Resilience, generally understood as the avoidance of negative consequences despite the presence of adversity, has attracted significant attention in the study of human responses. This research focused on resilience with LGBT+ people in the UK who are known to experience health inequalities. As such, the findings contribute to a growing field, which has yet to adequately account for the perspectives of those with marginalised identities. The research questions explored the interrelated concepts of adversity and resilience, alongside intersectional notions of difference. Informed by the principles of qualitative social research with an online methodology, the research successfully engaged with 111 participants. These participants generated the research data through an online questionnaire and distance interviews via email, instant messaging and Skype.
Analysis indicated participants held complex relationships with the notion of resilience, which were grounded in their personal and community experiences. Individual agency factors and structural environmental characteristics contributed to participants’ resilience. Significantly, participants perceived resilience as required from those with minority identities, pointing to the elevated rates of suicide and mental health problems as a direct consequence of this expectation. Resilience was also associated with notions of survival; these accounts diverge from many contemporary approaches which are contingent on the concept of thriving.
The study concludes that structural components, such as identity-based adversities, are central to understanding LGBT+ peoples’ perspectives and experiences of resilience. The need for further qualitative explorations of resilience is evident. It is suggested that future research focuses on accounts of resilience with marginalised individuals and communities who have much to offer to the study and understanding of resilience. Furthermore, it is suggested that policy makers apply caution when deploying the concept of resilience as the expectations of responding in such a manner place significant requirements on those already at risk of the consequences of structural adversities.
