Queer inclusion in organizations: a critical review of methodologies and theoretical frameworks

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to critically examine how queer inclusion in organizations has been studied, with a focus on the methodological approaches and theoretical frameworks that shape this body of work. Design/methodology/approach This paper is based on a critical review of peer-reviewed literature, drawing on databases such as JSTOR, Web of Science and Scopus for their comprehensive coverage of gender and sexuality studies within corporate and institutional settings. Fifty-eight peer-reviewed publications between 2007 and 2024 are included. Findings Among the dominant frameworks in the reviewed literature – queer theory, minority stress theory and intersectionality, none adequately explains how queer claims translate into organizational change across context. Qualitative approaches dominate (50%), followed by quantitative (20.7%), theoretical and conceptual (20.7%) and mixed methods (8.6%) studies. Geographically, the literature remains heavily concentrated in a small number of national contexts, particularly the United States. The review compares the literature across shared analytical dimensions such as legal protection and enforcement, family, kinship and disclosure, intersecting axes of disadvantage, organizational form and employment informality, movement infrastructure and organizational dependencies, and business case reasoning, showing that inclusion outcomes depend on the specific combination of these conditions present in a given context. Significant gaps persist in intersectional engagement, representation beyond a monolithic “LGBT” category and longitudinal analyses of organizational change. Originality/value By connecting politics of alignment with a global–local approach, this review offers a framework for understanding not only what shapes queer workplace inclusion but the conditions under which queer claims become consequential to organizations, for whom and when the results lead to real change rather than symbolic compliance.