Queering mixed methods involves using queer theories to challenge the heteronormativity inherent in mixed methods designs. This article outlined attempts to apply queer critiques of heteronormativity and homonormativity at each integration stage of a mixed methods study, from design, methods to data analysis, and reporting. It reported an explanatory sequential mixed methods study, with 647 survey responses and 70 interviews, exploring the impacts of same-sex marriage legislation on same-sex couples in Taipei and Hong Kong. It illustrated how queer concepts of heteronormativity and homonormativity, specifically queer critiques of same-sex marriage, the privilege of monogamy, and monosexism, shaped the mixed methods research design. It discussed the opportunities, challenges, and limitations of conducting LGBQ+ inclusive mixed methods research beyond the Global North.
BadgettM. V. L.CarpenterC. S.LeeM. J.SansoneD. (2024). A review of the effects of legal access to same-sex marriage. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 44(1), 266–294. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.22587
2.
BehrD.BraunM. (2023). How does back translation fare against team translation? An experimental case study in the language combination English–German. Journal of Survey Statistics and Methodology, 11(2), 285–315. https://doi.org/10.1093/jssam/smac005
3.
BernsteinM. (2018). Same-sex marriage and the assimilationist dilemma: A research agenda on marriage equality and the future of LGBTQ activism, politics, communities, and identities. Journal of Homosexuality, 65(14), 1941–1956. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2017.1423211
4.
BettsD.HerbA. (2023). Queer connections and fostering inclusion: Reflections on qualitative focus group design. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 22, Article 16094069231205180. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069231205180
5.
ChanR. C. H.LeungJ. S. Y. (2023). Monosexism as an additional dimension of minority stress affecting mental health among bisexual and pansexual individuals in Hong Kong: The role of gender and sexual identity integration. The Journal of Sex Research, 60(5), 704–717. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2022.2119546
6.
CharleyC.Manickas-HillO.BartleyA.BuntingA.MarkK. (2023). The experience of bi-negativity in mixed gender relationships. Journal of Bisexuality, 23(4), 374–402. https://doi.org/10.1080/15299716.2023.2240325
7.
ChauvinS.Salcedo RobledoM.KorenT.IllidgeJ. (2021). Class, mobility and inequality in the lives of same-sex couples with mixed legal statuses. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 47(2), 430–446. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2019.1625137
8.
ChenY.-C. (2021). Gender identity, national identity and the right to self-determination: The peculiar case of Taiwan. In JaramilloI. C.CarlsonL. (Eds.), Trans rights and wrongs: A comparative study of legal reform concerning trans persons (pp. 133–148). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-68494-5_8
9.
CôtéP.-B.BlaisM. (2021). “The least loved, that’s what I was”: A qualitative analysis of the pathways to homelessness by LGBTQ+youth. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 33(2), 137–156. https://doi.org/10.1080/10538720.2020.1850388
10.
CreamerE. G. (2023). From margin to center: The design implications of a cultural component in mixed methods research. In PothC. N. (Ed.), The Sage handbook of mixed methods research design (pp. 393–397). Sage Publications.
11.
CreswellJ. W.Plano ClarkV. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Sage.
12.
DeJonckheereM.VaughnL. M.JamesT. G.SchondelmeyerA. C. (2024). Qualitative thematic analysis in a mixed methods study: Guidelines and considerations for integration. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 18(3), 258–269. https://doi.org/10.1177/15586898241257546
13.
DrabbleL. A.WoottonA. R.VeldhuisC. B.RiggleE. D. B.RostoskyS. S.LannuttiP. J.BalsamK. F.HughesT. L. (2021). Perceived psychosocial impacts of legalized same-sex marriage: A scoping review of sexual minority adults’ experiences. PLoS One, 16(5), Article e0249125. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249125
14.
DugganL. (2002). The new homonormativity: The sexual politics of neoliberalism. In CastronovoR.NelsonD. D. (Eds.), Materializing democracy: Toward a revitalized cultural politics (pp. 175–194). Duke University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv125jgrq
15.
FarrR. H.CashenK. K.SiebenthalerK. A.SimonK. A. (2024). Microaggression and discrimination experiences among diverse youth with LGBTQ+ parents in the United States. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 34(2), 551–567. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12919
16.
FettersM. D.CurryL. A.CreswellJ. W. (2013). Achieving integration in mixed methods designs—principles and practices. Health Services Research, 48(6pt2), 2134–2156. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.12117
17.
FishJ. N.RussellS. T. (2018). Queering methodologies to understand queer families. Family Relations, 67(1), 12–25. https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12297
18.
GallantJ.SluchinskiK. (2023). Non-gendered pronoun processing: An investigation of the gender non-specific third person singular pronoun ‘TA’ in Chinese. Discourse Processes, 60(8), 535–555. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2023.2255075
19.
GarveyJ. C. (2022). Queer survey methodologies. In StrunkK. K.SheltonS. A. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of queer studies in education (pp. 571–573). Brill.
20.
GuyanK. (2022). Queer data: Using gender, sex and sexuality data for action. Bloomsbury Academic.
21.
Haynes-BrownT. K. (2023). Using theoretical models in mixed methods research: An example from an explanatory sequential mixed methods study exploring teachers’ beliefs and use of technology. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 17(3), 243–263. https://doi.org/10.1177/15586898221094970
22.
Hernández-JohnsonM. J.BendixenL. D. (2025). Critical mixed methods: The imperative for critical inquiry and reflexivity in research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 19(3), 266–286. https://doi.org/10.1177/15586898241302955
23.
HolzerL. (2022). Legal gender recognition in times of change at the European Court of Human Rights. ERA Forum, 23(2), 165–182. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12027-022-00710-z
24.
HuangY.-T.HangY.-C. (2024). Relational well-being among lesbian, gay, and bisexual young adults in Taiwan: Before and after the legalization of same-sex marriage. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 21(1), 240–252. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-023-00895-z
25.
HughesS. D.WoodsW. J.O’KeefeK. J.DelgadoV.PipkinS.ScheerS.TruongH.-H. M. (2021). Integrating phylogenetic biomarker data and qualitative approaches: An example of HIV transmission clusters as a sampling frame for semistructured interviews and implications for the COVID-19 era. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 15(3), 327–347. https://doi.org/10.1177/15586898211012786
26.
JamesT. G.SullivanM. K.McKeeM. M.RotoliJ.MarucaD.StachowiakR.CheongJ.VarnesJ. R. (2023). Emergency department patient-centred care perspectives from deaf and hard‐of‐hearing patients. Health Expectations, 26(6), 2374–2386. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.13842
27.
KaoY.-C. (2024). The coloniality of queer theory: The effects of “homonormativity” on transnational Taiwan’s path to equality. Sexualities, 27(1–2), 136–153. https://doi.org/10.1177/13634607211047518
28.
KongT. S. K. (2023). Sexuality and the rise of China: The post-1990s gay generation in Hong Kong, Taiwan, and mainland China. Duke University Press.
29.
KuckartzU.RädikerS. (2023). Using software for innovative integration in mixed methods research: Joint displays, insights, and inferences with MAXQDA. In PothC. N. (Ed.), The Sage handbook of mixed methods research design (pp. 315–327). Sage Publications.
30.
LinanderI.LundbergT.AlmE. (2024). The gender minority stress model and/or cisnormativity? The need for pluralistic theoretical perspectives in improving trans health and medicine. Social Science & Medicine, 351, Article 116957. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2024.116957
31.
MalekuA.KimY. K.KagothoN.LimY. (2021). Expanding the transformative explanatory sequential mixed methods Design archetype in a cross-cultural context: The polemics of African refugee livelihoods in places of resettlement. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 15(2), 212–239. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689820936378
32.
ManningW. D.PayneK. K. (2021). Measuring marriage and cohabitation: Assessing same-sex relationship status in the current population survey. Demography, 58(3), 811–820. https://doi.org/10.1215/00703370-9162213
McCruddenM. T.McTigueE. M. (2019). Implementing integration in an explanatory sequential mixed methods study of belief bias about climate change with high school students. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 13(3), 381–400. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689818762576
35.
MeyerS. J.EliasN. M. (2023). Rainbow research: Challenges and recommendations for sexual orientation and gender identity and expression (SOGIE) survey design. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 34(1), 84–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-021-00436-5
36.
NashC. J.BrowneK. (2016). Queer methods and methodologies: Intersecting queer theories and social science research (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315603223
37.
PollittA. M.RobertsT. S. (2021). Internalized binegativity, LGBQ + community involvement, and definitions of bisexuality. Journal of Bisexuality, 21(3), 357–379. https://doi.org/10.1080/15299716.2021.1984363
38.
ReidL.NewmanP. A.LauH.TepjanS.AkkakanjanasuparP. (2022). A scoping review of LGBT + inclusion in Thailand: Policy proposals and recommendations. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 19(4), 1731–1746. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-022-00751-6
39.
RobertsonR. E.TranF. W.LewarkL. N.EpsteinR. (2018). Estimates of non-heterosexual prevalence: The roles of anonymity and privacy in survey methodology. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 47(4), 1069–1084. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-017-1044-z
SandbakkenE. M.SkrautvolA.MadsenO. J. (2022). ‘It’s my definition of a relationship, even though it doesn’t fit yours’: Living in polyamorous relationships in a mononormative culture. Psychology & Sexuality, 13(4), 1054–1067. https://doi.org/10.1080/19419899.2021.1982755
42.
Shannon-BakerP. (2021). Queering mixed methods research. In StrunkK. K.Anne SheltonS. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of queer studies in education (pp. 589–594). Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004506725
SuenY. T. (2025). Same-sex marriage in Asia: Understanding intra-regional differences in development. Journal of Family Theory & Review. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12628
45.
SuenY. T.ChanR. C. H.WongE. M. Y. (2020). Effects of general and sexual minority-specific COVID-19-related stressors on the mental health of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people in Hong Kong. Psychiatry Research, 292, Article 113365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2020.113365
46.
SuenY. T.ChanR. C. H.WongE. M. Y. (2022). Heterogeneity in the desire to undergo various gender-affirming medical interventions among transgender people in Hong Kong: Findings from a community-driven survey and implications for the legal gender recognition debate. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 51(7), 3613–3625. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-022-02352-1
47.
TeschladeJ.MotakefM.WimbauerC. (2023). Discrimination and normalization as an effortful social practice: An analysis of LGBTQ+ families in Germany. Sexualities, 28(1-2), 631. https://doi.org/10.1177/13634607231205819
48.
Van Eeden-MoorefieldB.MartellC. R.WilliamsM.PrestonM. (2011). Same-sex relationships and dissolution: The connection between heteronormativity and homonormativity. Family Relations, 60(5), 562–571. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2011.00669.x
49.
WarnerM. (1993). Fear of a queer planet: Queer politics and social theory. University of Minnesota Press.
50.
WongE. M. Y. (2025). Same-sex marriage legislation and implementation: Marital intention and barriers for marriage actualization among same-sex couples in Asia. Journal of Marriage and Family. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.13095
51.
WongE. M. Y.SuenY. T.ChanR. C. H.TepjanS.NewmanP. A. (2025). Inclusion of LGBTQ+ individuals in Hong Kong: A scoping review. Sexuality Research and Social Policy. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-024-01003-5
