“A Noble Lie”: A Thematic Analysis of Queer Views on Normalization, Minoritization, and Clinical Research Methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Conceptualizations of queerness in psychological research are largely oriented around constructs like minority stress, belongingness, and intersectionality. The nature of these conceptualizations is compared with queer-theoretical conceptualizations of queerness, revealing significant discrepancies concerning the relation of queerness to “pathology,” and the existence of a “queer population.” The present study aimed to provide empirical data on queer people’s own views of queer conceptualization, and of dominant views of queerness. Semi-structured interviews were conducted, analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis. The results reveal endorsement of queer-theoretical concepts of queerness among queer people. Particularly salient were endorsement of a view of queerness as inherently pathological or antagonistic with respect to normative society, as well as rejection of the existence of a “queer population.” Ethical implications of these findings are discussed: researchers using existing psychological models of queerness cannot presume the validity of their presumptions with respect to queer people, and must justify them explicitly.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.064 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".