Stressed and oppressed: Insider perspectives on stress induction research with LGBTQA+ People of Color
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is a substantial body of literature on researcher and participant vulnerability and subjectivity when working with marginalized populations with qualitative approaches, yet few resources exist for researchers conducting social stress induction research with these groups – including lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, asexual, and other sexual and gender minority (LGBTQA+) people of color. As a result, I was unprepared for the consequences of conducting the Trier Social Stress Task (TSST) with LGBTQA+ young adults of color and the vicarious stress that I would encounter as a queer researcher of color. In this article, I describe the process of conducting the TSST with LGBTQA+ people of Color, reporting participant experiences and feedback and describing my own experiences of inducing stress among members of an oppressed population to which I belong. Using fieldnotes from this study and the extant literature on applications of critical theory and insider research in the qualitative field, I consider possible modifications to social stress induction methods for social justice-oriented work with oppressed populations and discuss my perspectives on disrupting positivist assertions in quantitative, psychophysiological research with LGBTQA+ people of Color. • Stress experiments with minorities may foster elevated stress for insider researchers • Quantitative researchers should subvert positivist assertions that harm participants • Community-based methods and reflective engagement may lead to protocol advancement • Modifications include strengths-based methods and community-building opportunities • Experimenters should be trained in therapeutic communication and relational skills
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".