Technology Use Among Lgbtq Young Adults Experiencing Homelessness

Background

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer/questioning (LGBTQ) homeless young adults (HYA) are overrepresented in the HYA population; up to 40% identify as LGBTQ. LGBTQ HYA are less likely than heterosexual and cisgender HYA to access services and to be included in agency-based research. Further, methodological challenges in locating, treating, and retaining LGBTQ young people in treatment perpetuate their under representation in research. Thus conventional research methods often exclude LGBTQ HYA or compromise the quality of data collected, particularly with respect to LGBTQ HYAs’ high-risk and illegal activity. Homeless youth researchers therefore need a more effective way to engage LGBTQ HYA in research, particularly regarding their patterns of housing instability and survival behaviors. This study explored the forms, purposes, frequencies, and locations of technology use among LGBTQ HYA as well as their perceptions of how technology can be used for research with LGBTQ HYA.

Methods

Using purposive sampling, 40 LGBTQ HYA were recruited from agencies serving homeless youth in Nashville (n=15) and New York City (n=25) to participate in focus groups. The interview guide included questions about participants’ use of technology, the types of technology they use, how and where they access technology, and how they can envision researchers and service providers using technology as a way to engage LGBTQ HYA in research. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, inputted into the MAXqda software, and analyzed using grounded theory by three coders.

Findings

LGBTQ HYA participants reported using technology daily, particularly social media and social networking apps as well as email and texting. Participants accessed technology primarily via their smart phones or at public computers located at social service agencies and local libraries. They reported communicating most frequently with friends, partners, and acquaintances followed by service providers and potential employers. LGBTQ HYA participants utilized technology for three broad purposes. First, they accomplished a range of practical tasks associated with their daily living, such as accessing information regarding places to stay (via a couch surfing app), places to access restrooms, free WiFi, reduced-fare bus tickets, and the daily weather report. Second, they used technology to pursue educational and career goals, such as learning a foreign language, applying for employment, and enrolling in higher education. Third, they relied on technology to meet their service needs, such as finding the schedule of support groups or communicating with caseworkers. Regarding using technology to engage LGBTQ HYA in research, four broad themes emerged: 1) technology as a faceless and impersonal communication medium; 2) trust as a vital foundation for research; 3) homeless youth service providers as models of intrapersonal reflection; and 4) adult researchers as models of authority and experience.

Conclusions

Two important findings emerged from this study. First, technology serves multiple purposes for LGBTQ HYA, including practical tasks associated with daily living, as well as the pursuit of educational/vocational goals. Second, technology likely functions as a complement to—rather than a substitute for—face-to-face research with LGBTQ HYA, in particular regarding sensitive topics in which researcher-participant trust is a necessary foundation for ensuring credibility of responses.