Abstract Purpose Researchers exploring lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, queer and other sexual and gender minority (LGBTQ+) family, domestic and sexual violence (FDSV) work in a climate in which much research, policy and practice has been shaped by heteronormative and cisnormative frameworks. LGBTQ+-focused FDSV researchers are faced with the challenge of trying to center LGBTQ+ people in a field of research that has traditionally denied their experiences of FDSV. In this paper, we apply the concept of liminality to interviews with practitioners providing LGBTQ-focused FDSV and programs, considering what strategies they use to navigate marginalization as they try to support LGBTQ+ service users. We explore what researchers might learn from these practitioners who, in providing LGBTQ+-focused FDSV services and programs, are also marginalized by prevailing FDSV theory and systems that have traditionally excluded LGBTQ+ people and their experiences. Methods Between 2021 and 2023, we conducted 45 in-depth semi-structured interviews with practitioners about their experiences providing specialist LGBTQ+ FDSV services and programs. Interviews provide crucial insight into how practitioners challenge prevailing theory and systems to center LGBTQ+ people and experiences in FDSV services and programs. Findings Practitioners performed their work within an FDSV system in which LGBTQ+ people, their experiences of violence and their needs were marginalized. Three main themes demonstrated how practitioners navigated the challenges of what we describe as a liminal state of service provision: a) challenging prevailing systems; b) tailoring services and programs; and c) bringing pride to the work. These strategies are a useful guide for researchers, whose work is also marginalized, and who are similarly challenged to push back against the rigidity of prevailing, gender-binary approaches to FDSV as they center the experiences of LGBTQ+ practitioners and specialist services. Policymakers also have the opportunity to help innovate service and research systems by helping to support the challenging of systems, the tailoring of approaches and the integration of culturally competent, lived-experience expertise in the FDSV sector and research field. Conclusions Researchers exploring LGBTQ+-focused FDSV can draw on knowledge of the experiences of practitioners in navigating liminal states relevant to the marginalization of their work and LGBTQ+ people in the FDSV sector. Researchers might see similarities in the conditions in which they work and the strategies that practitioners employ in response as they seek to perform high-quality work. Policymakers could help support continued efforts of researchers and practitioners to innovate their work – challenging rigid, exclusionary theory and systems – and to center FDSV affecting LGBTQ+ people as an issue that is as important to understand and address as any other type of FDSV.
Worrell et al. (Thu,) studied this question.