Whose Knowledge Counts? a Historical Analysis of LGBTQ+ Intersectionality In Social Work Journals, 1989–2024

Background and Purpose Social work journals function as gatekeepers of disciplinary knowledge, determining whose experiences are centered, which frameworks are legitimized, and what questions the profession treats as worth asking. Despite growing calls to embed intersectionality in social work research, no study has systematically examined how LGBTQ+ intersectional scholarship has developed across the field's leading journals. This gap matters: uneven knowledge production directly shapes practitioner preparation, research funding, and policy advocacy for the population social work claims to serve. Rooted in Crenshaw's (1989) theorization of intersectionality, this study asks: How has LGBTQ+ intersectional scholarship evolved across five major social work journals from 1989 to 2024, and what patterns of progress and persistent exclusion characterize that record?

Methods This study employed systematic historical content analysis of five high-impact journals: Social Work, Social Service Review, Journal of Social Work Education, Research on Social Work Practice, and Social Work Research. Articles from 1989–2024 were identified using Boolean search terms ("intersectional*," "Crenshaw," "LGBTQ*") required in the title or abstract. Articles were included if they explicitly addressed both LGBTQ+ populations and intersectional frameworks with substantive engagement; book reviews, letters to the editor, and non-peer-reviewed content were excluded. Fifteen articles met full inclusion criteria and were coded across four dimensions following McCall's (2005) framework: theoretical application, methodological approach, population focus, and practice relevance.

Results Three developmental periods emerged. During Early Development (2002–2005), intersectionality appeared implicitly, most notably in Fineran's (2002) pioneering examination of same-sex peer harassment, without formal theoretical framing. The Emergence of Systematic Analysis (2014–2017) marked a decisive shift, anchored by Pelts et al.'s (2014) meta-analysis revealing historical gaps in LGBTQ+ representation and Craig et al.'s (2017) first study of intersecting identities among social work students. Contemporary Development (2018–2024) reflected methodological maturation, including Matsuzaka et al.'s (2021) operationalization of intersectionality as a formal research method and Schaub et al.'s (2023) first randomized controlled trial of an LGBTQ+ training intervention, alongside expanded focus on trans and nonbinary populations. Social Work Research led in methodological innovation; Journal of Social Work Education concentrated on practitioner preparation. Rural LGBTQ+ communities, older adults, and non-U.S. contexts remained chronically underrepresented throughout.

Conclusions and Implications Thirty-five years of scholarship reflect meaningful but structurally uneven progress, with theoretical sophistication consistently outpacing methodological consistency, practice application, and population breadth. This uneven record reflects whose lives the field has treated as researchable and whose have been excluded from the democratic project of knowledge-building. For journal editors, findings provide an empirical foundation for adopting explicit intersectionality standards in reviewer guidelines, reducing bias in what gets published. For doctoral programs, the persistent absence of rural, aging, and international LGBTQ+ scholarship should shape dissertation mentorship and training priorities. For federal and foundation funders, 35 years of documented knowledge gaps support targeted investment in community-engaged research centering the most excluded LGBTQ+ populations. Rigorous historical inquiry that names the field's own blind spots is not merely good scholarship; it is the inherent obligation social work calls us to meet.