« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
SEXUAL ORIENTATION RESEARCH PHASE 2:
THE FUTURE OF LGBT RESEARCH - PERSPECTIVES OF COMMUNITY ORGANISATIONS
5 THE CO-ORDINATION OF RESEARCH
This chapter focuses on views expressed concerning the co-ordination of research on LGBT issues. It concerns two main issues. First, views concerning the commissioning of research are discussed, particularly on the roles envisaged for different public and community bodies in Scotland. Second, ideas about the dissemination of research are explored - highlighting the need for increased access to research that is produced on LGBT communities.
5.1 Commissioning research
The commissioning of research on LGBT issues was a topic that garnered much attention. There was a consistently expressed view that responsibility for commissioning lay mainly with the Scottish Executive, though there was also seen to be a role for local authorities and larger LGBT organisations in keeping any research commissioned relevant to community needs. In the course of discussion organisational representatives outlined key barriers that they perceived to have prevented the commissioning of research on LGBT issues to date, and based on these, some advice was offered about best practice in future commissioning. Each of these issues is explored in further depth in the following sections.
5.1.1 The role of the Scottish Executive
Organisational representatives articulated a clear role for the Executive in taking the lead in commissioning research on LGBT issues in Scotland in order to bring research on LGBT issues in line with that conducted on other equality issues. There was a general view that the Executive had the status, power and resources to better co-ordinate research in this area and to compare it to data gathered on other equality issues such as gender, ethnicity, disability and age. It was argued that other equality groups had appropriate statutory bodies who were best placed to commission research (e.g. Commission for Racial Equality for minority ethnic communities and Disability Rights Commission for disabled people), but that there was no equivalent body that could steer the commissioning process for research on LGBT issues, and thus the Executive was the only obvious body to fulfil such a role. While LGBT organisations - particularly large National organisations - were identified as having the potential capacity to commission research on specific issues (e.g. a gay men's health agency supporting research on smoking behaviour amongst gay and bisexual men), it was felt that this could lead to a piecemeal approach research agenda and result in considerable gaps in knowledge. In this respect, there was a recurrent view that the Executive was better placed to develop a comprehensive research programme in close collaboration with community organisations.
'Yeah, absolutely. It has to be a top down thing, there's too many … there's been an awful lot of research that's been ad hoc and random and you know not particularly coordinated and focussed and it has to be a top down procedure. …So from that point of view they are best placed. Because there's a lot of great stuff coming from central government in Scotland now, but it's all hints, nudges, and they are best placed to direct that even if not to carry it out directly themselves.' (Regional Group, Gay Men's Group )
The strong emphasis placed on the Executive as a commissioner of research on LGBT issues was rooted in the perception that it was the only body that had the financial resources to support such a wide ranging research agenda. The Executive was clearly perceived to be well resourced and thus able to allocate adequate levels of funding for research.
The role of the Executive, however, extended far beyond the financial resources it could potentially provide. Rather, there was a general impression that the Executive played a leading and defining role in social research in Scotland. Consequently, it was felt that its involvement in the commissioning and co-ordination of research on LGBT issues would ensure that studies were both objective and rigorous. Given that research commissioned by community organisations is sometimes criticised for its presumed partiality, it was seen as necessary for any future research to attract the attention and respect of both researchers and policy makers.
The powers of the Executive to ensure that research was properly and widely disseminated were underscored and it was felt that this could lead to increased public and community knowledge of LGBT issues. It was also believed that research carried out under the auspices of the Executive was more likely to feed into policy development than research commissioned by other authorities or organisations.
5.1.2 The role of other bodies
Interestingly, it was rare for organisational representatives to conceive any role for Whitehall departments in research on Scottish LGBT issues, though there was general acknowledgement that much of the research produced in England and Wales would undoubtedly also contribute to learning in Scotland. There was, in general, seen to be limited scope for bodies other than the Executive to be involved in research commissioning. Some of this is clearly related to an apparent lack of knowledge amongst community members of potential research commissioners or funders - apart from central government. For example, little mention was made of public bodies such as the Community Fund, or more charitable commissioners like the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Equally, there was scant recognition of the role of academia in developing research agendas - through institutes like the Economic and Social Research Council.
Where other bodies are mentioned in relation to commissioning, it is generally because of the contribution they can make in deciding the research agenda or the advice they can offer on how research is best carried out. For instance, LGBT organisations rarely conceived themselves as being sufficiently equipped in either expertise or financial resources to commission their own research - except perhaps for the larger national agencies. Consequently, representatives generally envisaged their role as one of guiding and advising the Executive in community priorities, as well as highlighting - where necessary - community concerns about approaches and methodology. However, there was sometimes concern that the limited resources of community organisations - and the lack of a national infrastructure for some constituent parts of the LGBT community - may mean that some parts of the community may not have the capacity to fulfil even this type of consultancy role.
'There is scope I think for research commissioned by the Scottish Executive to be influenced by LGBT organisations…but the capacity at the moment is not there for [some] organisations. There's no national organisation working on lesbian health, for example, there's no national organisation working on transgender issues. So I think although it would be a very good thing to have research carried out close to the community, we have to recognise there's a capacity problem and it's only going to be as the capacity is built up amongst LGBT organisations that it's going to be possible to do that kind of research in other areas of the LGBT communities' (Central Belt Group, National LGBT organisation)
Local authorities were also identified as being of possible benefit to the commissioning process because of their knowledge of locally based issues throughout Scotland. However, there was also concern that Local Authorities did not always have the necessary understanding of LGBT issues to meaningfully contribute to the commissioning process, as underscored by this representative:
'The Authorities which are given the responsibility for that commissioning have to have a basic modicum of understanding, and quite honestly, that's not true for Local Authorities in Scotland at the moment. I think it's true for the Scottish Executive' (Regional Group, LGBT Organisation )
5.1.3 Barriers to the commissioning process
In generating a research agenda and in thinking through how this might progress, there was much discussion of the factors that may complicate the commissioning process. The overarching theme running throughout this discussion related to a general perception that homophobia or transphobia - articulated by public bodies, church, media and wider society - had contributed to an omission or exclusion until late, of LGBT concerns from the research and policy agenda. Organisational representatives repeatedly argued that - in their view - prejudice against LGBT people prevented public bodies and institutions from funding research on LGBT issues.
'I think there is still discrimination within public bodies across Scotland and that's one of the factors which has meant that research hasn't happened in a lot of areas' (Central Belt Group, National LGBT organisation )
Discrimination was perceived by some to exist even within reputable research foundations and funding bodies. Consequently, it was judged that in the absence of enlightened professionals, that funding criteria often omitted any explicit interest in research on sexual orientation or transgender issues - though the same criteria may champion the need for research on other equality issues such as ethnicity. Participants who themselves had applied in vain for grants from public and academic institutions to fund research on LGBT issues argued that their experience of being denied funds led them to believe that research in this field was not viewed as being of 'institutional significance'.
Perceived homophobic attitudes articulated by the church in Scotland came in for particular criticism during discussions. It was acknowledged that church teachings still garnered a lot of support in Scotland and the transmission of derogatory attitudes towards LGBT people through the national media made life difficult in many ways, not least in attracting funding - including funding for research. Representatives felt it was usual for the Church to vilify any organisation giving money to LGBT causes and this was seen to engender a reluctance on behalf of funders to allocate resources towards LGBT research (and more broadly to LGBT services). On the whole, it was felt that funding agencies often avoided supporting LGBT issues in order to avoid negative publicity.
P1: 18 months ago…we were granted 200 by [Region] Council for publicity just to keep the group running, the [newspaper] picked up on this and we were front page headlines…They said they'd interviewed, in inverted commas, 'leaders of the church'.
Int: So do you feel this stops the research, or not?
P1: Definitely, I think it stops research, it stops grant aid. It stops our establishment as valid members of the wider community (Regional Group, Transgender Group )
Organisational representatives suggested that church attitudes also had an effect on the willingness of political leaders to be seen to support LGBT initiatives - including research.
'You know for any councillor to take a stand openly, publicly, and say that they support you know money being put into youth groups or something like that. You know it's suicide as far as the next local election's concerned, you know. So nobody is ever going to step forward on that and say 'Yes, this is what I agree with' (Regional Group, Gay Men's Group )
A further perceived impediment to the commissioning of research concerned the visibility of the LGBT community in Scotland. Recurrent throughout discussions was the perception in many communities that LGBT people did not exist amongst them.
'Because of the visibility, homophobia and repression, the whole thing. People just don't consider us, don't think we exist. We're invisible, we're not there' (Regional Group, LGBT Organisation)
At a national level, sexual and gender identity were often thought to be omitted from considerations of diversity and equality. Thus, put simply, there was little perceived support - particularly at regional and local level - for the allocation of resources to research issues which was seen to affect few people (or, as mentioned previously, to provide services for them). This places LGBT communities in a somewhat impossible position given that the only way of proving to such commissioners and fund holders that the need for research exists is by conducting some research in the first place. This barrier was felt to be particularly evident in relation to research on transgender issues. It was suggested that there was a much greater lack of public and political understanding of the existence of transgender people in Scotland than there was of lesbian, gay or bisexual people and that this led to much less support for research on transgender issues.
Finally, the lack of research commissioned to date on LGBT issues was also attributed to a perceived low importance placed by politicians and policy makers on LGBT equality relative to other policy issues. Organisational representatives felt that, in the main, LGBT issues were situated way down any list of policy priorities and this meant that limited research resources went instead to what were considered to be more pressing or more politically expedient issues.
5.1.4 Future commissioning
In addition to identifying the barriers to commissioning research on LGBT issues, representatives were also encouraged to think through some of the solutions that would assist in getting the commissioning process right in the future. Here, strategies again emphasised a leading role for the Scottish Executive. There was recurrent mention of the need for top-down support for LGBT research, in the way that consideration of many other equality groups is currently encouraged. It was hoped that this study of community research priorities would be a first step to the Executive adopting a more involved role in promoting research on LGBT issues, regardless of political cost. It was felt that such a stance could potentially legitimise LGBT research and lead other research funders and commissioners to begin to consider proposals on LGBT issues.
'If there are people at a fairly high level saying 'We are doing this and we doing this because we support LGBT communities' people will be coming and doing this research and that's because at governmental level we strongly support you getting equal rights, then I think a lot of the barriers are going to start to come down' (Central Belt Group, National LGBT organisation)
While some were content for the Executive to merely lead on and commission research on LGBT communities, others felt that some sort of policy statement or even legislative reform was necessary in order to protect and ensure that research on LGBT communities in Scotland does indeed take place - in the same way that research in relation to most other equality groups is a current priority. In this respect, simple encouragement from the Executive to conduct research on LGBT issues was viewed as not sufficient to guarantee that funders and commissioners would begin to take the research needs of the LGBT community on board. It was envisaged that such a measure would enable LGBT individuals and organisations to question funders and commissioners where they are seen not to support applications relating to LGBT issues.
Int: How do we overcome [the barriers]?
P1: Part of it's leadership from the top, from the Scottish Executive.
P2: Part of it having that legal framework. There is then an issue thereafter, not just in terms of measuring effectiveness but also people standing up for the rights that they have under that legal framework. But it at least provides the framework within which something can happen' (Central Belt Group, P1: National LGBT organisation, P2: Statutory Equalities Officer)
Wherever responsibility for commissioning should lie, there was a clear willingness amongst organisational representatives to be active contributors to the process - informing policymakers - and other commissioners - about community needs and priorities in relation to research.
5.2 The dissemination of research
Having access to research on LGBT communities was considered important - not only for community organisations and LGBT people themselves but also for policy makers, funders, practitioners and other interested bodies or individuals. The wide dissemination of such research was felt to be a crucial way of educating the public and relevant institutions about LGBT life, and ultimately a way of challenging stereotypes and changing attitudes.
One of the key messages to emerge from this consultation with community organisations is the limited access that they feel they have to research on LGBT issues - and this was perceived to be considerably more problematic for those outside the LGBT community. While representatives felt that there was some sharing of relevant research between LGBT organisations, this generally relied heavily on personal or professional relationships, rather than through any transparent or accessible system.
'I mean it's a matter of knowing the individuals and that's what's very much relied on…It's people giving of their own time, scraping together wee bits here and there...It's a wing and a prayer and a tuppence ha'penny here and there' (Central Belt Group, LGBT Organisation)
Consequently, even within the group discussions, LGBT representatives expressed surprise and interest at hearing about particular research studies mentioned by other participants. This sparked considerable concern within the groups, for if LGBT organisations themselves were unable to access potentially helpful research, it was unlikely - in their view - that it would reach the attention of the appropriate policy maker, funder or service provider.
'They're only accessible in the fact that they do get sent to us. But yes I think … yeah they're [the Executive] very good at sending the information so it is accessible to us. But then again because there's no general resource in this area it's not accessible to the general public I don't think, should they wish to read it. And I know things like that are available maybe in libraries but again is it available in your local library? Do people know it's available in your local library?' (Regional Group, LGBT Organisation )
With this in mind, there was a considerable mandate within the group discussions for greater accessibility to research on LGBT communities. There were a number of ways in which it was felt this should happen. For some, the role of public libraries as being valuable information points on LGBT issues, and archivists of LGBT research, were emphasised, particularly now that the repeal of Section 2a should quell any opposition from local authorities to such a plan. Equally, it was suggested that there was a role for a community organisation to take on the position of collating, archiving and disseminating research on LGBT issues - not just to researchers - but to the whole variety of potential interest groups outlined earlier. While some organisations of this ilk were said to exist already, they were felt to be limited by a lack of funds in the extent to which they could be national co-ordinators of LGBT research and information. Increased funding and support of such endeavours was seen as crucial in developing such services - and in turn widening access to LGBT research.
Collating and co-ordinating existing work was also believed to be of value in that it could provide a more holistic picture of LGBT lives in Scotland.
'…there's you know little pockets of research being done here and there about people's experiences of violence of experiences in the health care system, but just more generally to know what…to tie all the stuff together, what our experiences of our lives are' (Central Belt Group, LGBT Organisation)
Equally, it was suggested that an audit of existing research, of whatever scale, would be an important prerequisite to the development of any future research agenda.
'I think what would be useful is to find out what research there is...And you know so rather sit down and try and reinvent the wheel there is a case where you know quite a lot of work has already been done and it's how to pull that together' (Central Belt Group, LGBT Organisation)
There was recurrent mention of the value of having on-line access to research on LGBT issues, and some felt that any attempt at co-ordinating existing research should also provide online access to information and research. This approach was seen to be of considerable value to smaller - usually voluntary based - LGBT organisations, and also to rural agencies - who felt that their capacity to access and digest relevant research was severely curtailed by a lack of funding or personnel.
The Executive was consistently portrayed as the linchpin to creating greater access to existing and future research and information on LGBT issues. By hosting effective dissemination strategies, or funding other agencies to carry out such tasks, organisational representatives perceived a key role for the Executive. However, this focus on the Executive should be understood in the context of a general lack of awareness of other potential sources of funding and support for these endeavours, such as public, charitable and academic research funding councils.
« Previous | Contents | Next »