Search results

Based on data taken from lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT+) youth and community workers, this article highlights the occupational stressors experienced by LGBT+ professionals who provide emotional support to service users and theorises the potential for vicarious victimisation to occur as a result. Research suggests that the emotional harms of 'hate' can indirectly victimise those with a shared identity as the primary victim, through emotional contagion. However, little research has been carried out on those who support victims of hate. I theorise that vicarious victimisation may occur where an individual, who shares the primary victim's identity, takes on their experiences through a therapeutic relationship as a negative consequence of the emotional labour performed.

This article provides a reflection on the ethical challenges faced when seeking ethical approval to include young people in a research project examining LGBT+ 'hate' experiences. I outline the ethical parameters constructed when attempting to recruit under 18's into the project and justify the rationale for doing so. I detail how ethical approval was gained and reflect on the safeguards put in place to protect young participants. The methodological position adopted took a youth affirmative outlook, premised on enabling and championing the autonomy and agency of young people. Traditional ethical guidelines maintain that parental consent is required to include young people within sensitive research. Seeking parental consent placed young participants in a position of greater risk than what would occur during participation. Parental consent was not sought for young people to participate, nor were they informed about the involvement of their children in the project. This article provides justifications on rejecting the notion that parental consent is the only means for youth inclusion, and details how young people were empowered during participation. I argue that young people should not be instinctively excluded from sensitive research but should be actively enabled by minimising but not eradicating possible and potential risk.

This case study is based on the issues brought up by a research participant who requested a copy of their interview data, given for a lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender hate crime project. The co-authors of this study are the two stakeholders involved in this exchange. James, the researcher, was approached by Chloe, the participant, who wished to use the interview recording in combination with a meeting recording that they had carried out secretly, for the purposes of an art project. The authors reflect on the ethical dimensions of this request, concluding that the ownership of data is unclear. Although using both recordings together risked contaminating the overt data gathered for the project, the dilemma was resolved by a consent agreement that allowed access to the interview data for the sole purposes of the art project. This case study highlights the ethical complexities of both covert and overt data gathering. Readers are encouraged to question the ethical integrity of gathering covert data and to reflect on the ethical ramifications of using both methods in conjunction.

This is the first collection dedicated to the use of intersectionality as theory, framework and methodology in criminological research. It draws together contemporary British research to demonstrate the value of intersectionality theory in both familiar and innovative applications, including race, gender, class, disability, sexual orientation and age. Experts explore a range of experiences relating to harm, hate crimes and offending, and demonstrate the impacts of oppression on complex personal identities that do not fit neatly in homogenised communities. Challenging conventional perspectives, it positions intersectionality firmly into the mainstream of criminology