To provide a thorough answer to the research question, it is necessary to overview and assess the research designs of the chosen literature. First, Cech & Waidzunas (2021) do not specify their research design, but it appears to be observational archive research, which is appropriate for testing the authors’ ideas on a large sample (Cozby & Bates, 2020). In turn, Seiler-Ramadas et al. (2021) provided a survey, namely, qualitative semi-structured interviews, which is an appropriate method for researching societal trends and experiences (Cozby & Bates, 2020). Next, Parmenter et al. (2020) used a phenomenological framework and qualitative design, although their research is a case study, which adheres to the principles of validity (Cozby & Bates, 2020). Finally, Salter et al. (2019) conducted a systematic review, applying the appropriate methods for conducting such research. Additionally, Boateng et al. (2018) and Riccucci (2021) have not used any particular research design. According to Cozby & Bates (2020), the vagueness of variables results in inconsistent or absent methodology. Thus, only two studies did not employ or describe their research design, although it is inappropriate for scholarly work.
Next, it is necessary to identify the statistical analysis performed in the mentioned studies. Since Boateng et al. (2018) and Riccucci (2021) did not use or avoid describing their research designs, they omitted or did not do statistical analyses. Next, Cech & Waidzunas (2021) employed descriptive and inferential statistics. According to Cozby & Bates (2020), using both methods helps to gain insight from data and test the validity of the results, as well as generalize them, which makes such a use of statistical analysis the most appropriate. In turn, Seiler-Ramadas et al. (2021) and Parmenter et al. (2020) applied descriptive statistical analysis, which is appropriate for qualitative research design (Cozby & Bates, 2020). Finally, Salter et al. (2019) employed inferential analysis suitable for the varied sample results from other literature. Hence, statistical analysis was correctly used by all the researchers who described it in their work.
Furthermore, the American Psychological Association’s (APA) ethical principles and standards are essential for assessing the described studies’ alignment. According to Cozby and Bates (2020), “the APA Ethics Code includes five general ethical principles: beneficence and nonmaleficence, fidelity and responsibility, integrity, justice, and respect for rights and responsibilities” (p. 47). As such, Boateng et al. (2018) specifically emphasized integrity by providing abundant references to other authors’ works. Next, Cech & Waidzunas (2021), as well as Seiler-Ramadas et al. (2021) and Parmenter et al. (2020) articulated the consensual access to data and interviewing process, which corresponds to the principle of respect for rights and responsibilities. Finally, Riccucci (2021) and Salter et al. (2019) tried to maximize the benefit for their research subjects by promoting data and strategies needed to eliminate discrimination. In general, all the studies comply with the ethical principles of APA.
Nevertheless, there are limitations and further implications in the studies that posit questions. For example, Cech & Waidzunas’s (2021) research indicates that existing surveys overrepresent LGBTQ+ professionals employed in particular professions, which makes the analysis less reliable and generalizable. Similarly, Seiler-Ramadas et al. (2021) point to the fact that not all professions are studied in terms of workplace discrimination against LGBTQ+ employees. Therefore, further research might shed light on the unexplored professional settings and their correlations with discrimination or work inclusion.
References
Boateng, G. O., Neilands, T. B., Frongillo, E. A., Melgar-Quiñonez, H. R., & Young, S. L. (2018). Best practices for developing and validating scales for health, social, and behavioral research: A primer. Frontiers in Public Health, 6, 149. Web.
Cech, E. A., & Waidzunas, T. J. (2021). Systemic inequalities for LGBTQ professionals in STEM. Science Advances, 7(3). Web.
Cozby, P. C., & Bates, S. C. (2020). Methods in behavioral research (14th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Parmenter, J. G., Galliher, R. V., & Maughan, A. D. A. (2020). LGBTQ+ emerging adults perceptions of discrimination and exclusion within the LGBTQ+ community. Psychology &Amp; Sexuality, 12(4), 289–304. Web.
Riccucci, N. M. (2021). Diversity and LGBTQIA. Managing Diversity in Public Sector Workforces, 136–156. Web.
Salter, N., Gabriel, K., Kremer, H., Webster, J. R., Tamm, G. F. B., Tripathy, S. C., Byington, E., Jones, K. P., Thoroughgood, C. N., Trau, R., & Warner, L. (2019). Organizational implications of perceptions of LGBT employees. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2019(1), 18505. Web.
Seiler-Ramadas, R., Markovic, L., Staras, C., Medina, L. L., Perak, J., Carmichael, C., Horvat, M., Bajkusa, M., Baros, S., Smith, L., McDermott, D. T., & Grabovac, I. (2021). “I don’t even want to come out”: The suppressed voices of our future and opening the lid on sexual and gender minority youth workplace discrimination in Europe: A qualitative study. Sexuality Research and Social Policy. Web.