Between emergency, submersion, and silence: LGBT as a research category in Administration

Abstract This article discusses the adoption of the abbreviation LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transvestite, and transsexual), questioning the representativeness of the groups contained in this acronym in Administration research. Some authors in Brazil state that, although there is the intention to construct a field of research on the subject, the agenda is mostly aimed at research on gay people (CARRIERI, SOUZA and AGUIAR, 2014). Therefore, the research question is: Is it possible to treat identity categories that are so different under the same prism? The article is grounded on (1) a historical version of the constitution of LGBT groups, showing how they are organized and fragmented in Brazil (FACCHINI, 2005); (2) a discussion on the adoption of the LGBT acronym as a universal category, based on the debate about contingent identities (BUTLER, 1998); (3) a literature review of Brazilian Administration using the SPELL database. A total of 34 articles approaching LGBT groups were found. Research on gays predominates while groups of lesbians, transvestites, and transsexuals are underrepresented. It is perceived that, although there are similarities from the point of view that all the identity categories are targets of discrimination and violence (which is justified because they are categories considered deviant), the articles mark the differences between them. It is in these differences that there are possibilities for Administration research to question the adoption of acronyms, such as LGBT, as a universally representative and unified concept.