This article explores the implications of research which takes a collectivised approach to lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans+ (LGBT+) ageing and which engages in Questionable Research Practices (QRPs) in doing so. Collectivised approaches to heterogenous identity-based groups address commonalities but often fail to address internal diversity, i.e. the differences between and among older LGBT+ people. This article explores six key problems associated with collectivised research: (1) Homogenising language and phrases; (2) Uneven numerical representation of sub-groups; (3) Thematic over-representation of sexuality; (4) Non-intersectional analyses; (5) Thematic under-representation of gender; and (6) Inaccurate reporting of data. Research which does not differentiate between ‘older LGBT+’ sub-populations, can provide policy-makers and practitioners with inaccurate and/or misleading information, resulting in services which meet the needs of some, but not all, older LGBT+ people. This article discusses how research can become more inclusive, intersectional and reliable.

本文探讨了对女同性恋、男同性恋、双性恋和跨性别 (LGBT+) 老龄化采取集体方法的研究的影响，并在此过程中参与了可疑的研究实践 (QRP)。针对基于身份的异质群体的集体方法解决了共同点，但往往无法解决内部多样性问题，即年长的 LGBT+ 人群之间的差异。本文探讨了与集体研究相关的六个关键问题：（1）语言和短语的同质化；(2) 亚组的数字表示不均；(3) 主题性过度表现；(4) 非交叉分析；(5) 专题性性别代表性不足；（六）数据上报不准确。不区分“老年 LGBT+”亚群的研究，可以向政策制定者和从业者提供不准确和/或误导性的信息，从而导致服务满足部分（但不是全部）老年 LGBT+ 人群的需求。本文讨论了研究如何变得更具包容性、交叉性和可靠性。