Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Youth with Disabilities: a Meta-Synthesis
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Journal of LGBT Youth, 8:1–52, 2011 Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1936-1653 print / 1936-1661 online DOI: 10.1080/19361653.2011.519181 Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Youth with Disabilities: A Meta-Synthesis THOMAS SCOTT DUKE University of Alaska Southeast, Juneau, Alaska, USA This meta-synthesis of empirical and nonempirical literature an- alyzed 24 journal articles and book chapters that addressed the intersection of disability, [homo]sexuality, and gender identity/ expression in P–12 schools, colleges and universities, supported living programs, and other educational and social contexts in Australia, Belgium, Canada, New Zealand, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The articles and chapters empha- sized the diversity of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth with disabilities—culturally, linguistically, sexually, and in terms of abilities, disabilities, and related service needs—while noting that all (or certainly most) lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgen- der youth with disabilities possess multiple stigmatized identities as sexual/gender minorities and young people with disabilities. KEYWORDS Disabilities, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth, meta-analysis, youth Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people with disabilities come from diverse cultural and linguistic communities, have a wide range of abil- ities and disabilities, and represent multiple sexual orientations and gender identities/expressions. Harley, Nowak, Gassaway, and Savage (2002) de- scribed LGBT individuals with disabilities as “members of multiple cultural minority groups” who experience multiple forms of oppression and have “multiple service needs involving disabilities ... [and] identities” (p. 525); Bennett and Coyle (2007) referred to lesbian, gay, and bisexual people with disabilities as a “minority within a minority” who simultaneously “occupy [multiple] ...socially devalued position[s]” (p. 125); and Vernon (1999) noted Received 8 March 2010; revised 14 April 2010; accepted 3 May 2010. Address correspondence to Dr. Thomas Scott Duke, University of Alaska Southeast, 11120 Glacier Hwy, Juneau, AK 99801-8671. E-mail: [email protected] 1 2 T. S. Duke “disabled ... gay men and lesbians” are “people with multiple stigmatized identities” who “experience oppression singularly, multiply and simultane- ously depending on the context” (p. 395). LGBT individuals with disabilities are routinely subjected to homophobia, heterosexism, and ableism. Many also experience racism, sexism, classism, ageism, and other forms of social oppression. Vernon explains: “Impairment, which is a precondition of dis- ability, settles upon anyone, but the effect on any individual is very largely modified, minimized, or exacerbated by who that person is in terms of their ethnicity, sex, sexual orientation, age and class” (1999, p. 395). Homophobia, heterosexism, and ableism within the health and social services sectors, homophobia and heterosexism within the special education and disability services establishments and disability rights movement, and ableism among members of the LGBT community have marginalized LGBT people with disabilities, and—until fairly recently—rendered them all but in- visible in the health and social sciences, special education, disability studies, and sexuality studies literature (Duke, 2010; McRuer, 2006a; Morris, 1991; Shakespeare, Gillespie-Sells, & Daives, 1997). Fraley, Mona, and Theodore (2007) found that LGBT individuals with disabilities “represent a popula- tion that has received little attention in the areas of social policy, sexuality studies, and psychological research and practice” (p. 27); Morrow (2003) ob- served LGBT people with disabilities “continue to be underrepresented and marginalized in an already sparse [counseling psychology] literature base” (p. 70); Cheng (2009) acknowledged that social science “research on the intersection of disability, gender, and sexuality is limited” (p. 112); O’Toole and Brown (2002) discovered “no systematic research on the mental health needs of lesbians with disabilities exists” (p. 35); and Abbott and Burns (2007) noted “the voices of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people with intellec- tual disabilities have rarely been heard in [special education and disability services] policy and research” (p. 27). In recent years, however, a still nascent but rapidly evolving, increasingly sophisticated, and steadily growing body of empirical and theoretical literature has explored the intersection of dis- ability, sexuality, and gender identity/expression in the lives of LGBT adults (Abbott & Howarth, 2005, 2007; Hunt, Matthews, Milsom, & Lammel, 2006; LeBlanc & Tully, 2001; McRuer, 2006b; McRuer & Wilkerson, 2003; O’Toole, 2000; O’Toole & D’aust, 2000; Parkes & Wilson, 2009; Thompson, 2002; Thompson, Bryson, & De Castell, 2001). Unfortunately, much less is known about the lives and experiences of LGBT youth with disabilities. PROBLEM STATEMENT While the school experiences of (non-disabled) LGBT youth have been under-documented (Kosciw, 2004), the P–12 experiences of LGBT youth with disabilities have been virtually ignored (Duke, 2010). At present, only a Disabilities: A Meta-Synthesis 3 handful of studies explore the intersection of disability, [homo]sexuality, and gender identity/expression in P–12 settings (Blanchett, 2002; Blyth & Car- son, 2007; Carson, 2002; Corker, 2001; DuBeau, 1997). In recent years, how- ever, educators, researchers, and practitioners—representing a wide range of disciplinary perspectives, including special education, disability studies, school psychology, counseling psychology, clinical psychology, pediatric medicine, child and adolescent psychiatry, clinical neuroscience, gender/ sexuality studies, health education, cultural studies, social work, and school administration—have produced empirical works that document the lived experiences of LGBT youth in nonschool settings (e.g., supported living programs for adolescents and young adults) and nonempirical works that address the intersection of disability, [homo]sexuality, and gender iden- tity/expression in P–12 schools, colleges and universities, supported living programs, and other educational and social contexts in Australia, Belgium, Canada, New Zealand, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States. This study seeks to document the recent emergence of an international and multidisciplinary body of literature on LGBT youth with disabilities by gath- ering together, analyzing, and synthesizing these disparate empirical and nonempirical, international, and multidisciplinary sources. RESEARCH DESIGN In her paper, “Meta-Synthesis”, Bair (1999) detailed a qualitative research process that can be used to combine the results from multiple research studies or from a large body of research. She referred to this process as meta-synthesis. Bair explained the process of meta-synthesis—which she described as a distinct methodology—by comparing it with meta-analysis and meta-ethnography, two additional methodologies that are commonly used to review large bodies of research and systematically synthesize the findings. Bair noted: Whereas meta-analysis is a quantitative methodology applied to quan- titative research studies, and meta-ethnography is a qualitative method- ology used with qualitative research studies, meta-synthesis is a qual- itative methodology that uses both qualitative and quantitative studies as sources of data. Like meta-ethnography, it is an integrative approach in the phenomenological, or interpretive, paradigm of naturalistic in- quiry. It is concerned with understanding and describing key points and themes contained within a research literature on a given topic. However, it differs from meta-ethnography, in that it synthesizes studies from both quantitative and qualitative research. As such, it fills a void in research methodology. (p. 4) 4 T. S. Duke This study might best be described as a meta-synthesis of the empirical and nonempirical international literature on LGBT youth with disabilities be- cause the author systematically collected qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods research studies, as well as nonempirical literature (e.g., theoretical works, descriptive works, guides), and then used a modified version of the Stevick-Colaizzi-Keen method—a highly reductive method of data analysis frequently used by researchers working within the phenomenological tradi- tion of qualitative inquiry—to synthesize the content of these various sources of data (Duke, 2007; Duke & McCarthy, 2009; Duke & Ward, 2009). METHODS Selection Criteria The 24 journal articles and book chapters included in this meta-synthesis met the following selection criteria: 1. The articles and chapters explored the intersection of disability, sexuality, and gender identity/expression in the lives of LGBT youth. 2. The articles and chapters addressed one or more of the disabilities rec- ognized by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA) of 2004. Publications that described factors that place LGBT youth at risk for negative social, emotional, and/or physical outcomes (e.g., substance abuse, family problems, homelessness, school failure, mental health problems, suicide, HIV infection), but did not explicitly address specific disabilities recognized by IDEA were excluded from this meta- synthesis, as were publications that described mental health or community services consumed by LGBT youth without identifying specific diagnoses that meet IDEA eligibility