Session: Mobilizing Evidence to Advance Lgbtiq Inclusion in Asia (META-LGBTIQ Asia): Community-Engaged Mixed Methods Approaches for Transformative Change (Society for Social Work and Research 30th Annual Conference Anniversary)

Background and Purpose: The legalization of same-sex marriage in Taiwan and Thailand heralds progress in LGBTIQ inclusion in Asia; yet, systemic discrimination against LGBTIQ communities persists across key domains, including education, family, health, economic well-being, personal security/violence, and civic/political participation. This symposium brings together four interrelated studies that apply innovative approaches to examine multiple sectors and facets of LGBTIQ inclusion, the gaps between rights and the ability to exercise those rights, and strategic social movements to effect transformation, with academic and community partners in Hong Kong, India, the Philippines, Taiwan, and Thailand.

Methods: Four studies employed qualitative and mixed methods approaches grounded in community-engaged and participatory methodologies. The first two studies utilized a mixed methods, community-based participatory research (CBPR)-informed Delphi approach with academic and community experts. Newman et al. used a user-friendly, multi-platform online survey, including ranking and open-ended responses, to assess indicators of LGBTIQ+ inclusion in 6 domains, based on an augmented UNDP-World Bank Inclusion Index. Puvaneyshwaran et al. used in-person focus groups to explore in-depth perspectives and lived experiences of LGBTIQ inclusion. Results were compared and contrasted to expand and contextualize understanding of LGBTIQ inclusion indicators. Chuang et al. applied a Capability Approach with qualitative methods to explore perceptions and experiences of inclusion among LGBTIQ individuals in three cities in Taiwan. Ghose employed a 10-year mixed methods approach to critically explore inclusion frameworks and strategic social movements based on intersections of health and LGBTIQ rights among transgender sex workers in Kolkata, India.

Results: Collectively, these studies demonstrate processes of developing and mobilizing mixed methods evidence regarding LGBTIQ inclusion to effect transformative change. Notably, they also reflect the integral role of CBPR principles in research methods designed to effect transformation: to ensure such evidence is grounded in lived experience; social, political and cultural contexts; and critical conceptual frameworks, such as social movement and postcolonial theories that inform LGBTIQ advocacy and social and legal transformation. CBPR-enhanced Delphi methods supported the deprivileging of academics as standalone experts, equally valuing the perspectives and input of community experts, essential to addressing the diverse experiences of inclusion among LGBTIQ individuals who occupy intersectional marginalized demographics. CBPR principles further supported realignment in the quantitative-qualitative hierarchy to value each equally, key to a Capability Approach to address the chasms between policies and laws, rights and freedoms, and the ability to exercise those rights. A CBPR-informed approach also facilitated emic understandings of diverse LGBTIQ individuals and transgender sex workers, revealing strategic understanding and mobilization of otherwise constrained opportunities to effect transformation.

Conclusions and Implications: Community-engaged and participatory approaches offer strategies clearly aligned with social work science to advance evidence-informed policy and practice to effect transformative change. Increased attention to the structural factors that enable or constrain LGBTIQ inclusion, complemented by privileging and examining diverse lived experiences of intersectional discrimination and exclusion, can inform contextually and culturally grounded, community-engaged strategies to accelerate LGBTIQ inclusion and human rights in Asia. Discussants, a human rights legal scholar and a social work researcher, will address LGBTIQ rights research and social movements.