Qualitative researchers encounter obstacles related to publishing, acceptability, research self-disclosure, rapport development, feelings of guilt or vulnerability, and opportunity that quantitative scholars often do not. Here we discuss our experiences with these obstacles related to one queer qualitative study in hopes that it will provide knowledge to the next generation of queer qualitative scholars. We begin by discussing the state of the field in terms of qualitative scholarship and queer criminology, then we discuss our own experiences doing qualitative queer criminology. Our goal is to show why qualitative queer criminology matters, that it can be done despite its challenges, and to encourage the field of criminology and criminal justice to become more inclusive of qualitative methodologies.
BlumerH. (1954). What is wrong with social theory?American Sociological Review, 18, 3–10.
2.
BowenG. A. (2006). Grounded theory and sensitizing concepts. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(3), 12–23.
3.
BrowneK.NashC. J. (2010). Queer methods and methodologies: Intersecting queer theories and social science research. Taylor & Francis.
4.
BucklerK. (2008). The quantitative/qualitative divide revisited: A study of published research, doctoral program curricula, and journal editor perceptions. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 19(3), 383–403.
BuistC. L.SemprevivoL. K. (2022). Introduction: Towards freedom, empowerment, and agency. In BuistC. L.SemprevivoL. K. (Eds.), Queering criminology in theory and praxis: Reimagining justice in the criminal legal system and beyond (pp. 1–12). Bristol University Press.
7.
BuistC. L.StoneC. (2014). Transgender victims and offenders: Failures of the United States criminal justice system and the necessity of queer criminology. Critical Criminology, 22(1), 35–47.
8.
CharmazK. (2003). Ground theory: Objectivist and constructive methods. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), Strategies for qualitative inquiry (2nd ed., pp. 249–291). SAGE.
9.
CohnE. G.FarringtonD. P. (2014). Publication productivity of criminologists. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 25(3), 275–303.
10.
ComptonD. L.MeadowT.SchiltK. (Eds.). (2018). Other, please specify: Queer methods in sociology. University of California Press.
11.
CopesH.BeatonB.AyeniD.DabneyD.TewksburyR. (2020). A content analysis of qualitative research published in top criminology and criminal justice journals from 2010 to 2019. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 45, 1060–1079.
12.
CopesH.BrownA.TewksburyR. (2011). A content analysis of ethnographic research published in top criminology and criminal justice journals from 2000 to 2009. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 23(3), 341–359.
13.
CopesH.TewksburyR.SandbergS. (2016). Publishing qualitative research in criminology and criminal justice journals. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 27(1), 121–139.
14.
DeJongC.HoltK.HelmB.MorganS. J. (2021). “A human being like other victims”: The media framing of trans homicide in the United States. Critical Criminology, 29(1), 131–149.
GamsonJ. (2000). Sexualities, queer theory, and qualitative research. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), The handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 347–365). SAGE.
19.
GhazianiA.BrimM. (2019). Queer methods: Four provocations for an emerging field. In GhazianiA.BrimM. (Eds.), Imaging queer methods (pp. 3–27). New York University Press.
20.
LombardiE. L. (2018). Trans issues in sociology. In ComptonD.MeadowT.SchiltK. (Eds.), Other, please specify: Queer methods in sociology, pp. 67–79. University of California Press.
21.
MatsudaM. J. (1987). Looking to the bottom: Critical legal studies and reparations. Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, 22, 323–399.
22.
McQueeneyK.LavelleK. M. (2017). Emotional labor in critical ethnographic work: In the field and behind the desk. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 46(1), 81–107.
23.
NashJ. C. (2008). Re-thinking intersectionality. Feminist Review, 89(1), 1–15.
PetersonD.PanfilV. R. (2014). Introduction: Reducing the invisibility of sexual and gender identities in criminology and criminal justice. In PetersonD.PanfilV. R. (Eds.), Handbook of LGBT communities, crime, and justice (pp. 3–13). Springer.
26.
PogrebinM. R. (2010). On the way to the field: Reflections of one qualitative criminal justice professor’s experiences. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 21(4), 540–561.
27.
RogersB. A. (2021). Researching while queer: A research note about a genderqueer lesbian conducting qualitative research in the Southeastern United States. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 24(1), 31–37.
28.
RogersS. A. (2021). Policy recommendations for incarcerated trans men in the United States. In JohnsonA. H.RogersB. A.TaylorT. (Eds.), Advances in trans studies: Moving toward gender expansion and trans hope. Advances in gender research (Vol. 32, pp. 109–124). Emerald Group Publishing.
29.
RogersS. A.RogersB. A. (2020). Tran’s men’s pathways to incarceration. Sociological Spectrum, 41(1), 115–134.
30.
RookeA. (2010). Queer in the field: On emotions, temporality and performativity in ethnography. In BrowneK. ANashC. (Eds.), Queer methods and methodologies: Intersecting queer theories and social science research (pp. 25–39). Ashgate.
31.
RossD. (1992). The origins of American social science. Cambridge University Press.
32.
SchiltK.LagosD. (2017). The development of transgender studies in sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 43, 425–443.
33.
SchiltK.MeadowT.ComptonD. (2018). Introduction: Queer work in a straight discipline. In ComptonD.MeadowT.SchiltK. (Eds.), Other, please specify: Queer methods in sociology (pp. 1–34). University of California Press.
34.
SumerauJ. E.MathersL. A. B. (2019). America through transgender eyes. Rowman & Littlefield.
35.
TewksburyR. (2009). Qualitative versus quantitative methods: Understanding why qualitative methods are superior for criminology and criminal justice. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Criminology, 1(1), 38–58.
36.
TewksburyR.DabneyD. A.CopesH. (2010). The prominence of qualitative research in criminology and criminal justice scholarship. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 21(4), 391–411.
37.
TewksburyR.DeMicheleM. T.MillerJ. M. (2005). Methodological orientations of articles appearing in criminal justice’s top journals: Who publishes what and where. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 16(2), 265–279.
38.
TylerK. A.JohnsonK. (2004). Victims and offenders: Accounts of paybacks, invulnerability, and financial gain among homeless youth. Deviant Behavior, 25(5), 427–449.
39.
WintersM. K. (2022). Queer pathways. In BuistC. L.SemprevivoL. K. (Eds.), Queering criminology in theory and praxis: Reimagining justice in the criminal legal system and beyond (pp. 32–44). Bristol University Press.
40.
WoodsJ. B. (2014). “Queering criminology”: Overview of the state of the field. In PetersonD.PanfilV. R. (Eds.), Handbook of LGBT communities, crime, and justice (pp. 15–41). Springer.
41.
WorthenM. G. (2022). Heteronormativity and the victimization of bisexual and pansexual women: An empirical test of norm-centered stigma theory. Critical Criminology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10612-022-09632-1
42.
WrightR.JacquesS.SteinM. (2015). Where are we? Why are we here? Where are we going? How do we get there? The future of qualitative research in American criminology. Advances in Criminological Theory, 20, 339–350.
