. Through employing these participatory methods, opportunities to engage in collaborative social and structural change work have emerged.

Although there are benefits of psychologists, psychiatrists, and other mental health professionals forming partnerships with community agencies in order to address critical social issues that affect the lives of LGB youth, such partnerships are not without their challenges. Specific barriers to successful partnerships have included power and resource inequalities between partners; differences in the organizational structure, culture, politics and reward systems of universities and community agencies; disagreements with regard to outcomes of interest; time constraints and limitations on the allocation of staff time to such efforts; confusion and disagreements over the defining and redefining of roles; and management and governance failures during the implementation process (Gomez and Goldstein, 1995; Harper and Salina, 2000; McHale et al., 1996, Suarez-Balcazar, Harper and Lewis, 2005). Psychologists, psychotherapists, and researchers who wish to engage in such partnerships are encouraged to be mindful of the extra time and effort involved in creating and maintaining a mutually beneficial collaborative partnership with a CBO.

Raising Awareness in the Academy

Conducting LGB youth research in traditional academic institutions can become a way to inform and educate faculty, staff, and undergraduate and graduate students about issues confronting these youth and raise awareness of the need for activism and social change. This can be accomplished through formal presentations and colloquia at academic institutions in which the foundations of LGB research initiatives, including the scientific rationale for the work, are fully described. This approach integrates dialogue about LGB issues into existing settings for academic discourse, as opposed to creating isolated events for discussing LGB issues within occasional diversity workshops. Educating undergraduate and graduate students about community-based LGB research through guest lectures and classes, involving undergraduate and graduate students in LGB youth research, and mentoring provide multiple opportunities for students to learn about the societal level barriers that LGB youth face. In our own work, the presence of a research group known within the department to be studying issues concerning GBQ youth has significantly increased the number of LGB-identified graduate and undergraduate researchers involved in research. In addition to providing the students with valuable research experience through the research group, this gathering of LGB-identified students also provides students with an emotional and educational support network of similarly-identified peers.

This process is bi-directional, as graduate and undergraduate students can also contribute to the research through their own personal experience and insight. For LGB students in particular, getting involved with research projects provides them with the tools to communicate the issues of LGB youth, not only from their own personal experience, but also from the perspective of the youth with whom they have collaboratively worked. This partly removes the burden of personal disclosure when talking about the issues that LGB youth experience, moving beyond discussions of the student’s friends and/or personal experience to the shared experiences of LGB youth from a research and community perspective.

These efforts can have both short-term and long-term effects. In the most immediate sense, individuals in the academy who may not typically think about or address the issues of LGB youth will be exposed to presentations by faculty, staff, and students (e.g., Master’s and Doctoral theses), thus raising their awareness. Such exposure and awareness of LGB youth issues may also foster new academic collaborations, as other faculty and staff who are investigating related phenomena or using similar methods may join in research and intervention efforts focused on issues that affect LGB youth. For example, structural-level factors affecting LGB youth may also affect other minority group members, thus researchers and interventionists may collaborate through the academy to address the needs of marginalized communities as a whole, rather than solely within their groups of interest. Recently, a research group investigating individuals with disabilities invited our research team to participate in a conference roundtable discussion concerning researchers investigating stigmatized populations. Our presentation was able to focus on the shared struggles that both research groups face in examining the issues concerning stigmatized and disempowered populations.

With regard to long-range impact, continued scientific programs of LGB youth research, publications, presentations, and theses can serve to create a cultural norm within our educational institutions, and disciplinary fields at large, where such research is legitimized and viewed with greater respect. This form of academic activism and institutional cultural shift then opens the door for more LGB-identified faculty to be “out” in their departments and to engage in LGB-related research without fears that such research will be minimized or adversely affect tenure and promotion decisions. As more LGB faculty are open about their sexual orientation and develop substantive programs of LGB-related research, they then can serve as more effective and supportive mentors for LGB undergraduate and graduate students. Such structural changes, whereby academic departments become more open and accepting of LGB research and researchers, also have the potential to encourage undergraduate and graduate students interested in LGB research to attend. By increasing the number of LGB students in these institutions, we then increase potential for more student research on LGB youth issues and more social support among LGB students who are working on these social issues.

Despite the benefits of LGB youth research to the students and faculty in the academy, LGB-identified psychologists, psychotherapists, and researchers studying LGB youth must be aware of the possible challenges in investigating and presenting research about one’s “own” community. One challenge is confronting the legacy established by years of psychological research of pathologizing LGB identities, a legacy that still continues to this day with the work of reparative therapists and “gay conversion” treatments. In response to the pathologizing tradition, many researchers have sought to illustrate the “normalcy” or sameness of LGB individuals. However, the goal of establishing normalcy is at times in direct conflict with the work of LGB-identified activists who are concerned with emphasizing the different beliefs and perspectives that LGB individuals may have to offer society. For example, where some may want to communicate that children of LGB parents are the same as those of non-LGB parents, activists have pointed out the benefits of data that suggest that children of LGB parents are different or do have different experiences that are nonetheless still healthy and positive (Clarke, 2002). In particular, research has found that LGB parented children have greater awareness of oppression and are more likely to be tolerant of diversity. Psychologists and psychotherapists who work with LGB youth, and thus have insight into the struggles that these young people face, are in an ideal position to engage in activism aimed at improving societal conditions for LGB youth and to assist these youth in their quest for compassion, understanding, and basic human rights.

In addition, the presentation of research results may also become a difficult task for LGB-identified researchers examining their “own” community. LGB-identified researchers are keenly aware of the research, which they feel may negatively and inadequately represent their community. As a result, a researcher may be hesitant to present research that would portray LGB youth in a negative light, especially if this may support stereotypes present in mainstream society. For example, researchers may be cautious about presenting findings of the types and frequencies of risky sexual behaviors among LGB youth, for fear that such information would be used to support stereotypes about LGB promiscuity. A desire to present the youth in their “best light” may be exacerbated by the relationships formed in the collaborative research process with community agencies and youth. In an effort to avoid or decrease the likelihood of such events occurring, researchers should be sure to include resiliency-focused constructs in their study designs so that the strengths of LGB youth can be presented alongside potential risk-related findings. Discussing research findings with colleagues who have more distance from the study and population of interest (often referred to as “peer de-briefing” in qualitative research) may also help to avoid intentional and unintentional biased reporting of the data.

Providing a Safe Space for LGB Youths’ Expression

Participating in research may have an immediate positive impact by offering youth a venue for self-expression that often results in feelings of empowerment and hope. In particular, qualitative and mixed methods research can provide unique spaces in which underserved and under-researched young people may talk about their life issues through narratives and stories not bound by the constraints of traditional heterosexist quantitative measures that tend to dominate the LGB research canons. Even some LGB-specific measures which specifically examine the identity development process of LGB individuals are inappropriate for the LGB youth population, particularly youth of color. These measures were often developed from the retrospective experiences of White, middle-class, adult gay men and then were validated with these men, not with youth. Thus qualitative and narrative approaches are often more affirming and fruitful when working with LGB youth.

When psychologists incorporate qualitative interviews and other forms of narrative inquiry into their research with LGB youth, the thoughts and perspectives of youth are solicited, and hence validated. This sense of validation is important for the youth due to the pervasive heterosexism that they experience in a variety of settings, including school, work, peer groups, and home. Often the youth are not at liberty to discuss their thoughts and feelings regarding their sexual identity with family members whom they depend on for financial, material, and emotional support. In addition, youth may not be “out” to their peers, thus restricting them from the social support benefits of discussing sexuality and romantic partnership issues with their most powerful socializing agents during this developmental period–friends. As a result, the research setting may be one of the rare instances where youth can have their LGB-related developmental life experience solicited and valued without the fear of judgment, and hence validated.

In our own work, participants have been very excited to hear that a focus of our study is to understand their own unique experience as GBQ youth. Not only is this excitement communicated verbally by youth, but it has also been evident in their prolonged interest throughout the research process. In the development of the in-depth qualitative interviews, during which we examine the many facets of the youth’s identities, the research team felt as though a two-hour interview would be exhausting to the participants, necessitating a few breaks in the process. However, during the actual interviews with the youth, participants have often exceeded well beyond the two-hour limit, and in addition, most do not opt to take a break. When concluding the interview, some participants have expressed that the research has been inherently valuable to them, and as a result have sometimes overtly refused compensation for their participation in the study. Others have been hesitant to leave the research space, and have inquired about ways to get involved further in efforts to give voice to LGB youth.

After completing the in-depth qualitative interviews, some youth have remarked that the interview included questions that they have never been asked before. Such questions were seen as beneficial because they encouraged youth to reflect on their life experiences and examine their self-perceptions. Youth participants have shared that nobody has ever cared enough to want to sit and listen to their life experiences–especially those related to their sexual identity development process. Previous literature on gay identity development has focused on retrospective accounts (e.g., Troiden, 1989), rather than inquiries gathered during the actual identity development process. Obtaining the narratives of LGB youth as they are experiencing their identity development process therefore enables the youth to provide rich data about the many factors that influence their lives. Using this more emic approach to research also offers potential long range impacts by highlighting new areas for investigation that are based on the current lived experiences of youth as opposed to retrospective reports of adults. For example, a contemporary topic of interest, which has emerged in our study with this technologically-advanced age cohort, is the rising importance of the internet and the development of “online communities” that facilitate both the physical and emotional connection of different LGB youth. Having accurate and up-to-date data regarding the most current factors that are affecting LGB youth can help to inform interventions, community programs, and policy/advocacy efforts.

Youth have been involved in various phases of the collaborative research process, including assisting in the analysis of the data through theme validation interviews conducted in both the middle and end of data collection. This process is designed to ensure that we are indeed adequately and accurately capturing the youths’ voices and experiences. Based on input from youth during the mid-point validation interviews, we made changes to our interview guide to assure that we were capturing the complex web of factors that influence the lives of GBQ youth. By actively engaging youth in the analysis and understanding of the data, they are also learning about issues that face other young people in their community, which can serve to empower them to be further involved in various forms of activism. One youth in particular was very excited to be involved in the thematic validation interviews conducted part way through the study since he was interested in the issues that confront youth as a whole, and wanted to talk in greater depth about his own personal perspectives.

In providing a space for the youth to describe their unique experiences, however, researchers must be cognizant of the possibility of becoming overly invested in the youth’s lives and experiences, in a way that may adversely affect the researchers’ own mental health and detract from the research process. This is particularly important for LGB-identified researchers, psychologists, and psychotherapists who may have experienced some of the negative experiences expressed by the youth during the interview. The possible countertransference during the interview process may manifest in the interviewer’s inclination to move beyond the interview protocol into actual therapy or case management, which may detract from the data obtained in the research setting. It is therefore important not only to be keenly aware of one’s counter transference issues, but also to provide space for the interviewers to process their thoughts following an interview.

Capacity Building for Change

By forming mutually beneficial collaborative relationships with CBOs, researchers can share existing science-based knowledge and research. These organizations can then use scientific data as evidence for the need for their policy and advocacy efforts. The data can also serve to inform and guide the work of the agency itself, initially through the dissemination of information from the researchers, and later through the integration of that information by the agency. Research regarding LGB youth experiences, beliefs, and behaviors may provide a catalyst for subsequent critical dialogue among youth and adult organizers about the state of the community.

In our research, the data we are receiving represents the voices and life experiences of youth from over eight community agencies in a large urban city. Findings from this study, which are being presented back to the CBOs, will speak to the diversity of narratives and life stories from LGB youth of various socioeconomic and ethnic backgrounds. This will allow the CBO’s to understand better the issues that affect the broader LGB youth population in this large metropolitan area, and offering them information about the uniqueness of their specific population’s experiences and needs. Understanding these issues may help the agency to serve better a wider array of LGB youth since they may not be currently aware of certain sub-populations of youth, or of specific issues that have not yet been verbalized by their current population of LGB youth.

Just as the interview process often encourages youth to reflect on themselves as individuals, the data dissemination process may encourage whole communities to reflect on their current practices and beliefs as a collective. Sparked by new information about the community and the young LGB people who are navigating its various facets, this type of critical dialogue and community reflection is an important first step to community-driven social and structural change. Collaborative research initiatives can play a key role in this process and ultimately increase the capacity to develop informed social and structural change agendas among organizations and community groups.

In addition, psychologists, psychiatrists, and other mental health professionals can help to build the capacity of CBO’s by conducting educational sessions and trainings on developmental/psychological issues that effect LGB youth. In addition, they can assist community agencies by offering workshops and trainings on the development and use of research and evaluation tools, including key methods used to evaluate the efficacy of their initiatives. This approach is often most effective when psychologists work in collaboration with a range of staff members from CBOs (from executive directors to front line staff) to conduct participatory and empowerment evaluations of their community interventions (Suarez-Balcazar and Harper, 2003). Using participatory and empowerment approaches to evaluation involves CBO staff members in all phases of the process, during which time the agency staff are learning how to develop and conduct evaluations and thus are empowered to eventually conduct the work on their own (Harper, Contreras, Bangi, & Pedraza, 2003).

The advantage of possessing evaluation and research-focused data is that this scientific evidence can be used by CBOs in their policy/advocacy efforts, thus making it easier to refute the ideological and emotion-based arguments that dominate current political discourse. Particularly when addressing issues that affect youth, a scientific understanding of developmental and psychosocial factors is critical to making arguments about policies that positively influence LGB youth. However, scientific findings from LGB youth research are not always straightforward, and may have multiple uses and interpretations.

In addition to reporting the direct findings from LGB youth-focused research, researchers of LGB communities also may be focused on challenging the larger societal notions that being LGB is “abnormal” or “unacceptable.” They often need to be cautious about political forces that may misinterpret or misuse data because they are focused on promoting stereotypical images that characterize LGB youth as pathological. Researchers may try to predict the potential approaches that may be used by these political forces, resulting in strategic presentations of data in a manner that would not allow for such misinterpretation. Research, therefore, is a form of activism that engages in a potential moral conflict with individuals who hold very different values. As such, research with LGB youth can become a personal and very controversial topic, because attitudes and political rights may be at stake.

CONCLUSION

In sum, researchers are in unique positions to affect social change within their academic institutions and within community agencies that serve LGB youth. Through openly conducting LGB-focused research, researchers can raise awareness in educational institutions and in various disciplinary fields through sharing their work in presentations and publications. Additionally, the process of engaging in research for LGB youth has the potential to be personally cathartic and empowering for the young people who participate in studies. Finally, the products of LGB research can be used by CBOs and activist groups for making the case that critical social change efforts are urgently needed.

Despite the benefits of research as a vehicle for activism, there are possible costs for the person conducting this research. First, as is the possibility of most mental health-related research and treatment, investigating the issues and concerns of an oppressed and marginalized community can be personally stressful and taxing. Stress may be exacerbated when one is investigating one’s own community since this may lead to feelings of being personally charged and responsible for alleviating the struggles of the oppressed. At the same time, as the individual works to understand the issues of the community, s/he may relive the experienced trauma. This vicarious reliving of trauma can not only adversely affects one’s own mental health, but may also prevent reasoned thought in data analysis/interpretation, intervention development, and activism. Remaining invested in the topic yet objectively distanced is a difficult balance to maintain for the researcher-activist.

In addition, the combination of research and activism also bears significant costs in time and effort. Individuals engaged in this type of activism not only collect and analyze data, but also disseminate the findings in academic, community and policy settings. Given the lack of empirically-based data regarding LGB youth, researchers may feel heightened pressure to investigate and disseminate information regarding this misunderstood and understudied population in a timely manner.

It is therefore important that individuals who conduct research with LGB youth in academic, community, or clinical settings disseminate their findings to both public and academic audiences. As detailed above, the process of examining the issues concerning LGB youth and sharing the results with multiple audiences serves to bring attention to the multiple advocacy needs of this population. Giving voice to the struggles and successes of these young people through scientifically sound collaborative community research brings greater focus to these young people’s lives so that social action can occur. It also helps to activate and fuel structural change in both the academic institutions involved and the community partners. As these multiple institutions are transformed, this change can therefore reverberate throughout other influential systems and institutions, resulting in broader structural-level change. Psychotherapists, psychologists, researchers, and activists therefore all share similar ideals in changing the oppressive forces in which these youth live, and as this paper has detailed, this change can occur in a shared venue of research.