Stage 1: Identifying the research question

The purpose of this scoping review is to critically assess peer-reviewed empirical literature on the forms of transnational LGBTQI+ solidarities and their inherent limitations. In doing so, our analysis aims to address several specific research questions arising from this objective:

1. What defines transnational LGBTQI+ solidarity, and how power inequalities between countries shape Minority-Majority World dynamics and their foundations?
2. Why do institutional and activist actors from both the Minority World and the Majority World engage in transnational LGBTQI+ solidarity, and what influences their motivations and priorities?
3. How is transnational LGBTQI+ solidarity implemented in practice, and how do power relations between Minority and Majority World countries shape its strategies and modalities?

These three research questions are deeply interconnected and collectively offer a comprehensive and multidimensional understanding of transnational LGBTQI+ solidarity. The first question lays the conceptual groundwork by interrogating how such solidarity is defined and how it is shaped by Minority–Majority World dynamics. In this review, the terms Minority World and Majority World are adopted within a decolonial framework that seeks to move beyond the hierarchical and geographically reductionist connotations of “Global North” and “Global South” [17,18]. Following existing scholarship [17,18], these terms refer to population-based and historically structured zones of economic and political power rather than strict geographical boundaries. However, we use them here heuristically to emphasize power relations and global asymmetries rather than to denote fixed or homogeneous regions. We also acknowledge the limitations of this binary framing, as it does not fully capture the complexity of Majority World–Majority World or Minority World–Minority World solidarities, which play equally important roles in contemporary transnational activism. The second question builds on this by exploring the motivations and priorities of the diverse actors involved—both institutional and activist—shedding light on the strategic and political considerations that guide their engagement. The third question turns to the practical implementation of solidarity, focusing on how power relations influence its forms and practices. Together, these questions allow for a critical examination of transnational LGBTQI+ solidarity as a contested and evolving field shaped by asymmetries, negotiations, and collective aspirations.

To ensure a better understanding of the research questions in this scoping review, we believe it is necessary to provide definitions for some key concepts. Firstly, we define LGBTQI+ as any one or more of the following: lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and intersex [19]. The term Two-Spirit (TS) will explicitly not be included when we refer to LGBTQI+ transnational solidarity initiatives because this term originates and is used by LGBTQI+ and Two-Spirit Indigenous Peoples specifically within the North American context. SOGI is an acronym we will use in keyword searches for sexual orientation and gender identity. The term “Majority World” refers to the regions and societies where most of the world’s population lives. It encompasses diverse social, political, and economic contexts that have historically been described through reductive categories such as “developing” or “Global South” [17,18]. The expression emphasizes demographic and cultural plurality and invites recognition of the wide range of knowledge systems, histories, and lived experiences that exist across these regions [17,18]. The term “Minority World’ designates the regions where a smaller proportion of the global population resides, often referred to in traditional literature as the “developed” or “Global North” [17,18]. This terminology shifts the focus away from presumed economic or political dominance, instead underscoring demographic proportion, epistemic diversity, and the interdependence that connects all regions of the world [17,18]. Transnational solidarity refers to the collaborative and reciprocal efforts of individuals, groups, and organizations that transcend national borders to pursue shared goals of justice, equity, and human rights [20]. Rather than assuming a one-directional flow of support or influence between regions, this concept recognizes the multiplicity of relationships, exchanges, and mutual learning processes that constitute global solidarities in practice [20]. It often emerges in response to issues such as human rights, environmental justice, and social inequalities, and is characterized by mutual support, shared resources, and coordinated strategies to address challenges affecting multiple communities across the globe [20].

Stage 2: Identifying relevant studies

A meeting will be scheduled with the departmental librarian at the Université de Montréal to develop a research strategy. This meeting will help identify the main social science databases in both French and English. Keywords will be systematically searched in the identified databases and will be divided into four categories as follows:

• Category of keywords related to sexuality and LGBTQI+ issues: sexuality, LGBTQI + , SOGIE, SOGI.
• Category of keywords related to solidarity issues: solidarity, activism, advocacy, human rights, cooperation, social movements, mobilization.
• Category of keywords related to the decolonial approach: decolonial, anti-colonial, postcolonial, neocolonial, critical, North/South, Majority/Minority World.
• Category of keywords related to the transnational scale: transnational, international, global.

Stage 3: Study selection

As part of this scoping review, we will focus on synthesizing the empirical literature relevant to our research topic. By “scientific literature”, we mean research using primary sources, scoping reviews, systematic reviews, meta-syntheses, textual analysis (media, public policy, legal), case law studies, historical archive research, and auto-ethnography. All publications included in this scoping review must come from peer-reviewed scientific journals. The time frame for the included literature will be 10 years, from 2014 to 2024, reflects the significant evolution of transnational LGBTQI+ solidarity initiatives and related issues over the past decade. This period has been particularly marked by emergence of new forms of activism, policy changes, and cross-border collaborations, both in Canada and internationally. To ensure a rigorous selection of studies, the established inclusion criteria are as follows: 1) research using primary sources employing qualitative, quantitative, or mixed research methods; 2) systematic reviews, if they contain meta-syntheses or meta-analyses; 3) theoretical articles, literature reviews, annotated bibliographies, and discussion papers; 4) conference papers (if published in scientific journals); literature written in English or French. Although the inclusion of systematic reviews in scoping reviews remains debated, we chose to include those that contain meta-syntheses or meta-analyses, as they produce new and integrated knowledge rather than merely summarizing existing studies [21]. Such reviews provide analytical interpretations that align with our objective of mapping theoretical, methodological, and empirical developments in the field.

To maintain methodological consistency, grey literature and research results or narratives found on conventional or alternative media sites (e.g., websites, newspapers, etc.) will be excluded. Additionally, doctoral theses, master’s dissertations, book chapters, books, case law, legislation, and public policies will also be excluded.

Stage 4: Charting the data

All identified literature will be imported into COVIDENCE, the software chosen for this scoping review. This software will allow the research team to keep track of the scoping review process (up until the data extraction phase). All knowledge sources included will be reviewed by a minimum of 2 research team members. Initially, during the selection process, all duplicates will be removed, and relevant sources will be retrieved. Sources that do not meet the inclusion criteria will be excluded. In cases where there is a disagreement between the two team members regarding a source, a third evaluator will decide on its relevance and make the final determination, at which stage the reasons for exclusion will be documented. The data extraction will be completed by 2 research team members for each knowledge source. The entire process of source inclusion will be presented in a PRISMA Flow diagram [22]. In accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) guidance and the PRISMA-ScR framework, this scoping review does not include a formal quality assessment of the selected studies, as the objective is to map the range and nature of existing evidence rather than to evaluate methodological rigor [21].

The data to be extracted and tabulated will include study title, authors, type of empirical knowledge source, country of origin, year of publication, study objectives, theoretical framework, methodological approach, duration of study, data collection tools, recruitment strategy, participant sample, participant numbers, key inclusion or exclusion criteria. Additionally, the summary of main findings will cover key findings, key recommendations related to policy and practice implications, identified knowledge gaps and study limitations.

Stage 5: Collating, summarizing and reporting the results

Analysis and synthesis will be undertaken by the whole team. Group meetings at points throughout to ensure consistency against original research questions, aims and objectives. Using the diagram outlining our source selection methodology and detailed tables presenting the results of these sources, we will also provide a descriptive synthesis of the findings. The synthesis will follow a descriptive and thematic approach, consistent with the methodological framework proposed by Peters et al. [16]. This process will involve coding the extracted data, identifying recurrent themes, and mapping relationships between concepts, contexts, and theoretical perspectives [16]. The aim is to produce an analytical narrative that highlights convergences, divergences, and gaps across studies. Indeed, we will produce a synthesis of the research results, including an identification of key themes and emerging tensions, with the aim of highlighting gaps in knowledge on the subject, providing recommendations, and proposing a future research agenda. The documents that will be used to complete the analysis (i.e., data extraction form, etc.) will be stored in the Université de Montréal secure server, managed by the principal investigator, Ahmed Hamila, and will be made available upon request, with the exception of the data processed within the COVIDENCE software. The review will also be registered with PROSPERO to enhance transparency and replicability of the methodological process.

The timeline for the project is as follows: We aim to identify the articles by early 2026. During the winter of 2026, we will conduct the coding phases and analysis. The synthesis and writing stages are planned for the summer of 2026, by which time we expect the project to be completed.