Under my umbrella: LGBTQIA+ rights, LGBTQIA+ researchers and ‘internal allyship’

In this article, we consider the ethical obligations that LGBTQIA+ researchers have in researching LGBTQIA+ rights. First, we consider the potential impact of identity and positionality. Although people of all LGBTQIA+ identities share common experiences of marginalisation and persecution, there is much diversity among LGBTQIA+ people and their many intersections. We then propose that LGBTQIA+ researchers should act as ‘internal allies’ when undertaking work related to LGBTQIA+ communities. The familiar concept of allyship imposes obligations which are dynamic, appropriate for the research context and align with community expectations. These obligations include self-education, consultation and platforming marginalised voices.

There is a significant body of literature devoted to researching with and about marginalised communitiessafely, ethically and responsibly. 1But to what extent can those conventions inform human rights research undertaken by those who live within the relevant marginalised community?In this article, we consider this question in relation to LGBTQIA+ people.
Scholars have written extensively on positionality and whether 'insiders' or 'outsiders' are best placed to conduct research relating to LGBTQIA+ rights and experiences. 2Here, we explore related, but different, questions.What ethical obligations do LGBTQIA+ researchers have in conducting research on LGBTQIA+ rights, considering the potential impact of their own identity and positionality?And does this differ from what is expected of non-LGBTQIA+ researchers whose work relates to LGBTQIA+ rights?
Ultimately, we argue that those of us within the LGBTQIA+ community are equally bound by 'best practice' rules when researching with and about our own communities.We begin by situating our analysis within the existing literature on researcher positionality and identity.We then propose a conceptualisation of ourselves as 'internal allies' when researching with and about LGBTQIA+ communities.Although we typically think of 'allies' of LGBTQIA+ people as those from outside the community who are supportive of us, those of us within the LGBTQIA+ community can, and should, also think of ourselves as allies.In thinking of ourselves as allies, we are reminded that we must comply with the principles and guidance relating to effective and appropriate allyshipeg, obligations to self-educate, engage in appropriate consultation and co-design, and platform marginalised voices.We suggest that conceptualisation of oneself as an ally is especially important when an LGBTQIA+ researcher's work concerns specific LGBTQIA+ identities to which they do not belong.
Our argument in this article is focussed on legal research relating to LGBTQIA+ rights (although the concept of internal allyship may also prove helpful for research in other disciplines, and research relating to other marginalised communities).While it is important for researchers in all disciplines to reflect on the ways in which they approach their research, 3 this is particularly so in the context of legal research.Our focus is underpinned by a recognition that the law has played, and continues to play, a major role in marginalising, excluding and subjugating LGBTQIA+ people. 4Equally, law reform (and legal research which informs law reform) represents a significant vehicle for positive change and betterment for the lives of LGBTQIA+ people. 5s LGBTQIA+ people who research LGBTQIA+ rights, the way we approach our research and the way we present narratives about our communities through our research matters: it affects public policy, law reform efforts, access to justice, and ultimately, the lives of LGBTQIA+ people.

Positionality and identity
Positionality refers to a researcher's social, cultural, political and personal position or identity, which can influence their perspective, biases and assumptions when conducting research. 6It is accepted that, especially in qualitative research, the researcher's positionality can shape the way they perceive and interpret research data, as well as influence their research questions, methodology and conclusions. 7For this reason, a researcher's understanding of their own positionality and its potential influence on their research is regarded as crucial in promoting reflexivity, transparency and ethical conduct in research. 8In understanding one's positionality in relation to the community their research concerns, it is relevant for a researcher to consider whether they are an 'insider' (ie, a person who is a part of that community) or an 'outsider' (ie, a person who is not a part of that community).Much of the literature on positionality emerges from feminist and queer scholarship and is dedicated to discussing whether insiders or outsiders are better placed to conduct credible research. 9or example, one perceived benefit of insider research is that insiders are better placed to understand the subject matter and background of the research, making them well equipped to interpret and contextualise research data. 10nsider researchers, as part of a community, might also be able to establish trust and rapport more readily with research participants. 11Insider research can also be conceptualised as a form of community-determined research and, accordingly, could lead to findings that are more relevant to the community being studied. 12Finally, insiders might also be better placed to conduct ethical and respectful research, as they may have a better understanding of cultural protocols. 13n the other hand, some critics question the credibility of insider research, noting that it might be difficult to maintain objectivity when researching topics that directly affect the researcher and their community. 14Insider researchers might also face ethical dilemmas, including difficulties in establishing boundaries, as well as conflicts of interest where research findings could endanger or reflect poorly on their communities. 15Further, given their shared identities, researchers and participants alike might be at risk of oversharing (especially in qualitative interview settings). 16n relation to LGBTQIA+ rights research, queer scholarship has typically accepted that there are advantages and disadvantages for both insiders and outsiders. 17 be challenging due to the complexity and fluidity of LGBTQIA+ identities and experiences.On a basic level, an LGBTQIA+ researcher shares their identity as an LGBTQIA+ person with the community that their research concerns.However, this ignores both the nuance of our identities and our research as LGBTQIA+ people.Consider, for example, a cisgender lesbian woman whose research relates primarily to trans rights, or a heterosexual trans man conducting a human research project on LGBTQIA+ experiences in which most participants are cisgender gay men.In these examples, which are also realities for many of us, 18 the researcher is an insider in relation to the broader experience of being an LGBTQIA+ person, while simultaneously being an outsider in relation to the more micro-level identity of the specific community that the research concerns.Indeed, the authors of this article are both LGBTQIA+ people who have researched LGBTQIA+ communities to which we ourselves do not belong.
The LGBTQIA+ community is not homogenous -'LGBTQIA+' is an umbrella term for a group of identities.There is great diversity in each individual identity under the LGBTQIA+ umbrella, and the multiplicity of intersections between those identities. 19But despite the rich diversity within LGBTQIA+ communities, there is also much that unites LGBTQIA+ people.For example, many people of all LGBTQIA+ identities experience discrimination on the basis that they are not cisgender and/or heterosexual and feel a profound sense of pride in their individual and collective identities. 20ven still, LGBTQIA+ experiences are varied, with individuals experiencing differing levels of marginalisation and discrimination based on factors including social acceptance of their LGBTQIA+ identity, geographic location, socioeconomic status, and other circumstances (such as, cultural identity, race and religion). 21As a result, an LGBTQIA+ researcher may identify with some aspects of a community being studied, but not others, making it difficult to determine whether they are an insider or outsider.This suggests that the insider/outsider binary could be too simplistic to reflect the complex nature of identity, experiences, priorities and coincident rolesa proposition advanced in both queer and feminist scholarship. 22n these ways, LGBTQIA+ rights researchers are often peculiarly positioned as both insiders and outsiders in relation to the LGBTQIA+ communities that their research concerns. 23With respect to LGBTQIA+ communities, as well as other marginalised groups, it is accepted that appropriate protocols may vary for insiders and outsiders. 24ccupying a dual insider/outsider position can, therefore, make it difficult to decipher which ethical obligations apply, and how an LGBTQIA+ researcher should respectfully engage with the LGBTQIA+ communities they research.How, then, should researchers navigate this complexity?As set out in the next part of this article, we suggest that LGBTQIA+ rights researchers should harness the familiar concept of allyship to inform themselves of their obligations with respect to ethical research and respectful engagement.

LGBTQIA+ researchers as internal allies
As established, the dual insider/outsider positions occupied by LGBTQIA+ researchers make it difficult to understand how they should engage with the LGBTQIA+ communities their research relates to.We propose that this uncertainty should be resolved by adopting a position which prioritises safe and respectful engagement with the communities we research, and that this is best done by holding ourselves to the same high ethical standards as absolute outsiders.That is, even those of us within the LGBTQIA+ community are bound by standard 'best practice' rules when researching with and about our own communities.This article does not attempt to comprehensively explore the ways an LGBTQIA+ researcher might put this into practiceinstead, it proposes a fundamental frame for how LGBTQIA+ researchers should understand the obligations upon them.
In this regard, we suggest the familiar concept of allyship can be applied to the research context, with LGBTQIA+ researchers conceptualising themselves as 'internal allies'.We use the term 'internal allyship' to describe recognition of oneself as an inside member of the LGBTQIA+ community, while also acknowledging the importance of engaging with the community in the same manner any good ally would.This includes providing support, showing respect, demonstrating sensitivity, and being aware of the diversity of LGBTQIA+ experiences and needs. 25Queer theory has informed approaches to allyship that are consistent with the conception of internal allyship proposed by this article.As Reynolds explains: Queer theory has brought many gifts to ally work, especially the idea that being an ally is … something we do together across the differences of privilege that divide us.Queer theory frees us from taking on being an ally as a static identity … [it] invites fluidity, movement from the fixed and certain to the confused and unstable … it acknowledges that we can all be allies to each other in a constant flow depending on our contexts and relationships of power. 26 advance three key arguments why LGBTQIA+ people who research LGBTQIA+ rights should conceptualise themselves as internal allies.First, allyship is well understood and therefore provides a familiar framework of obligations.Second, allyship is a dynamic concept and those obligations are understood to change over time.And third, allyship can help LGBTQIA+ researchers strengthen their connections with the LGBTQIA+ community, rather than being othered from it.

Familiarity
Internal allyship provides a familiar framework for researchers to adopt in their work.Allyship, a concept well understood within LGBTQIA+ communities, is the most widely recognised and accepted framework for respectful engagement with LGBTQIA+ people. 27Allyship' as a concept has also gained significant traction in other social justice movements, particularly in the racial justice context.28 This has led to the development of wellestablished principles that define what it means to be a good ally.29 Importantly, and appropriately for the research context, 'good allyship' is commonly understood as imposing a set of obligations on the ally.
At its core, allyship involves a commitment to supporting and advocating for a marginalised community in ways determined by the relevant community.In harnessing and applying this same framework of obligations to their research, LGBTQIA+ researchers can benefit from the existing knowledge and best practices developed by LGBTQIA+ communities.In turn, this can help researchers ensure they are approaching their work with integrity and in ways consistent with the expectations and values of LGBTQIA+ communities.

The dynamic nature of allyship
The inherently dynamic nature of allyship is another reason LGBTQIA+ researchers should understand the obligations and expectations on them through the lens of internal allyship.The expectations of allyship are not fixed or staticthey change over time as social norms, cultural attitudes and political contexts shift. 30This dynamic nature of allyship means that LGBTQIA+ researchers who act as LGBTQIA+ allies hold themselves accountable to current standards and expectations and are better able to ensure that their work meaningfully represents contemporary LGBTQIA+ communities. 31he dynamic nature of allyship is symbiotic with the expectations around research practices and methods relating to marginalised communities, which have also evolved over time.These include a greater emphasis on communityengaged and participatory research, 32 and decolonising research methods. 33By staying attuned to the changing expectations of LGBTQIA+ allyship, LGBTQIA+ researchers can ensure their research conduct is appropriate, relevant and respectful of diverse LGBTQIA+ experiences.

Strengthening a researcher's connection to their community
Researchers from marginalised communities often face a difficult choice between remaining connected to their community and advancing their academic careers. 34The expectations of academic work are not always consistent with maintaining a strong connection to one's community.And for academics whose research relates to their own community, separation between 'the researcher' and 'the researched' can further alienate the researcher from their community. 35s Grace et al note, 'LGBTQ researchers have a profound responsibility in the cultural struggle for LGBTQ presence and place.' 36 By conceptualising themselves as internal allies, LGBTQIA+ people researching LGBTQIA+ rights can more readily reconcile the expectations of their community with the demands of their academic work.This is because a researcher committed to the principles of good allyship is more likely to respect and advance the community with their work, rather than treat the community as a means to an end in the pursuit of research output.That is, an internal ally is likely to prioritise the advancement of LGBTQIA+ rights when choosing research topics, methodologies and dissemination strategies.Allyship can help to ensure that research findings are respectful, relevant and useful to the LGBTQIA+ community.This is consistent with the concept of reciprocitya central tenet in feminist and queer research ethicswhich stipulates that research should be mutually beneficial and researchers should give back to the communities they research. 37ore broadly, the principles of allyship can also guide LGBTQIA+ researchers to engage appropriately with LGBTQIA+ communities and individuals, particularly in undertaking research which involves human participants.In addition to standard ethical considerations when conducting research involving humans, 38 internal allyship can encourage researchers to keep in mind the ethical obligations they owe research participants.By acting as an internal ally, LGBTQIA+ researchers are minded to prioritise the wellbeing and autonomy of LGBTQIA+ participants, and centre their voices and experiences. 39Additionally, internal allyship can help researchers to approach their work with humility and respect, acknowledging there is much to learn from other members of the community.In this way, it aligns with principles from feminist and Indigenous research methods that position community members as knowledge holders and sources of knowledge (not just research subjects). 40his approach acknowledges that simply being an LGBTQIA+ person does not automatically qualify someone to conduct research relating to LGBTQIA+ people in a safe and respectful manner. 41However, it also recognises that LGBTQIA+ researchers have a unique perspective that can inform their research and contribute to the advancement of their LGBTQIA+ communities.

Is internal allyship appropriate?
Despite its benefits, some scholars may question the appropriateness of internal allyship.Objections may focus on the potential for bias to interfere with the integrity of the researcher's scholarship, as well as broader critiques of allyship in practice.This part sets out the basis of these objections, but ultimately argues that internal allyship remains an appropriate and constructive concept.

Perceptions of bias
Some may consider that the notion of internal allyship would only compound the existing 'problems' raised by insiders whose research relates to their own communities. 42In this regard, we should consider the reality that many scholars take a particular position in their work that is informed by their own experiences and perspectives.It is not unusual for researchers to advance specific arguments in their work. 43As explained by political scientist Thomas Pepinsky, '[t]here is certainly no ethical requirement that engaged … scholarship must be valuefree'. 44For human rights researchers in particular, the advancement of the human rights of marginalised peoples' is an uncontroversial research mission.The mere fact that a researcher adopts such a position does not prejudice the integrity of their work.All researchersfrom marginalised communities or not, and whether their research concerns their own community or nothave a duty to conduct their research with integrity.This includes a responsibility to report data honestly, to consider and deal with unfavourable positions, and to support propositions with appropriate evidence. 45hese requirements are consistent with the duties imposed by internal allyship.Being faithful to the truth and using sound, valid evidence in one's argument and advocacy is integral to good, effective allyship.By contrast, an argument framed on inaccurate, fabricated or deceitful grounds does nothing to advance LGBTQIA+ rights in the longer term.In this way, acting as an internal ally may help mediate the concerns surrounding insider research and research integrity (ie, it can address the perceived disadvantages of insider research discussed in 'Positionality and identity' earlier in this article).
Admittedly there is complexity here, as the concept of 'truth' is contested.Research has long recognised that there are inherent subjectivities which influence perceptions as to what is 'the truth'. 46Much feminist and queer literature regards objectivity as unattainable and argues that all knowledge production is inherently subjective and situated. 47nstead of striving for objectivity, feminist and queer methods encourage transparency and recognition that a researcher's positionality influences their construction and interpretation of knowledge. 48Applying these lessons, if researchers are transparent about their assumptions and ensure that their propositions are appropriately supported with valid evidence, internal allyship should not interfere with the integrity of their research.For the reasons set out earlier, it can even enhance the rigour and relevance of their work.

Critiques of allyship
There is a considerable body of discourse which critiques the notion of allyship on the basis that it may perpetuate marginalisation through 'saviourism', can be performative, and might result in selective advocacy.
'Saviourism' is a dynamic where, through their advocacy, the ally positions themself as a heroic saviour.This in turn positions the marginalised community as unable to act or determine for itself, leading to further marginalisation and hampering efforts for self-advocacy and empowerment. 49ourke notes that this 'further reifies the power differential between allies and members of oppressed groups and does nothing to disrupt the status quo.' 50 This critique has emerged particularly in the context of racial justice and Indigenous rights. 51llyship can be performative: people might claim ally status without taking substantive action or engaging in meaningful solidarity with marginalised communities. 52This can result in superficial gestures or tokenism, rather than genuine efforts to address systemic injustices and dismantle oppressive structures.
Allyship can also foster inconsistent or selective advocacy on the basis of discrete and subjective categorisations of marginalised communities. 53For example, much allyship of LGBTQIA+ people has historically focussed on homonormative and cisnormative causes (eg, same-sex marriage) to the exclusion of other LGBTQIA+ causes (eg, accessibility of gender recognition and affirmation for trans and gender diverse people). 54This undermines the principle of intersectionality and the spirit of solidarity.
Considering these critiques together, it is clear that most are levelled at the ways in which allyship is sometimes practiced.At least in queer literature which acknowledges these imperfections, it is typically accepted that allyship is still a constructive concept. 55Accordingly, there is merit in the concept of internal allyship in LGBTQIA+ rights research, although internal allies must work to ensure they are not perpetuating saviourism, performativity, or inconsistent allyship.To help LGBTQIA+ researchers avoid the bad allyship practices set out here, the next section considers what internal allyship should look like in action.

Allyship in action
This article does not attempt to comprehensively set out the nature of obligations which might be imposed by internal allyshipgiven the dynamic nature of allyship, these are likely to change over time and need to be determined by reference to the particular research project and the relevant LGBTQIA+ community.Broadly, though, the obligations imposed upon researcher allies (and thus, internal allies) would likely include a commitment to self-education, engagement in appropriate consultation and co-design practices, and platforming (rather than speaking over) marginalised voices. 56

Self-education
Allies, including those from within the LGBTQIA+ community, should educate themselves about the communities and identities their research concerns so as to engage with and represent them respectfully. 57In the research context, self-education is necessary not only to determine how to best conduct research projects, but also to determine whether the researcher should conduct the research.As Blair explains: [r]esearchers need to consider how their research questions will impact the quality of life experienced by LGBTQ individuals and whether or not the research is of enough importance to justify any potential harm that might befall the participants or the community they represent. 58 times there is likely to be a fine line between minimising harm to LGBTQIA+ communities and misreporting research.For example, consider the dilemma faced by a researcher whose research findings could potentially harm public perceptions and safety of LGBTQIA+ people.In this situation, an ethical researcher needs to bear in mind that they must be open to any results and should not selectively report their research.This example shows why the implications of the research should be thoroughly considered and interrogated before conducting the research, so that researchers are less likely to later run into a clash of ethical considerations.

Consultation and co-design
Former High Court Justice Michael Kirby argues that successful law reform efforts require adequate community consultation. 59The same is also true of effective LGBTQIA+ rights research, although the need for consultation and co-design may be more readily overlooked by LGBTQIA+ researchers than outsiders because some may consider their inclusion in the broader community sufficient 'consultation'.However, identifying as LGBTQIA+ is not an automatic qualification to conduct LGBTQIA+ rights research, particularly research concerning sub-communities to which the researcher does not belong. 60esearchers who view themselves as allies to the community their research concerns are better equipped to engage in quality research that is collaborative, participatory and responsive to the needs and priorities of that community.By actively engaging with and listening to communities, researchers can ensure that their research questions are grounded in the diverse experiences and perspectives of LGBTQIA+ people.This approach also treats community members as more than research subjects and informants: it acknowledges them as knowledge holders. 61any theories, methodologies and strategies relating to consultation and co-design already exist. 62These include approaches that encourage the community to determine its own advocacy goals, such as participatory action research (which seeks to involve those affected by the research in the research project) and feminist standpoint theory (which centres the knowledge held by marginalised groups about their own experiences and perspectives). 63Many queer methodologies also promote community involvementas noted by Ulrika Dahl, 'a central value of queer studies resides in collaborations and conversations that aim to produce knowledge collectively.' 64In this regard, we suggest that LGBTQIA+ allies should consider those existing principles and employ them appropriately.
Depending on the particular research project, consultation and co-design might take place relatively informally, through seeking feedback from a relevant LGBTQIA+ community advocate, or from collaborative discussions at workshops, seminars or roundtables.Ethical co-authorship practices should also be adopted, ensuring that those involved in the research project are appropriately recognised as co-authors where they make a substantive contribution to the research output (noting that this may include people without an academic background whose knowledge and input was nonetheless integral to the work).

Platforming
Support is a key component of allyship.As internal allies, those within the LGBTQIA+ community who experience comparative privilege have an obligation to support those who are more marginalised (ie, individuals or communities who experience greater levels of exclusion, discrimination and vulnerability to various forms of harm or injustice). 65BTQIA+ researchers should, therefore, consider their own privilege and platform more marginalised and underrepresented LGBTQIA+ voices over their own.This is not to create a hierarchy of privilege or marginalisation, but to recognise that researchers play an important role as gatekeepers; we have significant privilege in determining the stories that we do and do not share.66 LGBTQIA+ people are well placed to amplify, uplift and platform more-marginalised LGBTQIA+ communities.Many people of all LGBTQIA+ identities share experiences of persecution.This includes 'structural and interpersonal discrimination that adversely affects their well-being and drives disparate outcomes across crucial areas of life' including in their personal lives, employment, housing and healthcare.67 As such, LGBTQIA+ researchers may be able to more readily establish a level of trust, rapport and understanding with LGBTQIA+ community members.68 Researchers should also be cautious not to 'speak for' or 'speak over' those more marginalised voices.This is particularly important given some LGBTQIA+ peopleespecially cisgender gay menmay attract more social acceptance, representation and platforms than other LGBTQIA+ identities.69

Conclusion
LGBTQIA+ researchers are uniquely placed to represent and do justice to the experiences of LGBTQIA+ communities, especially in the fields of law and human rights.However, LGBTQIA+ identities are not monolithic or homogenous; identifying as LGBTQIA+ does not bestow all knowledge of all other LGBTQIA+ experiences.Allyship, therefore, should not just be for those outside the LGBTQIA+ community.LGBTQIA+ researchers should conceptualise themselves as 'internal allies' to the LGBTQIA+ communities that their research concerns, especially sub-communities of which they are not part.The well-understood and dynamic nature of allyship renders it a helpful framework to understand our obligations as LGBTQIA+ researchers.While there is no 'one-size-fitsall' approach, internal allyship may also prove helpful for research relating to other marginalised communitieshowever, that is a matter for those communities to selfdetermine.
This article provides a frame through which LGBTQIA+ researchers can understand the obligations upon them; it does not comprehensively set out the nature of those obligations.Future research which attempts to map out the obligations imposed by internal allyship would be welcome, but it would need to be undertaken with particular care.This is especially so due to the dynamic nature of allyship and the diversity of LGBTQIA+ individuals and communities.These factors may also mean that the precise obligations imposed by internal allyship are best determined by individual researchers on a case-by-case basis.In doing so, LGBTQIA+ researchers can ensure that their research is conducted appropriately and that it accurately reflects the diversity of experiences under our LGBTQIA+ umbrella.

Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

eg, Gabriel Arkles, Pooja Gehi and Elana Redfield, 'The Role of Lawyers in Trans Liberation: Building a Transformative Movement for Social Change
5See,