Exploring reflexive methodology as a pluralist approach to enhance mixed methods research on coping and livability among LGBTQ people in Sweden

ABSTRACT

The article explores the use of reflexive methodology to enhance mixed methods queer psychological research in Sweden, by analysing data from a qualitative research project on how LGBTQ people cope with minority stress from four epistemological perspectives. A descriptive, hermeneutically and phenomenologically inspired analysis showed that coping should be understood from temporal perspective, where ‘microcoping’ covers strategies used in specific here and now-situations, and ‘macrocoping’ addresses general strategies used over time. We suggest that this differentiation is explored in further research. The analysis then included a theoretically driven perspective using feminist theories and discursive perspectives. Three themes resulted describing different types of constant ongoing work, ‘existential’, ‘relational’ and ‘reflexive’, that participants utilized to carve out a livable existence in the world. We suggest that reflexive methodology can help produce results that can be useful in a local as well as an international context and in relation to different audiences.

KEYWORDS:

• Coping
• livability
• LGBTQ
• pluralist approach
• reflexive methodology

Swedish research in queer psychology is often situated at the margins of other established research fields, such as clinical psychology or queer studies, which creates tension. The current article explores the use of reflexive methodology as a possibility to enhance queer psychological research in Sweden and internationally. To achieve this, we analyze data from a qualitative research project examining how lesbian, gay, bi+, trans, and queer (LGBTQ) individuals cope with minority stress and microaggressions. In this introduction, we outline the challenges that we experience as mixed methods researchers in this topic area, present the pluralist approach of reflexive methodology (Alvesson and Sköldberg 2017) and how it has inspired us, and then contextualize the project and the original research questions before presenting and discussing our process of working with reflexive methodology in relation to our empirical data.

The challenges of doing mixed methods research in queer psychology

We often find ourselves in complex academic discussions based on the fact that we are clinical psychologists doing qualitative as well as quantitative work focusing on gender and sexual minorities in Sweden. We share the ambition of our more public health-oriented colleagues to explore mental health on a group level (e.g. Bränström 2017), and the ambition of our clinical colleagues developing evidence-based treatments to combat the negative effects of stigmatization and minority stress on an individual level (e.g. Pachankis et al. 2022). Additionally, we draw inspiration from international colleagues in queer psychology and other disciplines when it comes to utilizing critical theories in analyzing how justice can be promoted, as well as discursive perspectives in deconstructing, for example, hetero- and cisnormativity (McDermott and Roen 2016, Reczek and Bosley‐Smith 2021). Being in conversation with all these specific areas requires literacy in different methodologies and their diverse underpinning epistemological ideas. While some suggest that ‘mixed methods research’ is a way forward to integrate these differences by emphasizing the similarities between qualitative and quantitative research (Onwuegbuzie and Leech 2005), our experience is that mixing methods in practice is easier said than done. For us, as others have pointed out (cf. Moring 2001), doing qualitative and quantitative work comes closer to a feeling of speaking different languages.

While we adopt the idea of a pragmatist approach to mixing methods in our research, we also take seriously what this work requires of us. Expanding on the analogy of literacy and languages further (acknowledging its potential oversimplification), we agree that being both quantitatively and qualitatively conversant is pivotal if we want to enhance social science in general and psychological science in particular. However, addressing similarities between qualitative and quantitative research (e.g. Onwuegbuzie and Leech 2005) is, to us, analogous to addressing that Spanish and Portuguese have Latin roots and similar words. Even though this might be helpful in many ways to understand a language, it might not help when it comes to speaking a specific language in day-to-day practice. To do so, it is necessary to immerse yourself and use the specific languages. If you have the time, and the talent, you might become fluent in both.

The analogy of quantitative and qualitative methodologies as two different languages is, clearly, too simplistic. Quantitative methodologies span a range of different ways of thinking methodologically, with considerable differences between types of data and different statistical tools, such as frequentist statistics and Bayesian inference (see e.g. Lakens et al. 2020). In other words, the area of ‘Quantitative methodologies’ includes different understandings, just as a range of different languages are spoken in a country such as Spain. The same is true for qualitative approaches: doing a qualitative realist-based content analysis is different from descriptive or interpretative phenomenology, which, in turn, is different from diverse discursive approaches. Very few researchers are knowledgeable and skillful in these diverse methodologies to the extent that they can do high-quality work in all of them, or even engage in constructive conversations about all of them. A main challenge for us has been how we can produce qualitative research that would help us converse with, and hopefully contribute knowledge to, diverse groups of colleagues in overlapping topic areas that are speaking ‘different methodological languages’.

Enhancing queer psychology in Sweden and contributing internationally?

Mixing methods in research on sexual and gender minorities is complicated by our specific context. We are based in Sweden, where any kind of LGBTQ psychology has been mostly non-existent, and few psychological studies have been conducted focusing on LGBTQ people’s living conditions or health before 2010 (see Lundberg and Wurm 2016). Since then, several psychological studies have been conducted, but this research has mostly been quantitative (e.g. Bränström 2017) or has focused on specific life areas (e.g. Malmquist 2016). In the Swedish context, our project can thus be seen as groundbreaking research. However, in an international context, it is not. It is as if we have not caught up with the anglophone world (cf. Horne 2020). Therefore, another main question for us has been how we can develop analyses in ways that are both descriptive, focusing on participants’ experiences, which is knowledge needed nationally, and interpretative, to make a more theoretical contribution to the topic area internationally. This has become especially important as we engage in increasing numbers of diverse projects.

Opening new possibilities for Swedish queer psychology with reflexive methodology

With these challenges as a backdrop, choosing one specific methodology over another, or trying to do qualitative research that would resonate with a ‘quantitative audience’ only, has not been an option. Instead, inspired by others, we have viewed methodological pluralism (e.g., Scharff 2011), where different nuances in the same data can be analyzed (Clarke et al. 2015), as an interesting route to explore. More specifically, we have been inspired by Alvesson and Sköldberg’s (2017) ideas of reflexive methodology. Here, several different qualitative methodologies commonly used in psychology are utilized in different parts of the research process, producing different kinds of results. Building on pluralist perspectives, Alvesson and Sköldberg (2017) suggest that most social science researchers leave their qualitative data too early. Their model of ‘reflexive methodology’ is meant to guide researchers to stay with the data and move, reflexively, on different interpretative levels to enhance a differentiated and rich understanding of the material, without favoring one interpretation over another. This reflexive movement helps researchers understand the taken for granted assumptions that frame our, perhaps premature, interpretations and opens alternative understandings. They thus suggest an epistemological, rather than ontological, pluralist position (Clarke et al. 2015).

Their model of reflexivity consists of four levels of interpretations. The first level is inspired by methodologies such as realistic grounded theory (Glaser and Strauss 1967) and involves being systematic in generating, engaging with, and analyzing data as well as staying close to the empirical material by being very descriptive. Just like Glaser and Strauss (1967) intended in the sociological field, the grounding (and perhaps ‘re-grounding’) of psychological theories in the lived experiences of people is important. As such, more content-oriented or descriptive categorizations can be important in inspiring further hypo-deductive studies. Alvesson and Sköldberg (2017) also note, however, that the risks with content-based analyses are that they become naïve and under-theorize the importance of interpretation as inherent in ‘describing’ (also see Henwood and Pidgeon 2003). This is why they suggest that researchers should continue to analyze their data.

The second level is more hermeneutic and/or phenomenological. Inspired by scholars such as Gadamer, Husserl, and Heidegger, Alvesson and Sköldberg (2017) urge researchers to consider the importance of interpretation when being in and understanding the world. With a focus on subjectivity and intentionality, rather than (only) the object of study, more texture of experiencing can be described.

However, some hermeneutic and phenomenological analyses risk underestimating the importance of power relations while focusing on subjectivity. This prompts Alvesson and Sköldberg (2017) to suggest researchers to do a third level analysis, utilizing understandings from critical theory and feminist thinking. They urge that researchers attend to the political, ethical, and ideological nature of the data and the research on a more general level, and that analyses might support or challenge social conditions.

Finally, they also recognize the importance of attending critically to language and suggest that researchers draw on postmodern and poststructuralist understandings to reflect upon aspects such as representation and authority in the research material and the process. This involves understanding texts and empirical data as fragmented, uncontrollable, and constantly shifting. However, just staying with a postmodern-inspired deconstruction of the research is not the end point. Thus, the fourth step is not the ‘final’ stage of the analysis. Instead, all levels of these analyses present various voices or perspectives on the material and should be taken into account. This reflects Marcus’ (1994) ideas about reflexive research, which involves finding ‘unexpected connections and thus new descriptions of old realities and, in so doing, to critically displace sets of representations that no longer seem to account for the worlds we thought we knew’ (p. 391). The goal for the researcher is thus not to reach an authoritative conclusion that is presented to the reader as a result but should rather invite the reader to a dialogue on the diverse ways of relating to and learning from the material.

Drawing on these several different qualitative traditions, Alvesson and Sköldberg (2017) suggest that this model can be understood as a meta-methodology or as a form of quadruple hermeneutics. In this meta-methodology we saw an opportunity to do several different analyses on the same material in the project, which would help us stay in dialogue with different parts of the topic area.

Grounding the project in theories on minority stress, microaggressions, and coping

In the process of writing the first Swedish textbook on LGBTQ psychology in 2017 (Lundberg et al. 2017), we realized that we had very few Swedish studies to cite in the book. Given the scarcity of research on LGBTQ people’s experiences of social stigma and mental health in Sweden, we decided to initiate a project focusing on these issues. In international studies, elevated rates of mental health issues among LGBTQ people were at this time already commonly explained using the minority stress model (Meyer 1995, 2003). The model suggests that exposure to distal stressors such as discrimination and violence, as well as proximal factors, such as internalizing societal LGBTQ negative attitudes, contribute to negative health outcomes. While the model initially focused on gay men, it has, in the last 20 years, been developed to include lesbian and bisexual people (Meyer 2003) as well as transpeople (Tebbe and Moradi 2016).

The model has empirical support (e.g., de Lange et al. 2022, Meyer et al. 2021, Testa et al. 2017), but has also been criticized and extended (for a summary of these developments, see Frost & Meyer 2023). For example, Hatzenbuehler (2009) has highlighted how different psychological mediation processes can explain how minority stress affects the individual, which should be seen as an extension of the model (Frost and Meyer 2023). Additionally, negative interpersonal interactions such as microaggressions (Nadal 2013), including hetero- and cisnormative language and assumptions, harassment, disapproval and/or stereotyping of LGBTQ experiences, exotification, pathologizing and denial of normativity, have not been explicitly included in the minority stress model until recently (Frost and Meyer 2023). Finally, several commentators have pointed out that coping, which was a part of the original model (Meyer 1995), has been researched to a lesser extent than exposure to distal and proximal stressors (e.g. Colpitts and Gahagan 2016, Hall 2018). However, to understand how to promote wellbeing, focusing on protective factors, such as coping, is crucial and should, according to Frost and Meyer (2023), be included when working based on the minority stress framework.

LGBTQ people in Sweden also report significantly poorer mental health than heterosexual cisgender people (Swedish National Board of Health 2014, 2015), despite Sweden being one of the most liberal countries in the world when it comes to LGBTQ issues (Flores 2021). Based on this empirical fact, our aims were twofold: first, to generally explore the utility of theories of minority stress and microaggressions in understanding the experiences of LGBTQ people in a Swedish context, and second, to specifically examine how LGBTQ individuals cope with potential negative experiences. Using Alvesson and Sköldberg (2017), these very descriptive aims would be compatible with their first and second level interpretation of the data. We hoped that our results on experiences of minority stress and microaggressions could become corroborating evidence in an international context (e.g. Kelle 2006), and hoped that we could contribute some context-sensitive insights to the growing qualitative research on coping and resilience in the topic area (e.g. Asakura 2017, Bry et al. 2017, Singh et al. 2011).

During a two-year long project, we conducted interviews with 86 LGBTQ people. The first paper based on this data provided a descriptive analysis of 34 young LGBTQ people’s experiences of minority stress and microaggressions and how they cope with these situations (Lundberg et al., 2022a). The second paper descriptively explored how 46 sexual minority women experience minority stress and microaggressions (Malmquist et al. 2023) while a third article explored the experiences of 25 sexual minority men. All these texts apply what Alvesson and Sköldberg (2017) would define as first and second level analyses of data. In other words, descriptions and interpretations at face value were given precedence in the analysis and reporting of results. In this paper we return to these analyses to summarize the results across studies with a specific focus on coping and discuss the methodological merits of Alvesson and Sköldberg’s (2017) two first steps in their reflexive methodology.

Moving beyond descriptive levels of data and addressing epistemological critique

Drawing on Alvesson and Sköldberg’s (2017) reflexive methodology, the results of the first two interpretative steps do not consider all potentiality in the data. As they suggest in their model, critical theory as well as postmodernism and poststructuralism can be used to attend to political and discursive aspects of the material. Critiques of research using the minority stress model also highlight the importance of addressing these levels. For example, critical psychologists argue that studies using the minority stress model continue to focus on the impact on the individual and thus risk individualizing societal oppression (McDermott and Roen 2016; Riggs and Treharne 2017). This individualization of minority stress renders the social ideologies, such as hetero- and cisnormativity, that give rise to both the minority position and the stress in the first place, invisible. This also has implications for how protective factors, such as coping, can and should be understood theoretically.

Inspired by other researchers employing critical and discursive theories to better understand LGBTQ people’s living conditions (Linander et al. 2019, McDermott and Roen 2016), we utilized Alvesson and Sköldberg’s (2017) third and fourth level analysis on a part of the data from the project. This resulted in an article focusing on 29 trans people’s experiences (Lundberg et al. 2022a), which were analyzed from a theoretically driven perspective where theories on minority stress, microaggressions, and coping were put in conversation with critical and feminist theories formulated by Butler (2004) and Hochschild (1979). In that study, we conclude that utilizing theories by Butler and Hochschild in analyzing the data helps us address aspects of the data that were otherwise hard to capture. Our experience was that we were able to describe old realities in new ways, just like Marcus (1994) envisioned, by using reflexive methodology.

In addition to presenting the results of the first two level analyses of reflexive methodology (Alvesson and Sköldberg 2017), we extend our earlier studies and discuss the third and fourth level analyses in this paper with a focus on coping, and end with reflections on the potentials and problems of using reflexive methodology more generally. Below, we present the empirical material and how we have analyzed the data in different phases of the research project, before presenting and discussing the results from the analyses on different levels.

Empirical material and processes of analysis

The research project was approved by the Ethics Review Board in Stockholm (Dnr 2018/330) and the Ethics Review Authority (Dnr 2021–05834–02) and has been conducted in line with the Helsinki declaration.

Interviews were done with 86 LGBTQ people in Sweden aged 17–80 years (mean age = 36,5 years). Among the participants, 49 identified as women, 25 as men and 15 as non-binary, agender or genderqueer. Of these, 57 participants were cis and 29 trans. Furthermore, 28 participants identified as bisexual, pansexual or panromantic, 39 as lesbian, gay or homosexual, five as queer, one as heterosexual/queer, three as asexual and 10 did not mention or define their sexuality. The participants came from different locations, both urban and rural. Most were working at the time of the interview, but some were studying, unemployed or retired. Due to prevailing discourses and historical reasons that make inquiries about ethnicity problematic in Sweden (see Osanami Törngren 2022), we did not ask participants about their ethnicity. However, 10 participants described experiences of being racialized or experiencing racism, of which most were recruited after an announcement where we specifically called for participants with such experiences.

Participants were recruited via social media platforms in 2018–2020. Before the interview, they were given information about the project, had the opportunity to ask questions and gave informed consent. The interviews were semi-structured and included open-ended questions about how the participants understood the concept of minority stress, whether they had experienced minority stress and could describe some of those situations, and how they handled these events. The interviews were all conducted before the COVID-19 pandemic began and lasted 40–136 minutes, with most interviews lasting around 80 minutes. They were recorded, transcribed, and anonymized by removing all personal names, names of places and other potentially identifying information. When we use quotes, participants are presented with age, sexual identity, and gender identity.

Different parts of the data have been analyzed and used in different previous publications, as described above. In three papers we have applied first and second level analyses according to Alvesson and Sköldberg (2017), focusing on experiences of minority stress in young participants (Lundberg et al. 2022b), lesbian and bisexual women (Malmquist et al. 2023) and gay and bisexual men. In other words, descriptions and interpretations at face value were given precedence in the analysis and reporting of results. In all these cases we used the first three steps in thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke 2006). In these analyses we only attended to content in the interviews that was related to theories of minority stress and microaggressions. However, all codes and themes were derived from the data. For the current study we continue with a similar analysis, focusing specifically on coping experiences, derived from all 84 interviews. This is the basis for the results section presented below that addresses first and second level descriptions and interpretations.

When working with the papers where we used a first and second level analysis, it became clear that the process did not honor the richness of the insights that we felt the material could provide. Building on this insight, another study focused on trans people’s experiences (Lundberg et al. 2022a), which were analyzed from a theoretically driven perspective where theories on minority stress, microaggressions and coping were put in conversation with critical and feminist theories formulated by Butler (2004) and Hochschild (1979). As such, this analysis aligns with the third, and possibly fourth, level of interpretations as outlined by Alvesson and Sköldberg (2017). Drawing on the insights from this paper, we decided to continue with a third and fourth level analysis of all 86 interviews for this paper, focusing on coping.

In the next section we present and discuss the results from the two analyses described above. The first part focuses on the first and second level of descriptions and interpretations, and the second part highlights the third and fourth level of reflexive methodology, which Alvesson and Sköldberg (2017) refer to as meta-theoretical, critical and (de/re)constructing.

Synthetized results of the first and second level of descriptions and interpretations: a summary of micro- and macrocoping in a Swedish context

While analyzing the empirical material on a first descriptive level with steps 1–3 in thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke 2006) we tried to locate as many different kinds of coping as possible, akin to open and selective coding in Grounded Theory (Glaser and Strauss 1967). While all this is important to know in a Swedish context, it also became apparent that many of the coping strategies that participants used to handle minority stress overlapped with the existing international coping literature. Therefore, just categorizing strategies or listing them in higher order themes did not feel very useful. Instead, a second level interpretation of the data, that attended to the phenomenological texture in the material, suggested an underlying temporal difference in strategies that participants described. This analysis highlighted that some strategies were general and present over time while others were very contextually and situationally specific. To capture the different textures in these strategies we divided them into two themes that we call ‘Macrocoping: Strategies over time’ and ‘Microcoping: Strategies here and now’. Below we describe these themes and subthemes (in italics). A summary of subthemes and example quotes are found in Table 1.

Table 1. Overview of different coping strategies categorized under temporal themes.

Themes	Specific strategies	Example quote
Macrocoping: Strategies over time	Seeking social support	I [laughter] get in touch with my, my other queer friends […] I freak out a bit and then we mutter together and then [laughter] we say ‘Yes but they are stupid and don’t understand anything’ and then we feel better about ourselves. (Cisgender bisexual woman, 28)
	Taking care of oneself and being authentic	The journey started with therapy […], continued with […] meditation on my own, and it’s all about […] trying to ground myself in my body, direct focus away from all the negative thoughts […] and instead focus on and allowing, feelings to arise and pass, instead of feeding them with a lot of catastrophic thoughts which would make it worse (Agender person without a definition of their sexuality, 43)
	Opting out of violating environments and relationships	When it comes down to it, it’s a test basically, how accepting are the people around me? So if nothing else, I’d say it’s a pretty good indication of who I want as a friend and who I don’t (Cisgender gay man, 25)
	Activism and acting for societal change	Why should we […] have to conform to everyone else? I don’t think that is right and it’s something that I want to change with the activism that I’m doing. [I want] to create a safe public space for all transgender people really (Nonbinary queer person, 19)
Microcoping: Strategies here and now	Preparing for anything	All the time I keep an eye on people around me, to see if they’re looking at us and in which way they’re looking at us […] it’s always ‘Okay, but is this a safe place to kiss her?’ […] usually nothing happens but you don’t know that, because sometimes it does happen (Cisgender bisexual woman, 29)
	Passing as straight/cis	The strategy is actually to […] pretend to be cis [laughter]. To sort of play by these rules, to try to look girly enough to pass as a girl in the changing room (Transgender gay man, 28)
	Avoiding specific topics and places	Well, it’s very much the lack of things […] which I think is probably the fundamental part of my minority stress in some way. I don’t look people in the eye, I avoid going out […] You avoid kissing [in public], […] you withhold information [about yourself] (Cisgender gay man, 25)
	Coming out and preventing comments	I have made a rule for myself that I still want to tell others as soon as possible for my own safety, because you never know, especially when it comes to guys […] you don’t know how guys will react (Transgender pansexual woman, 29)
	Confronting and educating	If somebody would make a stupid comment like ‘Damn that looks gay’ then I’d just say ‘So what? Don’t you think it’s nice?’ like ‘Why does it matter?’. I’ve somehow figured out how to disarm that pretty much in a way that leaves people really not knowing what to say (Cisgender bisexual man, 27)
	Being extra nice or extra ordinary	I kind of try to be […] harmless […] I try to be nice and normal in other ways, and make myself more human like that. (Cisgender lesbian woman, 34)

Macrocoping: strategies over time

With ‘macrocoping’ we captured participants’ descriptions of strategies that they utilized most often or more generally to cope with minority stress, and that would have long-term effects. These overarching strategies were summarized in four different subthemes (see Table 1 for a summary). Participants’ main strategy to cope with minority stress was seeking social support, from friends in general and LGBTQ friends in particular. LGBTQ friends provided arenas where minority stress situations can be shared, discussed, and handled together and offered a place where 'you can completely relax […] completely be yourself' (Cisgender bisexual woman, 64). Support groups for specific minorities were also important, e.g. groups for bisexual people, LGBTQ people of color or Christian LGBTQ people. Partners were also an important source of support, especially for those who had limited contact with other LGBTQ people. The importance of seeking social support to cope with minority stress has been well established in previous literature (e.g. Bowleg et al. 2004, Doan Van et al. 2019, Goldbach and Gibbs 2015, Meyer 2003, Scharer and Taylor 2018).

In addition to finding supportive contexts, many participants talked about the importance of, once and for all, opting out of violating environments or relationships that they had experienced as destructive over time. Several participants described how becoming an adult gave them the opportunity to choose where and with whom they spent most of their time and energy. For example, one bisexual woman quit her job as a response to her boss repeatedly speaking with contempt about bisexual people. Others described how they ended relationships with former friends or family members who acted disrespectfully. Similar strategies have been evidenced in international studies (e.g. Bry et al. 2017, Goldbach and Gibbs 2015, Toomey et al. 2018).

Many also focused on taking care of themselves and being authentic, by employing self-care measures to stay healthy and happy, despite being exposed to minority stress, as evident in previous literature (e.g. Bry et al. 2017, Goldbach and Gibbs 2015, Doan Van et al. 2019, Kuper et al. 2014). Physical exercise, mindfulness, playing or writing music, watching movies, or reading books with LGBTQ characters, keeping a diary, and writing short stories or poetry was mentioned as well as seeking professional therapy. Being kind to oneself and being authentic was further highlighted, because ‘it’s worse not to be honest with yourself than for everyone else not to understand’ (Nonbinary panromantic person, 26). This included adopting an accepting attitude toward negative emotions.

In line with previous studies (e.g. Doan Van et al. 2019, Goldbach and Gibbs 2015, Singh et al. 2011), many participants also highlighted the importance of long-term societal changes to form an inclusive and supportive society for LGBTQ people and that being an activist was a very important strategy to cope with minority stress. Activism and acting for societal change were considered both as self-care, and as a meaningful way of making something bigger out of one’s own stress because ‘this is a revolution […] it will take time and [I] can contribute to this by being calm and providing this movement with a great face’ (Cisgender lesbian woman, 30).

Microcoping: strategies here and now

In addition to the general strategies described above, all participants talked about how they tried to manage specific situations or interactions that were microaggressive or led to minority stress. Here, the emphasis was on the specific situation ‘here and now’ (see Table 1 for a summary). In comparison to macrocoping, these coping strategies depended very much on the situation and the potential short-term consequences. The same individual might thus utilize very different strategies depending on their state of being, the person they interact with and what they need from that situation.

While it could be taxing during a specific period of time to opt out of contexts or relationships, something we categorized as macrocoping, these microcoping strategies required constant energy and resources. In line with expected exposure as described in the minority stress model (Meyer 2003) and previous research on coping (e.g. Kuper et al. 2014, Nadal et al. 2011), several participants described constantly preparing for anything, always being ready to combat or avoid a potentially threatening situation. Even though a negative reaction to their LGBTQ identity was not most participants’ primary expectation, being disrespectfully treated was always a possible outcome. This led many participants to always be on guard and attentive to their environment described as ‘a constant consideration of what is safe to disclose now?”’ (Cisgender gay man, 22). Judging the potential threat in a specific context was usually a process of assessing people’s attitudes via their verbal and non-verbal communication.

Most participants were open in many contexts and relationships, although very few were open everywhere. In line with previous research (e.g. Doan Van et al. 2019, Nadal et al. 2011), many employed strategies of passing as straight or cis, e.g. making sure to have a ‘typically girly hairstyle and no fancy clothes’ (Cisgender lesbian woman, 25). This strategy was particularly common in occasional encounters. In addition, some avoided wearing LGBTQ related symbols, refrained from showing same-sex affection in public, had chosen not to be open on social media and often waited some time before coming out at a new workplace or to a new colleague. Such strategies enabled participants to assess if the situation was safe or not before disclosure.

Many also employed conversational methods to avoid certain topics when talking to other people. This included changing the subject when personal questions were being discussed or referring to one’s same sex partner as ‘“someone I know” […] because sometimes you just don’t want to come out’ (Cisgender lesbian woman, 25). Such strategies were aimed at avoiding negative reactions as well as a shift in the conversational focus from the topic of the discussion to the topic of the person being LGBTQ. Some participants also avoided specific physical places, such as certain community venues, during specific hours. These avoidant strategies were used to prevent exposure to LGBTQ phobic, patriarchal, or macho-dominant contexts. Different avoidance strategies are also evident in previous research (e.g. Goldbach and Gibbs 2015, Grossman et al. 2009).

In contrast to avoidance, several participants described how they chose to come out as early as possible in most new social contacts. This coming out to prevent comments from others was done to avoid heteronormative utterances or for others to reveal their negative attitudes. Some participants adopted a strategy of mentioning their same-sex partner in a casual way. Many claimed that openness generally prevented people from gossiping behind their back because ‘attacking first is the best defense […] so it’s better to put your cards on the table’ (Cisgender gay man, 74). Similar strategies of navigating outness or visibility management have been highlighted in other studies (e.g. Asakura 2017, Dewaele et al. 2014).

In line with previous research (e.g. Bry et al. 2017, Doan Van et al. 2019, Nadal et al. 2011), many participants combatted ignorance and prejudicial attitudes by actively confronting problematic statements. Some felt responsible for not letting any LGBTQ prejudice pass unnoticed in a conversation. Sometimes this involved being prepared to answer, ‘all sorts of silly questions’ (Cisgender bisexual woman, 64) from ignorant or prejudicial others. Many felt that they needed to educate others when they displayed a lack of understanding or used inappropriate terms and they needed to be well informed, sharp, and clear when doing it – because as a minority person they would otherwise be more easily judged. However, some used humor instead to combat ignorance.

In line with other studies (e.g. Malmquist 2022), some participants employed strategies of always being an extra nice and charitable person. They reasoned that if people come to like them as nice people, this will combat any prejudicial beliefs about their minority identity. Besides being nice, many described how they tried to present themselves as ordinary, with a family life with ‘grocery shopping […] and not standing out’ (Cisgender bisexual woman, 38). For some participants, presenting themselves as ordinary also included concealing less societally accepted aspects of their lives, such as being polyamorous or practicing BDSM.

Discussion of first and second level descriptions and interpretations: opening theoretical and methodological avenues?

While the results from the first level of analysis are already evident in previous international studies (summarized in several overviews and reviews, e.g. Choukas-Bradley et al. 2022, Colpitts and Gahagan 2016, Hall 2018, Lucassen et al. 2022), the current study provides a set of strategies grounded in participants’ experiences that are explicitly contextualized in a Swedish context. From a national perspective, this is important as it can ground methodological choices of e.g. what coping inventories to use in our, and others, upcoming quantitative studies in Sweden (see Tischler 2009). As mixed-methods researchers struggling to find validated scales that work well in a Swedish context (see e.g. Di Luigi et al. 2023), we concur with Alvesson and Sköldberg (2017), who reference Glaser and Strauss (1967), that it is important that the work we do in a Swedish context is grounded in the everyday experiences of LGBTQ-people living here (see discussion by Kelle 2006 on the validity of measurements). As such, utilizing Alvesson and Sköldberg’s (2017) first level analysis will hopefully help make our qualitative work relevant also to quantitative scholars in the topic area.

In addition, the findings from our first level analysis corroborate evidence in an international context (e.g. Kelle 2006) by showing that several international findings are evident also in a Swedish context. However, we argue that a better contribution to the international context lies in the results from the second level analysis (Alvesson and Sköldberg 2017). Several of the strategies identified as microcoping and macrocoping have been documented in previous LGBTQ studies (Bry et al. 2017, Choi et al. 2016, Doan Van et al. 2019, Scharer and Taylor 2018). However, in most research, strategies on different levels or addressing different temporalities are seldom separated. According to Tischler (2009) this is problematic as it hinders researchers from studying coping from a holistic perspective, addressing processes, appraisals, individual differences, and meanings as was originally suggested in coping theory.

While we agree with Colpitts and Gahagan (2016), that using mainstream theoretical frameworks and tools in LGBTQ research can be problematic, as they might be hetero- and cisnormative, we are also inspired by how Hatzenbuehler (2009) was able to advance minority stress theory by a mediation framework inspired by general psychological theories. We argue that our findings show the importance of learning more from mainstream coping literature. Similar distinctions between what we call ‘microcoping’ and ‘macrocoping’ are evident in the general coping literature (Tischler 2009). Carver and Scheier (1994) differentiate between ‘situational coping’ and ‘coping dispositions’ while Schwartz et al. (1999) uses ‘momentary coping’ and ‘trait coping’. In a critical discussion on addressing coping in relation to vulnerable populations, Tischler (2009) notes that more research is needed to address these aspects of coping. However, we have not found any studies making these distinctions in relation to LGBTQ. In research areas such as coping with harassment (Fitzgerald 1990), responding to incivility (Cortina and Magley 2009) or response-based approaches to interpersonal violence (Hydén et al. 2016), these differentiations are clearer. Such studies could thus serve as further inspiration for a methodological development of these constructs which could provide new possibilities of understanding LGBTQ peoples’ coping with minority stress and microaggressions.

Drawing on our results and important critique by Tischler (2009), further research might also need to examine whether people use a variety of strategies in a flexible way, or whether people predominantly use one type of strategy and thus become inflexible over time (Waldeck et al. 2017). For example, avoiding multiple contexts to cope with exposure, such as discrimination, microaggressions, or violence, has been shown to be a negative coping strategy over time (Choi et al. 2016) as it can limit everyday life. However, some participants said that they occasionally avoided places or relationships where the risk of vulnerability was particularly high, which we would understand as a microcoping strategy. Some participants found these strategies to be helpful. Therefore, further studies are needed to explore the complexity of these different strategies and their long-term impact on health. Building on this, Tischler (2009) suggests that more longitudinal studies are needed to better understand the complexity of coping in everyday life. From a quantitative perspective, we therefore view the trend of utilizing Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA) in LGBTQ studies (e.g. Livingston et al. 2020) as a positive development that can also contribute to developing our understanding of coping, in specific situations and over time. However, this requires a good and well-grounded operationalization of coping (see Tischler 2009).

As clinical psychologists we believe that the differences between microcoping and macrocoping also can be useful in developing societal and therapeutic support. From a societal perspective, such knowledge can inform how coping resources can be provided, both in specific settings (e.g. routines and resources in schools or workplaces), and in general (e.g. supporting LGBTQ organizations). Regarding therapeutic support, microcoping could likely be developed by skills training and role play, while macrocoping could be fostered through interventions such as Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) and by articulating a valued direction. Although these ideas are not new, the conceptualization of micro- and macrocoping can enhance the understanding of our clinical practices and their underlying rational, by providing ‘new descriptions of old realities’ (Marcus 1994, 391).

The first and second level analysis have thus provided us with several insights that could take us forward in exploring the lived experience of LGBTQ people in Sweden, both qualitatively and quantitatively. However, a lot of texture in the participants’ descriptions were left unaddressed. What more could we learn from our data if we utilized other analytic perspectives?

Results of third and fourth level of meta-theory, critical interpretations and (re)constructions: addressing livability, existential work, relational work, and reflexive work

Inspired by scholars such as Scharff (2011) as well as Alvesson and Sköldberg’s (2017) third level of interpretation, we utilized a more theoretically driven analysis where theories on minority stress, microaggressions and coping were put in conversation with critical feminist thinking, specifically Butler’s (2004) theories on livability and Hochschild’s (1979) theories on emotional work. During the analysis of the 86 interviews, it became evident that participants not only employed strategies to deal with negative events, but rather to make their lives livable. This in turn helped us, in accordance with Alvesson and Sköldberg’s (2017) fourth level of interpretation, to discursively (re)construct our understanding of the subject who is coping. As other commentators have suggested (Riggs and och Treharne 2017), a focus on experiences of a certain kind, or number of negative events might not sufficiently explain an LGBTQ person’s ill health. In other words, an LGBTQ person cannot easily be understood as an unaffected actor that occasionally is subjected to negative experiences that they need to deal with. Rather, the LGBTQ person is embedded in a cis- and heteronormative context which they constantly need to compensate for. This compensation that participants described is better illustrated as an ongoing work, rather than as coping with specific negative events. In the analysis, ‘existential work’, ‘relational work’ and ‘reflexive work’ (see Table 2) were interpreted as describing participants’ experiences. These themes are described next.

Table 2. Overview of themes after the metatheoretical, critical and (re)constructive analysis.

Themes	Subthemes
Existential work	Epistemic work to be seen as valid Ontic work to be acknowledged as existing
Relational work	Containing oneself and others Being strategically vulnerable and grieving
Reflexive work	Reactive thinking to respond to a negative world Agentic thinking and finding minority peace

Existential work

Most participants talked about experiencing non-affirming and invalidating comments directed toward them individually or toward LGBTQ people in general. The analysis highlighted that some experiences were related to participants’ subjectivity not being understood as valid (see Reczek and Bosley‐Smith 2021), or only being understood within a pathological framework (Nadal et al. 2011). Other experiences seemed more related to not being understood as a subject, or as existing, at all. Butler (2004) emphasizes these two different elements of the politics of recognition. First, that life is made unlivable by the conditions and norms that make a person recognizable. Second, that life is rendered unlivable by not recognizing somebody’s very existence. Below, we illustrate the different kinds of work that need to be done to deal with these injustices.

Epistemic work to be seen as valid

Many participants described how they regularly were subjected to pathologizing and microaggressive treatment. Participants talked about other people calling them ‘dirty’ (Cisgender lesbian woman, 32), not having their same-sex partner recognized as a legitimate partner, being called by their dead names or wrong pronouns etcetera. These experiences were described as repetitive and part of the social fabric, rather than single events, and therefore required constant work to battle them. Participants further described trying to affect other peoples’ ‘factory settings’ (Agender person without a definition of their sexuality, 43) of how they epistemologically understand the world. They felt the need to do an ongoing work of intervening on others’ epistemic understandings as part of arguing for their right to be correctly represented. Similar processes have been called ‘conflict education work’ in other studies (Reczek and Bosley‐Smith 2021). However, we do not think that ‘education’ captures the existential texture of what our participants describe and think that Fricker’s (2009) descriptions of being subjected to epistemic injustice are better suited. In other words, rather than education work, we use epistemic work to capture that what participants do is not just correcting misconceptions but trying to compensate (cf. Riggs and och Treharne 2017) for a social fabric that makes LGBTQ lives unintelligible.

Ontic work to be acknowledged as existing

In addition to the epistemic injustice, the hetero- and cisnormative surrounding led many participants to a feeling of not existing in everyday social discourse. To be recognized as existing, they often had to intervene (for example, come out) and remind others that not all people are heterosexual or cis. At times, people continued to question participants’ existence. This was especially evident for the trans and bisexual participants and included comments implying that trans people’s ‘identity does not exist’ (Nonbinary queer person, 19) or that bisexual people are ‘confused’ (Nonbinary panromantic person, 38). In these situations, participants were not (only) trying to change others’ problematic understandings, as in epistemic injustice, but get others to ontologically understand that they were existing human subjects at all, similar to what Jenkins (2020) calls ontic injustice. Butler (2004) suggests that situations requiring ontic work should be seen as oppressive and dehumanizing violence, and thus need to be differentiated from epistemic oppression. This kind of ontic work was described as very burdensome, and, for some, connected to suicidal thoughts.

Relational work

The existential work also highlights that existing is to relate to others (Butler 2004), which includes a need to belong (McDermott and Roen 2016). Belonging is described as something that needs to be constantly navigated in participants’ everyday lives and requires relational work, as relationships can be both a source of support and problems (Bartoș and Langdridge 2019). This is emotion work in the spirit of Hochschild (1979), where participants must contain their own as well as others’ emotions to parry microaggressions (cf. McDermott et al. 2021). In addition to what Reczek and Bosley‐Smith (2021) refer to as ‘family work’ and ‘conflict work’, relational work also includes being strategic about what relationships to choose, and grieving relationships one must leave. Participants’ descriptions show that this relational work requires large portions of self-sufficiency and self-reliance.

Containing oneself and others

Participants described negative interactions with others that needed to be managed daily. This meant that ‘every social interaction requires a little extra work’ (Transgender lesbian woman, 31) and might involve ‘turning off my feelings’ (Nonbinary panromantic person, 38), which has been illustrated in other studies as well (McDermott et al. 2021). Many participants illustrated that they need to do constant work to regulate and contain their own emotions, and not (appropriately) react negatively to others’ inappropriate behaviors because this will be regarded as blameworthy. Avoiding upsetting others, and thus containing other people’s feelings, was described as necessary in many situations. This also led some participants to not stand up for themselves in some interactions, however, later punishing themselves for this. This leads to a relational inequality that places disproportionate demands on the participants (see Eramian and Mallory 2022, Singh et al. 2014).

Being strategically vulnerable and grieving

Many participants had developed a kind of relational compass to navigate between constructive and non-constructive relationships. This involved strategically ensuring they had relationships where they could be vulnerable without compromising their safety (Bartoș and Langdridge 2019, Bry et al. 2017, Singh et al. 2014). Many said they had to reorient their relationships by breaking it off with family members, friends and other contacts as these relationships negatively affected them or required far too much work (cf. McDermott et al. 2021). While this was important for their health, it also caused a great deal of ‘sadness’ (Cisgender bisexual woman, 35). Thus, in addition to the relational work they had to do, they also had to grieve not being able to relate to close people in their lives.

Reflexive work

When participants were asked what they associate with the word ‘minority stress’, many responded that it involves being forced to ‘think about a lot of things that others don’t think about’ (Transgender heterosexual man, 45). This reflexive work aligns with the hypervigilance often associated with minority stress (Meyer 2003). At the same time, participants described a kind of thinking that transcends hypervigilance, and that helped them develop strategies to deal with a conditioned and unlivable world. One kind of thinking was interpreted as more reactive – as a response to vulnerability – and another kind more agentic – a reflection on how to take a place in the world anchored in themselves.

Reactive thinking to respond to a negative world

Reactive thinking seems to be a response to the interpellation from the outside world (Butler 2004), where the individual is somehow addressed and required to respond. In this way, the person is forced to always be ready to defend themselves or respond to the world which can lead them to constantly ponder what others might say or do. Several participants said that reactive thinking closed off opportunities to be agentic because ‘the external pressure is […] wearing me down’ (Cisgender bisexual woman, 29). Participants’ descriptions highlighted that a lot of reactive thinking could affect health negatively, as this kind of thinking is always located in the outside world, and only superficially anchored in the needs and values of the person themselves. In purely psychological terms, this kind of thinking can be understood as creating security and predictability for a person (see Nolen-Hoeksema et al. 2009). These strategies are sometimes helpful and functional but can be problematic if they become too extensive and develop into worry or rumination (Watkins 2009).

Agentic thinking and finding minority peace

In addition, participants described a process of being anchored in themselves while actively taking up space in the world (Bry et al. 2017, Singh et al. 2014). Illustratively, one participant described this kind of thinking as asking himself ‘is life worth living? And what makes life worth living […] What is it that I want? What is it that I feel?’ (Transgender bisexual man, 41). Many participants described this kind of thinking as helping them to become more anchored in their own needs and values. Some referred to it being about becoming authentic, building self-confidence, becoming more knowledgeable about LGBTQ rights as well as maturing and caring less about other people’s opinions. This helped many find a sense of minority peace. Psychological research shows that this way of observing oneself and anchoring oneself in one’s values can promote health (Nolen-Hoeksema et al. 2009, Singh et al. 2011, Waldeck et al. 2017).

Discussion of third and fourth level of meta-theory, critical interpretations and (re)constructions: reconsidering normativity and the work of trying to be at peace

Compared to the results from the first and second level analysis, utilizing feminist theories by Butler (2004) and Hochschild (1979) helped us move from a framework of understanding coping as an individual’s capacity to respond to specific events, to better address what a normative environment requires of LGBTQ people (see e.g. Riggs and och Treharne 2017). As suggested by Alvesson and Sköldberg (2017), the third and fourth level analysis thus enabled us to better attend to the political and ideological as well as the discursive nature of the data. As argued by several commentators (Bartoș and Langdridge 2019, McDermott and Roen 2016, Riggs and och Treharne 2017), this is important as it helps us shift from an individualizing focus where the LGBTQ person is the focal point and thus risks being the one who is intervened on when, really, the problem is systemic. As clinical psychologists, such a discursive turn is important as it enables the development of adequate interventions at both individual and societal levels (cf. Colpitts and Gahagan 2016). As researchers, it can assist us in which questions we need to ask and where to focus.

Inspired by Hochschild (1979), the terms ‘emotion work’ (e.g. McDermott and Roen 2016, McDermott et al. 2021) and ‘conflict work’ (Reczek and Bosley‐Smith 2021) have been used in international LGBTQ research. The results from our analyses confirm that developing additional theoretical nuances of ‘work’, in contrast to coping, might be a tool to develop reflexive accounts with ‘new descriptions of old realities and […] critically displace sets of representations that no longer seem to account for the worlds we thought we knew’ (Marcus 1994, 391). Why is this important? First, very few studies have utilized this framework in analyzing LGBTQ people’s experiences in Sweden (except for Linander et al. 2019). Some quantitative research suggests that a prominent challenge in Swedish LGBTQ people’s lives is not primarily dealing with violence and specific aggressive events, even if those also happen too often. Rather, it is about constantly navigating more subtle normative stressors, such as microaggressions and incivility (DiLuigi et al. 2023). Drawing on the qualitative data from this study, the notion of ‘work’, in addition to coping, might be important to study in relation to better understanding the navigation of normativity in a Swedish context, and how such normativity can be counteracted.

Furthermore, developing the idea of ‘work’ beyond only ‘emotion work’ might help us better address the lived experiences of LGBTQ people more generally. As already suggested by McDermott et al. (2021) as well as Reczek and Bosley‐Smith (2021), such work is done mainly to relate to others. In other words, ‘emotion work’ is primarily a means to the goal of being able to relate. Inspired by Butler’s (2004) relational ontology, this ‘relationality’ of ‘work’ is important to attend to. In addition, the notion of ‘existential work’, what we call ‘epistemic’ (inspired by Fricker 2009) and ‘ontic’ (inspired by Jenkins 2020), also points to the importance of returning to philosophical ideas of being in psychology. While positive psychology is finding its way into queer psychology, by focusing on aspects such as ‘pride’, ‘joy’ and ‘euphoria’, it is important to remember that uncritical notions of positivity might lead us in problematic directions (see e.g. Ahmed 2010, Bartoș and Langdridge 2019). For example, such theories might implicitly require LGBTQ people not only to deal with structural oppression but also to successfully thrive (a requirement of being ideal, called Galtonian normality by Hegarty 2017). In the section on 'agentic thinking', as part of ”reflexive work”, thriving is not what participants described – but rather just ”being”' – as in finding peace. Again, this highlights the ontological and existential dimensions of our participants’ experiences.

To sum up, we propose that ‘existential work’, ‘relational work’ and ‘reflexive work’ encapsulate the intricate nuances of how participants in our study are constantly relating to others and themselves. These concepts could serve as valuable points of exploration in further interdisciplinary dialogues, offering constructive pathways forward in queer psychology not only within Sweden but also potentially beyond its borders.

Concluding methodological discussion: the potentials and problems of reflexive methodology

In this paper we employed the pluralist approach of reflexive methodology (Alvesson and Sköldberg 2017) to analyze data from a qualitative research project on how LGBTQ people cope with minority stress and microaggressions. The main aim was to explore whether reflexive methodology could help enhance queer psychological research in Sweden, by addressing two challenges that we face as mixed methods researchers in this topic area. First, we find it challenging to produce research results that can be useful for different audiences working with different epistemologies. Second, we see the need for descriptive results in a Swedish context to advance our understanding of LGBTQ people’s lived experiences. However, producing these results does not contribute significantly to the international literature. Furthermore, meeting these challenges demands considerable effort from us as researchers. Therefore, we viewed reflexive methodology (Alvesson and Sköldberg 2017) as an interesting framework that potentially could help us navigate this complex methodological terrain.

The first descriptive analysis described several different coping strategies. In accordance with Alvesson and Sköldberg (2017) we conclude that being systematic and descriptive is important in grounding an analysis. This is especially important in this topic area in a Swedish context, as it can ground methodological choices of e.g. what coping inventories to use in our, and others, upcoming quantitative studies in Sweden (see Tischler 2009). However, as Alvesson and Sköldberg (2017) caution, remaining on this descriptive level might lead to trivial insights that merely reaffirm existing knowledge (e.g., that social support is important to deal with minority stress). While this might corroborate previous findings (see Kelle 2006), it might not make any substantial contributions to the international literature. Therefore, further levels of interpretations are warranted (Alvesson and Sköldberg 2017). The second level interpretation suggested that the meaning of different coping strategies became clearer if they were differentiated temporally, where some were understood as microcoping (e.g., coming out and preventing comments or confronting and educating), used to deal with a specific situation here and now, while others were understood as macrocoping strategies (e.g., seeking social support or activism and acting for societal change), that were utilized over time. While such differences are clearer in other topic areas, they are notably absent in LGBTQ literature. The first two levels of reflexive methodologies have therefore helped us achieve both the descriptive results that are needed in a Swedish context, and some interesting findings that might contribute to the international literature.

Like Alvesson and Sköldberg (2017), however, we also found staying at this level of interpretation to be insufficient to address all aspects of the material. While a second level analysis opens opportunities to focus on the interpretative aspects of the data, more classic hermeneutical or phenomenological analyses might under-theorize the contextual and ideological aspects of the data. Based on this and inspired by other pluralist methodological researchers (e.g., Linander et al. 2019, McDermott and Roen 2016, Scharff 2011), we drew on feminist theories by Butler (2004) and Hochschild (1979) to do a third level interpretation. This analysis helped us to discursively reconstruct our understanding of coping and of the subject who is coping, in accordance with Alvesson and Sköldberg’s (2017) fourth interpretative level. The analysis thus resulted in a more procedural understanding of coping as constant work, including existential, relational, and reflexive, rather than an understanding of coping as only dealing with specific events. While there are clear parallels between several of the themes presented on the different levels (e.g. between ‘relational work’ and ‘seeking support’ or ‘opting out of violating contexts or relationships’, and between ‘reflexive work’ and microcoping strategies such as preparing, passing and avoiding), an analytical focus on work attended to a more nuanced texture resulting from the underlying philosophical and emotional aspects of dealing with vulnerability that the participants described. It also addressed what made micro- and macrocoping strategies possible or necessary, as well as the cost of utilizing them. We therefore concur with other researchers (e.g. Linander et al. 2019, McDermott and Roen 2016) that these kinds of analyses are needed to better understand the ideological context framing LGBTQ people’s lives. Further work should continuously analyze how cis- and heteronormativity frame sociocultural structures, interpersonal interactions, and relationships as well as people’s subjectivities. We suggest that utilizing an understanding of work, instead of coping, is particularly important in a Swedish context where subtle negative exposure, such as microaggressions, is prevalent. However, we also believe that our notions of ‘work’ contribute to the growing international body of psychological studies that draw on theories by Butler (2004) and Hochschild (1979; see e.g. McDermott and Roen 2016; McDermott et al. 2021; Reczek and Bosley‐Smith 2021).

As Alvesson and Sköldberg (2017) point out, level three and level four analyses can also be criticized. First, they are often dependent on the first and second level interpretations. Second, while critical and feminist theory, used in third level interpretations, are better at addressing context and ideology than the first two levels, it can become overly intellectualizing in attempts to highlight power structures. While we think that concepts such as ‘ontic work’ and ‘epistemic work’ do point to the basic philosophical grounds framing LGBTQ people’s lives, we are uncertain whether such very academic terms would be useful for people in understanding their everyday life experiences. Finally, Alvesson and Sköldberg (2017) point out that critical and feminist theory might overestimate the ability of language to unproblematically highlight and re-do power asymmetries. This is why a fourth level of discursive interpretations, including de- or reconstructions of the language used in and about the material, are needed. While we used such insights in the analysis of our data, we feel that our interpretations did not do justice to this level. This analysis could be further developed by a more thorough discourse analysis of participants’ talk and how they position and construct themselves, as well as others, in relation to societal discourses. In addition, we should also analyze discursively our own ways of constructing the project, our presuppositions, theoretical underpinnings and how we conducted the research, the analysis, and our presentations of these findings (Clarke et al. 2015). This is not something we have done to a sufficient extent. Alvesson and Sköldberg (2017) warn however, that an excessively narrow discursive focus on deconstruction might end up in relativism and should not be considered the end point of analysis per se. Rather, research should be judged by the opportunities for providing new understandings on all levels of interpretation.

In conclusion, is reflexive methodology (Alvesson and Sköldberg 2017) a useful pluralist qualitative methodology? We find that this methodological framework is aligned with the aim of providing rich, nuanced, and polyvocal understandings of phenomena, shared by many pluralist researchers in psychology (see discussion in Clarke et al. 2015). By having a focus on epistemology and moving from the first to the fourth level sequentially as well as being explicitly reflexive, some critique raised against pluralist methodologies can be mitigated (Clarke et al. 2015). While we have found this framework very helpful in structuring our analyses to address some of the epistemological and methodological challenges we experience, several aspects of reflexive methodology could also be critically discussed. First, it can be questioned if the four different levels really are that separate. Staying uncritically with Alvesson and Sköldberg’s (2017) conceptualization of the first level might emphasize a very shallow understanding of grounded theory. This can risk researchers not to consider future developments of the methodology such as Charmaz’s (2014) constructivist version that connects to other levels in the reflexive methodology-framework. Similarly, Braun and Clarke’s (2022) articulation of a reflexive thematic analysis might be informative here. Several scholars (e.g. Ahmed 2006) have also combined phenomenological perspectives and critical theory, which would render a simple differentiation between the second and third levels problematic. Critical discourse analysis (e.g. Fairclough 2013) is another methodology that is utilizing understandings from both critical theory (third level in reflexive methodology) and discourse analysis (fourth level in reflexive methodology). In other words, utilizing reflexive methodology unreflexively risks overseeing several important qualitative methodological innovations that could be very useful in a reflexive methodological project. Consequently, there is a risk of it becoming a mono-methodology instead of a pluralist framework (Clarke et al. 2015).

Despite this critique, we hope that our exploration of reflexive methodology (Alvesson and Sköldberg 2017) can serve as an example of methodological pluralism that can be utilized and further evaluated in qualitative psychology in general as well as for queer psychology in Sweden and beyond. By doing so, we hope that we as researchers can contribute with fantasy that is grounded empirically (Alvesson and Sköldberg 2017) to enhance mixed methods studies on coping and livability among LGBTQ people in Sweden and beyond.

Acknowledgments

We want to thank all our participants for sharing their lived expertise with us. We also want to thank several of our former students for their assistance with generating and/or preparing different parts of the material.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

Part of this research is funded by a grant by AFA Insurance [No: 200413].

Notes on contributors

Tove Lundberg

Tove Lundberg is associate professor of psychology and a senior lecturer in qualitative methodologies at Lund University. Their research mainly focuses on LGBTQI, sexuality, and well-being. They currently lead a research project exploring how minority stress at work is experienced and can be counteracted.

Anna Malmquist

Anna Malmquist is associate professor of social psychology at Linköping University. LGBTQ psychology is at the heart of her research. Her research interests include LGBTQ minority stress, parenting, fear of childbirth, and birth trauma.

Matilda Wurm

Matilda Wurm is a lecturer in social work at Örebro University and holds a PhD in health psychology. Their later work focusing on LGBTQ, they have studied factors influencing the development and maintenance, and treatment of, ill health. Together the authors form the research group Queer Psychology Sweden (QueerPsy).