Abstract
This article critically examines academic scholarship in the field of nonprofit studies that pertains to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people and issues. We introduce the key tenets of queer theory, a critical theory which encourages questioning social constructs, to nonprofit studies as a lens through which to examine the nonprofit sector. Using a queer approach, we analyze the past research on LGBTQ issues along the continuums of whether the research subjects are active or passive participants, and whether the focus on LGBTQ issues is ancillary or central. We find a minority of articles, most written between 2015 and 2019, which position LGBTQ people as central and active participants in the research. We conclude by providing a research agenda for how queer theory can be applied to the nonprofit sector and argue that placing LGBTQ people and organizations as central constituencies in nonprofit research will facilitate social change.
Like the U.S. civil rights and women’s liberation movements, activism for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) 1 rights developed into an established and thriving identity-based social movement in the second half of the 20th century, consisting of formally and informally constituted nonprofit organizations and community groups. Designed to both provide services to LGBTQ populations and advocate for social and political equality, LGBTQ organizations and activists directly challenge the discrimination and inequality LGBTQ populations face in the United States around the world. Yet the study of such organizations, and LGBTQ populations as a whole, has largely been overlooked in mainstream nonprofit scholarship. However, queer theory has a strong history of analyzing and providing critical analysis into nonprofit organizations—an analysis that provides an important perspective on the ways nonprofit organizations reinforce dominant norms and sometimes fail those they are meant to serve. This article introduces queer theory as a framework to analyze the nonprofit sector and philanthropic participation, assesses the mainstream nonprofit research literature with respect to LGBTQ people and issues, and proposes a research agenda for queer theory to become part of critical nonprofit scholarship.
LGBTQ Communities and the Nonprofit Sector
Over the past 50 years, LGBTQ people have grown in visibility and gained important civil rights, but still face significant discrimination and challenges as a minority population. As of 2020, more than 13 million people aged 13 years and older in the United States identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender, the highest percentage to date (Conron & Goldberg, 2020). Research also shows that Americans who identify as LGBTQ are more likely to be women, people of color, younger, unemployed, undocumented immigrants, and/or of a lower income bracket and report lower levels of overall well-being, including financial, physical, and social metrics (Gates, 2014; Movement Advancement Project [MAP], 2018). This leads to a complex set of intersectional identities for an already vulnerable population and can be challenging for researchers to adequately address.
While LGBTQ rights and protections have generally expanded in the United States and around the world, there have also been periods of legal and political backlash with challenges to those rights. For example, while Botswana and Angola have overturned anti-LGBTQ laws, Kenya is upholding colonial sodomy laws (Human Rights Watch, 2019). Moreover, legal protections do not automatically change behavior. Even the most recent reports find that more than one third of LGBTQ Americans faced discrimination in their personal lives, workplaces, and in public in the past year (Gruberg et al., 2020). It is imperative that nonprofit organizations understand the unique needs and issues that LGBTQ people may face and how these issues might be different from their cisgender 2 and heterosexual counterparts.
In response to the needs of LGBTQ people and a shifting policy environment, a distinct subset of nonprofit organizations exists with the mission of improving the lives of LGBTQ people and advancing social and political equality. Recent research shows that, among the largest U.S. LGBT-affiliated nonprofits, revenues and expenses continue to grow (MAP, 2018). But the data reiterate findings from previous years that “fewer than 3% of LGBT people contribute to these major legal, advocacy, and public education LGBT organizations” (MAP, 2018). Public administration research has examined issues such as whether LGBTQ people are drawn to work in the nonprofit sector because of altruistic motives or the perception that the nonprofit sector is less apt to engage in overt discrimination (Ng et al., 2012).
Although mainstream nonprofit studies have been lax in engaging with LGBTQ issues and queer theory, an analogous set of activists and authors have considered the nonprofit industrial complex (NPIC) and how movements for social change, including civil rights, women’s liberation, queer liberation, and disability rights, are embedded within a neoliberal, capitalist, and vastly unequal social structure (INCITE! 2017; Kivel, 2007). Termed the “nonprofit industrial complex” (NPIC), the NPIC shares similarities with the academic industrial complex, and both industrial complexes simultaneously “constrain and enable transformative work” (Munshi & Willse, 2017, p. xix). For example, Chaudhry (2019) explored how transgender people have been missing from queer philanthropy. Beam’s (2018) book queers how the “nonprofitization” of queer advocacy organizations predominantly helps those within the LGBTQ community with power. McDonald (2013) used queer reflexology while researching a nonprofit organization to better understand himself, his positionality, and his power as a researcher. In another example, Rumens and Broomfield (2014) explored heteronormativity within gay-friendly organizations, specifically performing arts organizations. Indeed, though queer theory has been shown to be an important tool for understanding and examining nonprofit organizations, and scholars and activists have shown how movements for social change are often moderated and even co-opted by nonprofit organizations, the mainstream field of nonprofit studies has failed to consider this powerful critique.
This article examines the existing scholarship in the field of nonprofit studies that pertains to LGBTQ populations and introduces queer theory as a lens through which to examine the nonprofit sector. While queer identity has influenced scholarship and writing by nonprofit activists critical of the sector (see INCITE! 2017 as an example), this critique is often absent from traditional academic journals. As researchers who identify as queer, we found limited work which connects with our lived experiences and the ways we interact with nonprofit organizations. As nonprofit scholars begin to engage with critical theories on a wider scale, we argue that the needs of the LGBTQ population and LGBTQ organizations warrant additional research and can challenge traditional understandings of the nonprofit sector. Therefore, we pose the question: Where my gays at? Where is the representation of LGBTQ people and organizations in the field of nonprofit studies and how can studying these populations illuminate how to work for a more equal and just society?
Relying on mainstream nonprofit theories poses significant limitations; we might lack the tools (language and theories) necessary to explain the experiences of LGBTQ individuals as well as the context and challenges of LGBTQ organizations. Current theories often reinforce gender and sexuality binaries instead of understanding the diversity that exists within the LGBTQ community. Instead, we argue that by looking to critical theory, and specifically to queer theory, we can develop a richer and more inclusive theoretical understanding and bring visibility to the lives of LGBTQ people, particularly trans, bisexual, pansexual, genderfluid, and queer people who do not fit into binary categories. Although queer theory has been used in the fields of social work (Hicks & Jeyasingham, 2016), public administration (Lee et al., 2008), and management (McDonald, 2015; Rumens, 2016), we are not aware of work using queer theory in the field of nonprofit studies.
After analyzing existing nonprofit research on LGBTQ issues with a queer approach, we offer suggestions on how the field of nonprofit studies can incorporate queer theory to better understand how sexuality, along with gender, race, and other identity categories, can both structure and be reproduced in nonprofit organizations. Our recommendations include new research questions, the importance of centering LGBTQ communities in research, and how queer theory might offer new ways of approaching the nonprofit sector.
What the F*** Is Queer Theory 3 ?
Queer theory is a poststructuralist critical perspective originating in the works of Michel Foucault (1979/1990), Jacques Derrida (1986, 1993), Eve Sedgwick (1990), and Judith Butler (1990) that questions dichotomous understandings of the world. It challenges sexual and gender binaries, which view “heterosexuality as ‘natural’ and homosexuality as its deviant and abhorrent ‘other’” (Browne & Nash, 2010, p. 5), and their impact on society (see Callis, 2009). Queer theory explores privileged identities and how normalization, or deviation from specific societal norms such as heterosexuality, is used to influence organizations and the way people interact with them (McDonald, 2015). Queer theory has a rich history and literature of questioning power structures. Although one article cannot do justice to a whole field, we highlight key tenets and encourage the field of nonprofit management to build stronger links with those working within this theoretical framework.
There is no one definition of queer theory, but it is based around questioning, or queering, the basic fundamentals of social institutions to better understand how these institutions oppress the “other” (Filax, 2006). As Turner (2000) says, the premise of queer theory, “Begins with a suspicion: that the predominant modes of intellectual and political activity in western culture during the late twentieth century do not serve the needs and interests of queers and that perhaps they cannot be made to do so” (pp. 9–10). This is because queer theory posits that sexuality is a social construct (Sullivan, 2003). Central to queer theory is that it is oppositional to what is considered “normal” in the present cultural milieu (Turner, 2000). Queer theory fights against a single cultural definition of homosexuality, viewing the term itself as defined only by what it is not (heterosexuality) (Butler, 1990; Sullivan, 2003). Instead, queer theory argues toward a more fluid view of identity. By examining the various understandings, both culturally and historically, of same-sex and opposite-sex desires, queer theory explores how these relationships are a product of their time and place (Butler, 1990) and the entrenched power structures that shape these understandings (Foucault, 1979/1990).
The term queer theory was coined by Teresa de Lauretis in 1991. Foucault’s (1979/1990) The History of Sexuality, Part I provides a genealogy of how sexuality has been used as power, and Derrida’s work around deconstruction establishes the groundwork for queer theory being used to question the notion of fixed binaries of gender and sexuality (Miller, 2017). Butler (1990) and Sedgwick (1990) argue that the way we discuss gender and sexuality is too simplistic, limiting our understanding. Specifically, in Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity, Butler (1990) argues that most of our understanding of gender, and by extension sexual orientation, is based in time and place instead of being universal.
Similar to other theoretical frames, queer theory developed its own lexicon, some of which can be found in Table 1. Words such as “queering” have been used in so many contexts it is hard to know where they originated. Queering can be a verb that discusses both a way of analyzing organizations, texts, and other subjects in a queer (questioning) manner, but also as a way to make queer changes to organizations and larger social groups to disrupt the status quo. Words such as heteronormativity, homonormativity, heterotopia, and homonationalism refer to the ways that heterosexuals and LGBTQ people relate to each other as well as to larger communities. Queer theory has taken discourse and language as a primary subject, queering words, such as folks to become “folx,” and intentionally using curse and sexualized words in journal articles to illicit a response and bring attention to important issues.
Terms and Definitions.
Note. LGBTQ = lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer.
The methodology of queer theory is mostly theoretical, textual, and/or qualitative; little work is quantitative in nature by virtue of its rejection of binaries and discrete categories (Browne & Nash, 2010). Some work, such as Fleischmann’s (2009) reexamination of The Principles of Scientific Management or Tyler and Cohen’s (2008) study of The Office, uses textual analysis of writing and media to explore how traditional management can be disrupted. This type of research can demonstrate the ways gender and queerness play out in modern culture and how they translate to organizations.
When doing queer qualitative research, Plummer (2005) recommends using queer theory to bring issues such as gender, sexualities, and heteronormativities to the forefront politically. In other words, it is not enough to explore queer issues; queer theory should use qualitative methods to make political statements (Filax, 2006; Plummer, 2005).
Queer theory changes the researcher’s relationship with participants and the work itself. In queer theory, much like feminist theory, the researcher is also a subject with their own perspectives and traits (McDonald, 2013). Two prominent aspects of queer methodologies are self-reflexivity and autoethnography. These methods are used sparingly in nonprofit studies, but have the potential for wider application (e.g., see Harris, 2001; Kayal, 1991). Self-reflexivity allows investigators to question their taken-for-granted attitudes, biases, and thoughts in the field. This can allow a researcher who does not identify as queer to explore their own feelings and understanding of queer situations. From a queer perspective, self-reflexivity attacks the idea that some accounts are more authoritative than others. Instead, it explores how power is fluid and constantly renegotiated, and pushes the researcher to constantly question their own identity during the research process (McDonald, 2013). In sum, queer theory rethinks the relationship between the researcher, the subject, and the research.
Criticisms of queer theory include its focus on antinormativity and fear of being traditional, which can make it difficult to pin down a useful definition of queer research (Turner, 2000). One of the biggest concerns, though, is that queer theory tends to be based in U.S. and European cultures. Research exploring queer theory in African, Latin American, and Asian contexts is limited (for examples in an African context, see Ekine & Abbas, 2013; Livermon, 2012; Ombagi, 2019). Furthermore, much of queer theory comes from a White perspective (Leckey & Brooks, 2010). As queer culture is not necessarily the same for all people, intersectionalities such as race, gender, economic class, and country of origin should take a more prominent role in the way queer theorists understand society (Badruddoja, 2008; Leckey & Brooks, 2010). Bringing diverse voices to the table is a way to strengthen queer theory and its impact on knowledge production.
Queer Theory in Allied Fields
The use of queer theory in fields such as management, social work, and public administration can provide a framework for its use in nonprofit studies, especially around issues of understanding diversity, privilege, institutionalization, and organizational power dynamics. For example, McDonald (2015) used queer theory to question what normativity means in management research and used anticategoricalism, an approach wary of utilizing specific categories as they are perceived as artificially constructed, to understand how differences and intersectionalities affect organizations. Queer theory has also been used toward the queering of an organization (Rumens, 2013). This can be done, for example, by exploring the privileges of certain groups within an organization (Ozturk & Rumens, 2014) and how the heteronormative default can affect those associated with an organization, such as LGBTQ employees playing roles at work that fit into heteronormative expectations (Rumens & Broomfield, 2014). Furthermore, queer theory can be utilized to question and better understand institutional power structures (Bendl et al., 2008; Rumens & Broomfield, 2014) and the impact of normalizations on employee expectations (McDonald, 2015). For example, Bendl et al. (2008) use queer theory to question diversity initiatives. Through a queer analysis, they find that one of the major flaws of diversity management discourse is the creation of the “other.” From a queer perspective, the problem with diversity management terms such as “tolerance” is that they are focused on the majority being tolerant of a minority. Instead, a queer approach would look at the historical roots of tolerance, or eliminate the term altogether (Kapur, 2010).
Fields such as social work and public administration have also explored the ways that queer theory can be integrated into their research. Understanding homonormativity and homonationalism can help social workers better work with LGBTQ clients and understand the unique pressures and cultural differences that LGBTQ clients face (Few-Demo et al., 2016; Hicks & Jeyasingham, 2016). By moving away from heteronormative constructions of relationships, social workers can provide more individualized and appropriate support to their clients (Few-Demo et al., 2016). In other words, instead of expecting LGBTQ clients to act like their straight counterparts, a queer perspective allows LGBTQ clients to be understood in their own cultural milieu. In public administration, queer theory can illuminate how the worldviews of those in power, such as researchers, managers, and strategists, do not always match the realities of all citizens (Lee et al., 2008).
Although queer theory has developed as a rich, interdisciplinary area of study, limited nonprofit research has focused on LGBTQ people as well as LGBTQ organizations. Using a queer approach, we aim to better understand the existing research as well as how a queer perspective can challenge relations of power and taken-for-granted assumptions in the nonprofit sector. Finally, we will suggest a path forward that can incorporate queer voices and a queer perspective on nonprofit studies.
LGBTQ Issues in Nonprofit Research: A Critical Review
Research in nonprofit studies that specifically includes or focuses on LGBTQ people and issues has been scant and sporadic and has often reinforced existing power relations, including positioning LGBTQ identity as non-normative. However, reviewing the existing literature within the three key nonprofit journals contextualizes the ways LGBTQ issues have been considered, though only occasionally and more recently centering LGBTQ people as active participants. It provides the starting point for a future research agenda that integrates queer theory.
To identify existing research about LGBTQ issues in the nonprofit sector, we conducted a comprehensive review of three prominent nonprofit journals: Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, Nonprofit Management and Leadership, and Voluntas. These three journals were used because, as the top journals in the field of nonprofit studies, they show an overall trajectory of research. We also sought to build on Coule et al.’s (2020) review of critical nonprofit scholarship. We acknowledge that, by focusing solely on these journals, we miss research on nonprofit organizations in other fields which provide a queer perspective. We performed a full-text search for articles with the terms “gay,” “lesbian,” “bisexual,” “trans*,” and “queer.” After excluding articles with only a single/passing reference (e.g., where the gay/lesbian rights movement was mentioned as an example of a social movement), we identified 40 articles published over the past 46 years with varying attention to LGBTQ issues. The earliest research was a 1973 article titled, “Gay Liberation: An Overview” (Devall, 1973). Notably, 11 articles have been published since 2015. The existing literature varies on the treatment of queer-serving organizations, largely mirroring the broader social understanding of sexual orientation and gender identity, which has changed over time. Figure 1 shows the distribution of nonprofit research focused on LGBTQ issues from 1973 to today. 4 This figure divides the articles into those dealing with HIV/AIDS and those dealing with other LGBTQ issues.
Research on LGBTQ issues in nonprofit studies.
The focus on HIV/AIDS research, especially in relation to queer-identified individuals, did and continues to do both harm and good. On one hand, the examination of HIV/AIDS in relation to gay men inadvertently stigmatizes affected individuals and further marginalizes them. Rarely did nonprofit scholars capture the multidimensional, multifaceted, and fabulous nature of LGBTQ individuals, their lived experiences, and the LGBTQ nonprofit organizations they created. On the other hand, some of the research on HIV/AIDS highlights the struggles which members of the LGBTQ community and LGBTQ organizations face, revealing asymmetrical relations of power.
We assess the literature in two ways: first, through a lens of positionality and power, and second, through a thematic review. To assess the literature based on position and power, we developed a matrix to classify the work into two overlapping continuums. The ancillary/central axis explores the position of LGBTQ people in the research. Specifically, we ask, does this research focus on people who identify as LGBTQ or is it research that happens to have LGBTQ people in it? We noticed in our analysis of articles that some studies which looked at LGBTQ people and organizations only did so incidentally. With this axis, we aim to identify how research which focuses on those identifying as LGBTQ is different from research which uses sexual orientation and gender identity as incidental to the study, for example, as a control variable. Without centering queer people in nonprofit research, we risk not understanding their unique experiences and are more likely to make assumptions that reinforce the heterosexual norm.
Second, the passive/active axis questions the role of the queer person within the research, representing power. We ask, does the queer population have agency over their experience, or are they a passive/subjective partner within the research context? Do queer people have the opportunity to “speak” about their authentic experiences, or does the research talk about queer folx as a unified/homogeneous group and as different from the norm? As with the first axis, we noticed that the research did not always show LGBTQ people as being active participants in their experiences and struggles and instead are being acted upon. This axis specifically examines if LGBTQ people are agents in their own experience. Each of the researchers independently read and rated each article and then convened to discuss their ratings and come to an agreement.
Throughout this review, we conduct a queer analysis, even with respect to this continuum, which we recognize attempts to categorize the existing literature in a discreet way. While we acknowledge that our categories of active/passive and ancillary/central exist on a spectrum, the matrix focuses on working toward a central/active dyad of LGBTQ people within nonprofit studies, reflecting a queer approach. This review begins the conversation on what it means to study queer folx and how we can improve research. This typology also has resonance for exploring the ways that research engages other minority groups. Figure 2 shows our typology, with two example articles that represent each area of the spectrum. Also provided are the number of articles that were coded in each quadrant.
Queer continuum.
We reviewed the literature in the aforementioned journals thematically, which confirms limited attention to LGBTQ issues in the nonprofit sector, including around health disparities, donor behaviors, and volunteerism. Our review also finds that the field has been severely lacking in the development of knowledge about the organizations (social service and advocacy) that exist to solely serve the needs of queer-identified individuals. However, the analysis reveals future research that can advance the visibility and welfare of LGBTQ individuals and organizations within the mainstream nonprofit sector and academic literature.
Research Themes
LGBTQ issues and individuals first received scholarly attention in the academic nonprofit literature in the 1970s when the sexual revolution in the United States peaked. Beginning in the 1990s, LGBTQ issues in nonprofit research were almost entirely focused on studying voluntary and organizational responses to the HIV/AIDS crisis. Research expanded in the late 1990s and 2000s to include issues of inclusion, discrimination, and representation. Beginning in the mid-2000s, occasional research focused on identity-based organizations. More recently, research has examined the giving and volunteering of LGBTQ people and their unique motivations, often coming from queer-identified researchers. Using a queer perspective, we review the research based on the agency of those involved and the way perspectives on LGBTQ people have changed.
HIV/AIDS and the Nonprofit Sector
The first sustained attention to LGBTQ issues in the nonprofit literature came in the 1990s after the HIV/AIDS epidemic had been declared a crisis in the United States and new organizations had been established. Nonprofit and voluntary organizations played an important role in the epidemic’s response—providing direct services, mobilizing resources, and applying political pressure. The epidemic almost instantly received synonymy with the gay community, gaining aliases such as the “gay problem” or other more derogatory epithets (Levine, 1991). The equation of AIDS to queer individuals, and particularly gay men, was widely reflected throughout media and society—academia included.
The response by nonprofit scholars was to understand the impact of the AIDS crisis through the lenses of organizational theory, voluntary action, and philanthropic funding. In many of these articles, LGBTQ individuals are usually passive in that they are the ones getting the disease, as opposed to active subjects who created and served in nonprofit organizations dedicated to helping people with AIDS in the absence of public support. Furthermore, LGBTQ people are ancillary, where the focus is on HIV/AIDS organizations and funding that serves or benefits LGBTQ individuals.
In 1991, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly published a special issue titled “The Response of the Voluntary Sector to the AIDS Pandemic.” The nonprofit sector had been able to respond much more quickly than government to the disease and with fewer constraints, but also struggled to meet the need as the number of cases grew (Jellinek, 1991). The AIDS crisis led to the rapid creation of new community-based organizations, rather than having services provided from existing organizations (Seltzer & Galvin, 1991). Chambré (1991) writes, “Many AIDS organizations, like GMHC [Gay Men’s Health Crisis], began as social-movement organizations, became voluntary associations, and were later transformed into bureaucratic organizations” (p. 284). While gay men were at the center of the AIDS crisis, few researchers chose to feature them directly in their research. For example, Chambré interviewed volunteer managers over the volunteers themselves, and Seltzer and Galvin (1991) focused on corporate and foundation funders. This research was about an issue that had a strong connection to queer people, who were often instrumental to the nonprofit work. However, by not acknowledging queer people’s centrality in the AIDS epidemic, these studies did not allow queer people to address and normalize their own experiences.
An exception to research that glosses over the LGBTQ experience is Kayal’s (1991) use of autoethnography as a volunteer at GMHC. He writes, “Most volunteer studies simply ignore sexual orientation as an explanatory variable, concentrating for the most part on the organizational voluntarism done by and for mainstream Americans” (p. 290). In contrast to other research, Kayal (1991) explicitly addressed the ways homophobia shaped both societal and gay responses to AIDS—equating silence with repression. His impassioned article simultaneously critiqued the fact that most AIDS volunteers were White, middle-class gay men while acknowledging that the work and act of volunteering had tremendous political implications for the personhood of all queers and people with AIDS. “For gays, voluntarism in AIDS goes beyond rejecting homophobia and social marginalization; it is primarily a statement about survival, pride, and hope in the future” (Kayal, 1991, p. 303). Similarly, Winkle’s (1991) analysis of AIDS services in Chicago incorporated a power lens that showed gay men had greater access to AIDS services than intravenous drug users. Geographically, AIDS services were predominantly in areas where White, middle-class gay men were concentrated and distant from intravenous drug users, who were concentrated in predominantly low-income Hispanic and African American communities (Winkle, 1991). Intravenous drug users also lacked the collective self-consciousness that the gay community had. While not explicitly doing so, both articles incorporate important aspects of a critical analysis; however, only Kayal’s research placed gay men as central, active participants in the research. This centrality provides agency to those most affected by the AIDS epidemic and reveals embedded power structures.
Inclusion, Discrimination, and Issues of Representation
As society, culture, and politics began to change, perceptions toward LGBTQ individuals evolved. As advocates began to challenge laws and statutes in the 1990s and 2000s, scholars started predicting what this change would mean for the various sectors, including the nonprofit sector. Hostetler and Pynes (2000) were among the scholars amplifying discussions on sexual orientation discrimination within the sector. Their article outlined potential considerations, conflicts, and resolutions for nonprofit managers to navigate this new cultural terrain. The nonprofit sector is well-suited to enact policies that take into consideration all stakeholders involved, and Hostetler and Pynes sought to alert nonprofit managers to that opportunity.
Queering representation in nonprofits means we cannot argue for the representation of LGBTQ people on boards (Widmer, 1987) and in the nonprofit workforce (Rumens & Broomfield, 2014) without soliciting their perceptions of the roles they want to play, how they perceive themselves being represented, or if the existing structures need to be changed. Building a queer understanding of inclusion means not only questioning how many LGBTQ people are active within organizations but also knowing what roles they occupy, what communities they represent, how those intersectional identities affect community relationships, and how they interact with the larger cultural and political milieu. This shifts the dynamic from a relationship vulnerable to information asymmetry and compromise, to one that is more constructive and collaborative. It elevates these discourses from only focusing on diversity to active inclusion and participation of minority populations in decision-making and organizational leadership, perhaps even revealing new, more emancipatory practices (Fredette et al., 2016).
Philanthropy, Volunteerism, and Identity
The notion of identity serving as a motivator to “act”—whatever shape or form “acting” may take—is not new. Indeed, queer folx are donors, volunteers, advocates, organizational founders, and organizational staff. Giving patterns and one’s propensity to donate has received significant scholarly attention, but researchers have only recently acknowledged that donors are not a monolithic group. Drezner and Garvey (2016) found LGBTQ individuals are unconsciously motivated to give by their identity as expressed by their concern for campus climate for LGBTQ individuals and affiliation and socialization with LGBTQ alumni networks. Similarly, Dale (2018) questions the mainstream literature that has for so long assumed that all households (heterosexual and otherwise) base their charitable decisions on the same (stereotypically) heteronormative practices, such as jointly combining household finances. By interviewing LGBTQ people, Dale (2018) recognizes same-sex couples as worthy of academic recognition and reveals new practices such as couples’ independent charitable giving and a desire for shared recognition. Both studies engage with and focus on the lived experiences of queer individuals and recognize LGBTQ folx as an emerging and prominent category of donors, both as individuals as well as part of larger foundations.
Unfortunately, the study of LGBTQ volunteering has remained almost exclusively focused on HIV/AIDS organizations. In a study seeking to theorize the response to AIDS-related initiatives by gay men, Kayal (1991) writes, “The survey portion of my study revealed that GMHC drew its community support primarily from a group of men who generally shared life experiences as gay people.” (p. 297). The overwhelming support demonstrated in the volunteer response to the AIDS epidemic from gay men for gay men was largely based on the idea that they shared a common identity, and viewed this work as a way to take control of the situation. These identity-based motivations made the fight against AIDS more effective because gay men were mobilizing to ensure it was successful. More recently, researchers have acknowledged that there is not one shared identity, but multiple identities that exist within the queer community (Lewis et al., 2015). Instead of being ancillary and passive, Lewis and colleagues interviewed and surveyed gay and bisexual men about an issue that is unique to their lived experience—identity-based division within the gay community—resulting in a more central and active assessment of the LGBTQ community. Omoto and Snyder’s (1993) earlier work corroborated these findings with a national study of volunteers involved with combating the AIDS epidemic and advocating for resources on behalf of those affected. They emphasized the communal sentiments that Kayal (1991) mentioned, but focused less on identity. Molina et al. (2017) echoed these findings in a study examining volunteer burnout by centering Latino gay and bisexual men and transgender people who were HIV/AIDS volunteers. They found support for the idea that shared identity and personal experiences of HIV/AIDS can help to mitigate sentiments of burnout, arguing that such individuals “may have increased awareness of the challenges associated with volunteerism and thus be less susceptible to burnout” (p. 1242). One exception to the focus on HIV/AIDS volunteers is Taylor et al.’s (2008) comparative case study, which includes a lesbian organization. As this study uses multiple cases, only one of which is a lesbian-focused nonprofit, the LGBTQ identity of the organization is ancillary to the study. In contrast to the findings above, they find that the downside to identity-based organizational volunteering is that among close-knit groups, roles can become blurry and conflict can cause volunteers to leave the organization. Taken together, these studies highlight the volunteer experience and organizational practices for effective recruitment and retention.
Although limited, the work centering LGBTQ folx within public service provides important insight for nonprofit studies. LGBTQ people tend to be interested in careers in public service due to higher levels of individual altruism (Ng et al., 2012) and an inclination toward benevolence and social change (G. Lewis, 2010). The latter study, written before all states recognized gay marriage, found “the overrepresentation of partnered lesbians and gay men in the nonprofit sector” (G. Lewis, 2010, p. 742) as same-sex partnerships were the only way to identify sexual orientation in the American Community Survey. Both articles raise important insights because these studies center LGBTQ people as both donors and nonprofit professionals.
Organizational Issues
Much like the mission and issues focus, we find that there exists a limited scope and focus of the type of nonprofits explored with respect to the queer community. Studies are largely focused on AIDS-related organizations and admittedly mirror the political and policy landscape at the time. While there is opportunity to expand outside of this arena, the contributions of those works cannot be discounted. For example, we learn about the inability to do good work when resources are scarce (Chambré, 1996), but also how relationships between nonprofit agencies and other sectors enhance nonprofits’ fundraising capabilities (Lune & Oberstein, 2001). Even on the global scene, the focus on AIDS-related agencies reign supreme (Yu, 2016).
Recent works have shifted from AIDS-related agencies to examining other organizations that serve LGBTQ individuals in different ways. Using LGBTQ organizations in Romania and Poland as case studies, Nimu (2018) explored the impact of foreign funding, finding that these organizations often rely on international donors and do not have a diverse funding base nor a high level of membership, which affects their work. Specifically, it leads to international donors having a higher level of organizational influence and, therefore, influencing the focus of local LGBTQ issues. Exploring Chinese HIV/AIDS organizations, Yu (2016) found that, as government funding and political opportunity increased, the number of HIV/AIDS organizations increased, emphasizing the importance of government support in HIV and LGBTQ organizations. Lune and Oberstein (2001) center the LGBTQ community by studying three HIV/AIDS organizations, finding that they each focused on different areas of HIV and LGBTQ activism, allowing for specialization. Although limited in scope, these studies show the importance of government and international support in sustaining HIV/AIDS and LGBTQ nonprofits, as well as how these types of nonprofits focus and specialize, whether purposefully or not.
There is still the opportunity to examine and research other types of organizations that have emerged over the past decades, specifically advocacy organizations and LGBTQ community centers. Some LGBTQ nonprofit organizations do not operate from a place of scarcity and lack, but are thriving agencies whose narratives are underrepresented in the academic discourse.
Queering Nonprofit Studies: A Research Agenda
Our investigation and analysis of the ways LGBTQ people and issues have appeared in the leading nonprofit journals revealed only a minority of studies that both centered LGBTQ issues and gave LGBTQ people an active voice and presence in the research. Understanding the perspectives of the most marginalized individuals and how they are both affected by existing relations of power and express their own agency has been central to the work of many critical scholars. As queer researchers, we specifically call for centering queer voices from the margins rather than treating all experiences as equal. If scholars can understand the structures, organizing, funding, and experiences of queer people and queer organizations, a group that still faces discrimination and oppression, we have more opportunity to reframe nonprofit organizations as a whole.
The evolution of LGBTQ issues in the nonprofit literature largely mirrors the ways LGBTQ people have slowly gained visibility, rights, and personhood over the past 50 years. However, no existing research in nonprofit scholarship has used queer theory as a lens for analysis. We believe this is a missed opportunity. Rather than operating from dominant theories that assume heteronormativity and take the nonprofit sector as value-neutral, queer theory seeks to disrupt and question taken-for-granted assumptions. One significant influence queer theory can have for the field of nonprofit management is the tendency to question things that are defined by what they are not: The “non”profit sector is not primarily profit-driven and exists in relation to the for-profit and public (government) sectors. Similarly, homonormativity preserves heteronormativity as the norm, where LGBTQ people are similarly defined by what they are not: heterosexual and/or fitting within a binary understanding of gender and sex. Instead, queer theory can be used to question the dominant and taken-for-granted assumptions of existing nonprofit theories and demands an inquiry that is more open, inclusive, and perhaps even, revolutionary. Below, we present ideas for the ways nonprofit researchers can use queer theory to develop new understandings of philanthropic behavior and nonprofit organizations. These ideas are by no means exhaustive, but are offered as a starting point for future research.
Studying both mainstream and grassroots LGBTQ nonprofit organizations to understand how existing power structures are reproduced and/or challenged. A queer approach would specifically dismantle the notion that all LGBTQ organizations are monolithic and indeed, have a range of geneses, organizational structures, missions, constituencies, and stakeholders. Furthermore, significant growth and attention is currently taking place among trans- and Black, indigenous, and people of color-led (BIPOC) nonprofit organizations. Researchers could study these organizations to uncover their opportunities and challenges and do so from a queer or intersectional perspective that centers the multiple marginalized identities some LGBTQ people hold (e.g., understanding movement organizations like Black Lives Matter and their framing of Black Trans Lives Matter). Furthermore, rather than just writing about these organizations, or how they are being funded, researchers can use participatory action research, ethnography, and autoethnography to amplify the voices of the organization’s members and constituents and allow participants to discuss their experiences in their own words. Queer methodologies can help the field gain a better understanding of voluntary organizations, resource allocation, and competition.
Studying LGBTQ folx interactions with the nonprofit sector and their distinct philanthropic motivations. Individual identities can also influence LGBTQ people’s philanthropic giving and volunteering. For example, in Dale’s (2018) research on same-sex couples’ charitable giving, several White, lesbian female couples discussed their motivations to donate and volunteer to support racial justice. Understanding how philanthropic and prosocial behavior develops from one’s own social identity and creates empathy, understanding, and action for other marginalized populations could reveal new avenues of collaboration and community building among populations with different identities. This should include integrating research from the field of queer studies and becoming part of the conversations around nonprofits within queer theory.
Studying LGBTQ folx as a constituency to improve and refine existing theories. For instance, examining LGBTQ organizational funding and how LGBTQ organizations pursue resource acquisition may yield new understandings of resource dependency from an identity-based perspective. It could also show how people with other dominant identities (i.e., being a White, gay male) may have inherent power and privilege in LGBTQ organizations, or are seen as “more legitimate” than organizations that are trans- or BIPOC-led, questioning taken-for-granted leadership theories and revealing questions of equity and agency that are important for the sector to address.
Using queer theory to understand the “NPIC” (INCITE! 2017). As discussed above, queer theory could help to define the nonprofit sector on its own merits rather than in opposition to what it is not, and allows for analysis that extends outside current institutional forms. A “queer” approach to the nonprofit sector means questioning the notion that there is one dominant or “best” way for organizations to be structured and make decisions and raises important questions about power and accountability. For example, much as other identity-based organizations adopted governance structures that prefigured a more just future (i.e., feminist collectives) so too have LGBTQ organizations. Drawing on a queer approach helps us better understand the breadth of leadership and decision-making structures and more explicitly challenges us to “decenter” what we have come to see as “normal” or “mainstream.” Queer theory allows for the development of spectrums, continuums, and new organizational forms to emerge.
Again, we offer these ideas from a place of queering the existing literature, aiming to develop more research that addresses LGBTQ issues and people as an agentic and central constituency that inhabit multiple identities and from which nonprofit researchers can learn. By deploying queer theory, we create space for LGBTQ individuals and the organizations that serve them, thereby allowing them the unmitigated and uninhibited audacity to perform, critique, and challenge power as they see fit. By not centering queer folx as instrumental to the generation of knowledge, we limit our understanding of the LGBTQ experience. We do a disservice to society, the profession, ourselves, and, most importantly, LGBTQ people. We must become comfortable with questioning taken-for-granted assumptions to reveal and erect more inclusive truths.
Queer theory offers nonprofit researchers the ability to question “normalized” approaches, explore social constructs, and challenge power and dominance in the nonprofit sector. We also hope that this analysis can spur other similar analyses of marginalized, identity-based groups that have been overlooked in our scholarship as the field of nonprofit research developed. Most importantly, we hope we have affirmed the value and dignity of the millions of LGBTQ people around the world who still struggle for full equality and highlighted the ways they have used the nonprofit sector to support both their community and ongoing political work.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
