Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Beyond the binary: a phenomenological study of the campus experiences and social identities of bisexual, pansexual, fluid, and queer students at a public university
(USC Thesis Other)
Beyond the binary: a phenomenological study of the campus experiences and social identities of bisexual, pansexual, fluid, and queer students at a public university
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
BEYOND THE BINARY:
A PHENOMENOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE CAMPUS EXPERIENCES AND SOCIAL
IDENTITIES OF BISEXUAL, PANSEXUAL, FLUID, AND QUEER STUDENTS AT A
PUBLIC UNIVERSITY
by
Sabrina L. Labor
A Thesis Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFRONIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
MASTER OF EDUCATION
December 2012
Copyright 2012 Sabrina L. Labor
ii
Acknowledgements
I would like to give special thanks to my loving partner, Alejandra, for her patience and
understanding during the “era of the thesis.” Without her flexibility and willingness to maintain
balance when I have taken over the common household areas, leaving behind a whirlwind of
books and articles, the thesis would not be published today. A very big thank you goes to Tracy
Tambascia for her support, encouragement, and ability to stretch the 24 hour day to 27 hours to
accommodate my lengthy drafts. Tracy, you were my backbone and academic cheering squad
throughout the process. Shafiqa Ahmadi, I am so grateful for your guidance through the
literature review. My deepest thanks go to my fabulous committee members, Zoe Corwin,
Nancy Jean Tubbs, and Vincent Vigil. You each have a special place in my book and I could not
have persevered without you. I would also like to acknowledge my mother. She is my shining
star and she has always believed in me. Grandma, although you no longer physically occupy this
world, I carry your commitment and perseverance with me in each moment of my journey.
iii
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………………………..ii
Chapter 1: Overview of the Study………………………………………………………………...1
Problem Statement……………………………………………………………………......2
Background……………………………………………………………………………….2
Purpose of the Study……………………………………………………………………...4
Significance of the Study………………………………………………………………....5
Language…………………………………………………………………………………..6
Theoretical Framework…………………………………………………………………...6
Methodology……………………………………………………………………………...7
Organization……………………………………………………………………………….7
Chapter 2: Review of Literature…………………………………………………………………..9
Introduction……………………………………………………………………………….9
Purpose…………………………………………………………………………………...10
Review of Literature……………………………………………………………………..10
Theoretical Framework…………………………………………………………………..29
Definitions………………………………………………………………………………..32
Chapter 3: Research Design and Methodology………………………………………………… 36
Introduction………………………………………………………………………………36
Research Design………………………………………………………………………….36
Theoretical Framework ………………………………………………………………….38
Site and Informant Selection …………………………………………………………….39
Data Collection Methods ………………………………………………………………..42
Data Analysis Procedures………………………………………………………………..48
Measures to Protect Informants………………………………………………………….49
Trustworthiness…………………………………………………………………………..49
Limitations. ..…………………………………………………………………………….50
Chapter 4: Individual Stories…………………………………………………………………….53
Introduction………………………………………………………………………………53
Participant Stories………………………………………………………………………..53
The Story of David T ran…… ……… ……… ……… ……… ……… ……… …… ……..53
The Story of Au rora… ……… ……… ……… ……… ……… ……… ……… …… …….54
The Story of BT… ……… ……… ……… ……… …… ……… ……… ……… …… …….55
The Story of Mocha………………………………………………………………56
The Story of Vika…………………………………………………………………57
The Story of Raj………………………………………………………………….58
The Story of Cupcake………………………………………………………….…58
Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………….59
iv
Chapter 5: Findings………………………………………………………………………………60
Introduction………………………………………………………………………………60
Research Question One: What Are the Experiences of Bisexual, Pansexual, Fluid,
and Queer College Students at a Large Public Research University?.............................60
Theme 1: Transition to College ………………………………………………....60
Theme 2: First Year Residential Experience……………………………………63
Theme 3: Fear of Initially Accessing LGBTQRC………………………….……65
Theme 4: Perception of Campus Climate and Safety……………………….......67
Theme 5: Campus Involvement Opportunities………………………………….72
Research Question Two: What are the Social and Interpersonal
Forces Shaping Sexual Identity Labels and Meaning-Making?......................................74
Theme 6: Resistance to Labels…………………………………………….…….74
Theme 7: Language Politics……………………………………………….…….75
Theme 8: Exposure to Stereotypes……………………………………………...77
Theme 9: Internal versus Social Group Identities…………………………….…79
Research Question Three: Where and How Do Students
Access Support on Campus?............................................................................................81
Theme 10: Factors Determining Access to Support………………………….…81
Theme 11: Queer People of Color Spaces………………………………….……86
Researcher Reflection……………………………………………………………….…...88
Chapter 6…………………………………………………………………………………….…...90
Summary of Findings…………………………………………………………………….90
Discussion of Implications………………………………………………………………90
Recommendations for Practice……………………………………………………….….92
Conduct Assessment Regarding Fluid Identities………………………….……..92
Facilitate Common Ground A c ti v it y ……… ….. …………………………………. …..93
Implement Collaborative Orientation and Transition Programs………………..94
Examine Freshman Residential Education………………………………….…..94
Conduct Sensitivity and Ally Trainings…………………….……………………95
Provide Programs Allowing for Anonymity………………..………….………...95
Promote Campus Racial Diversity……….………………………………….…..96
Limitations………………………………………………….……………….…………...96
Future Areas of Research………………………………………………….…………….97
Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………….....98
References………………………………………………………………………………………100
Appendices……………………………………………………………………………………...109
APPENDIX I: Online Pre-Screening Survey…………………………………………………..109
APPENDIX II: Reflection Activity Prompts…………………………………………………..110
APPENDIX III: Semi-Structured Interview Protocol………………………………………….111
APPENDIX IV: Template for Coding a Phenomenological Study…………………………….113
APPENDIX V: Building Common Ground Activity…………………………………………. 114
APPENDIX VI: Personal Reflection………………………………………………………….. 116
v
Abstract
This study examined the campus experiences, social identity labels, and campus support
for BPFQ students at Western University. From the seven students’ stories, 11 themes emerged
pertaining to the experiences of BPFQ students at Western. The themes were 1) transition to
college, 2) first year residential experience, 3) fear of initially accessing the LGBTQRC, 4)
perception of campus climate and safety, 5) campus involvement opportunities, 6) resistance to
labels, 7) language politics, 8) exposure to stereotypes, 9) internal versus social group identities,
10) factors determining access to support, and 11) queer people of color spaces.
1
Chapter 1: Overview of the Study
Introduction
When people talk about me,
They will say,
Why can’t he make his mind up,
Be straight or gay.
…
Yeah, it was confusing,
When I was young,
Torn between two worlds,
And it felt wrong.
Didn’t know that there was,
A middle ground,
Which happily describes,
Where I’m at now
…
CHORUS
And now I fight,
For bi visibility,
Still the same things,
Are uttered to me.
Why can’t you make your mind up?,
Be straight or gay,
You’re just being greedy,
Swinging both ways.
-Ukelele Kris, www.middleoftheroad.com
Ukelele Kris’ song highlights the challenges young people encounter when their sexual
identity is not viewed as acceptable because they do not fit into dichotomous “gay” or “straight”
categories. The songwriter’s encounters with hostility and common stereotypes surrounding
bisexual identity are not uncommon. This study explored the untold stories central to bisexual,
pansexual, fluid, and queer (BPFQ) sexual identities at a large, research university in the
Western United States. BPFQ identities can be defined by the attraction to more than one
2
gender. Additionally, this study had the goal of reconceptualizing these communities as BPFQ
in order to capture the shared experiences of those historically labeled bisexual.
Problem Statement
Bisexual, pansexual, fluid, and queer (BPFQ) college students occupy various social
groups simultaneously. Their membership is closely regulated and reinforced by larger social
forces. In order to capture the essence of these students’ experiences, the social identity
perspective provides a useful lens in which to understand the factors influencing and shaping
their experiences on college campuses. The social identity perspective (Hogg, Abrams, Otten, &
Hinkle, 2004) situates daily interactions and behaviors as prescribed by social group identities
and prototypes. Rigid reinforcement of in-group and out-group membership leaves very little
room for violation of prescribed behavioral expectations for social identities. Students
identifying (or perceived by others) as bisexual, pansexual, fluid or queer are also subject to
social group prototypes. This study aimed to capture the experiences of members of these social
groups and explore the social world in which they make meaning of their identities.
Background
Policies, laws, and other protections for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer
(LGBTQ)-identified people are a topic of concern in the United States. Recent bullying
incidents, LGBTQ student suicides at secondary and postsecondary institutions, and other
LGTBQ-motivated hate crimes have resulted in concentrated media attention on federal, state,
and institutional policies providing protections for students. Federal legislation, such as the
Student Nondiscrimination Act of 2010 and the Safe Schools Improvement Act of 2011, were
introduced to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity for students
in the public school system. According to the Human Rights Campaign (HRC, 2010) there are 17
3
states and the District of Columbia with laws protecting students from “discrimination,
harassment, and/or bullying based on their sexual orientation” (HRC, 2010, p.1). Additionally,
there are 31 states (and the District of Columbia) that have laws prohibiting hate or bias crimes
based on the category of sexual orientation (HRC, 2010). Despite the existence of these state
laws, LGBTQ students often encounter hostility in postsecondary and other educational
environments.
In 2011, I conducted a programmatic assessment at four-year colleges and universities in
the Southwestern United States (Labor, 2011). LGBTQ campus resource center professionals
were asked about their experiences serving students identifying or questioning a bisexual,
pansexual, or queer identity. The findings pointed to the invisibility of these students in LGBTQ
campus programs and resource centers (Labor, 2011). BPFQ students were more likely to access
services on a confidential basis, one-on-one with a staff member, online in anonymous chat
groups, and through telephone consultations and appeared to be less confident in their identity as
their gay and lesbian peers (Labor, 2011).
Identity development theories are central to understanding the developmental needs of
students in postsecondary settings. In the college environment, LGBTQ students experience
adverse campus climate conditions impacting the development of positive identities. They
encounter a lack of visible LGBTQ faculty and professional campus mentors, experience
harassment and abuse, negative perceptions and stereotypes of LGBTQ identities, and the
occurrence of performative bisexuality. Little is known about the specific lived experiences of
BPFQ students; therefore, there is not an applicable model of identity development currently
available. This study aims to add to the understanding of BPFQ students’ experiences, both
4
positive and negative and to provide student affairs professionals a contextual framework in
order to ground support services for these students.
Categories of acceptable sexuality and corresponding identity labels are limited and
reinforce power structures, hierarchies of sexual identity and the status quo. Perceptions and
stereotypes of LGBTQ-identified persons not only perpetuate homophobia and biphobia (Fahs,
2009; Geiger, Harwood, & Hummert, 2006), but individuals may begin to internalize these
beliefs (Rust, 1993a) and project this form of internalized homophobia onto others (Rhoads,
1997). Current research has established the occurrence of biphobia (Eliason, 2001; Herek, 2002;
Rust, 1993b) and its relationship to negative perceptions or stereotypes of bisexuals (Geiger et
al., 2006; Rust, 1993a). This study highlighted the experiences of these students within a society
guided by social group membership and identities on a campus where support is available.
Literature on mental health characteristics and risks for LGBTQ populations is extensive
and points to the impact of environmental and psychological stressors on the mental and
emotional well-being of sexual minorities. Higher levels of depression, suicidal ideation, and
anxiety have been found in individuals identifying as LGBTQ. Much is known on the range of
mechanisms employed by sexual minorities to cope with these stressors and research is largely
focused on substance abuse rates in LGBTQ communities, yet few studies focus on the specific
experiences of BPFQ students. Shedding light on how BPFQ students make meaning of their
experiences and cope with the external and internal stressors is pertinent to employing
intentional interventions and support in the college environment.
Purpose of the Study
A lack of sufficient empirical research exists on students previously categorized as
bisexual; there is a gap in research concerning their specific experiences, needs, and concerns. A
5
deepening of our understanding of LGBTQ populations as being heterogeneous is necessary in
academe to acknowledge the unique needs and experiences of these students. This study
examined the experiences of the BPFQ student population (historically labeled bisexual) as a
distinct identity population.
Much of the current research on LGBTQ student experiences has focused on LGBQ
student populations as a generalized categorized of analysis, excluding transgender populations.
Similarly, bisexual student experiences are often aggregated under the LGB umbrella of sexual
minority identities as having similar needs as gay and lesbian students. Lewis, Derlega, Brown,
Rose, and Henson (2009) argue for the disaggregation of bisexual students as a distinct category
of examination from gay and lesbians due to their different experiences. Much of the current
research regarding the experiences of sexual minority students at postsecondary institutions is
anecdotal, as opposed to being grounded in empirical examination across institutional types and
geographical locations (Sanlo, 2004).
Significance of the Study
The emergence of sexual identity labels by college students is also vital to our
understanding of students’ conceptualization of their own sexual identity. Students’ perceived
stereotypes, social group identification, and the implications for campus climate are important in
informing the work of student and academic affairs professionals in serving this student
population. It is through the sharing of their experiences in the postsecondary environment that
increases insight into their otherwise invisible stories. The focus of this research study was to
uncover the unique experiences of BPFQ students and how they make meaning of their sexual
identity labels at a large public university in the western region of the United States. This study
is guided by three central research questions:
6
1. What are the experiences of BPFQ college students at a large public research
university?
2. What are the social and interpersonal forces shaping sexual identity labels and
meaning-making?
3. Where and how do students access support on campus?
Language
Historically, bisexual identity has been marginalized and invalidated within LGBT,
queer, and heteronormative communities. Bisexual identity is often masked by individuals
fearing discrimination or judgment and is also considered an identity that adheres to
dichotomous views of sexual identity, rather than expressing one’s identity within a spectrum of
fluid sexualities. A reconceptualization of identities is necessary in academe to fill the gaps in
research and incorporate a wider spectrum of sexual identities and corresponding experiences.
Students that identify as having romantic or physical attractions to both men and women,
historically referred to as bisexual, require a new terminology to capture the fluidity of genders
and sexualities. This binary understanding of gender and sexuality does not capture the range of
sexualities, gender identities, and gender expressions. The reconceptualization of bisexual,
pansexual, fluid, and queer communities as BPFQ in this study is an attempt to broaden our
understanding of sexuality and question binaries guiding sexual identity and gender. This also
gave credence to their individualized experiences within and between sexuality communities.
BPFQ is meant to encapsulate the marginalization of sexual minorities not adhering to rigid
definitions of same-sex or opposite-sex attractions and recognizes gender non-conforming bodies
and attractions.
Theoretical Framework
The social identity perspective provides a lens that focuses the experiences of BPFQ
students within a landscape of social forces and norms guiding collective group behavior.
7
Emphasizing intergroup relations and one’s understanding of large-scale social categories will
allow insight into the forces operating at the social and individual cognitive levels. As members
of collective groups, the behavior of BPFQ students is informed by the social norms assigned to
their social identity group. This perspective focuses on the perceptions of BPFQ students have
of their own identities and the contextual information influencing behavior and identification in
order to reinforce in-group and out-group membership. Competing for status and privilege often
require a BPFQ student “pass” in order to attain social mobility. Campus climate experiences
are largely influenced by social forces reinforcing acceptable or appropriate sexual identities.
Methodology
This study involved seven BPFQ college students at a four-year public higher education
institution. I employed a transcendental phenomenological approach to stay as true as possible
to the stories of the BPFQ student participants. The social identity framework was situated
centrally as the lens for understanding the lived experiences and meaning-making of BPFQ
students. Factors that guided site and participant selection are provided and institutional
characteristics and population demographics will be detailed, as they were primary
considerations. Data collection methods utilized, including the use of two journaling activities
and semi-structured video conference interviews are discussed and justified
Organization
Chapter 2 provides an overview of the current breadth of research on LGBTQ
communities and concerns. Literature pertaining to the sociohistorical and political influences
on the current climate for LGBTQ populations are provided in order to understand the context of
the social forces determining the lived experiences of BPFQ student populations. Chapter 3
provides a detailed discussion of the decisions to be employed in the study’s design and
8
implementation, as well as the justifications for this approach. Chapter 4 provides a summary of
the data, or the individual stories. Chapter 5 outlines the findings and the emergence of 11
themes. Chapter 6 discusses the implications based on the findings and offer recommendations
for practice.
9
Chapter 2: Review of Literature
Introduction
Current research regarding BPFQ population characteristics, historical and current social
and campus climate issues, as well identity development models, and personal resiliency
provides a comprehensive foundation of social and environmental factors affecting BPFQ
students as they navigate campus landscapes. Western University, the site for this study, is
located in the Western United States and offers a racially diverse student body and vibrant
LGBTQ campus community. The social identity perspective (Hogg, Abrams, Otten, & Hinkle,
2004) provides a lens in order to understand the social and interpersonal influences on students’
meaning-making and experiences as members of larger social groups. Application of this
theoretical framework will allow for close attention to the individual experiences of BPFQ
students in consideration of the influence of social context and interpersonal relations. I
conclude this chapter by defining relevant terms used throughout the study. It is important to
note these definitions provide a basis of initial understanding and it is my intention to remain
close to the meaning and terminology expressed by the study’s informants in chapters 4, 5, and
6.
This study will focus on three primary research questions: 1) What are the experiences of
BPFQ college students at a large, public research university?; 2) What are the social and
interpersonal forces shaping sexual identity labels and meaning-making?; and 3) Where and how
do students access support on campus? Language used in research pertaining to sexual minority
categories is an important area of discussion. Historically, literature has often grouped lesbian,
gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) student concerns as homogenous, as well as
10
distinguishing non-gay and non-straight identities as bisexual, comprising three exclusive sexual
identity groups.
Purpose.
This study aims to fill the gap in academic literature pertaining to the experiences of
BPFQ students in the college environment for student services professionals. Through the lens of
the social identity perspective, their experiences can be situated in a socially constructed world
as members of multiple social groups. Their stories and processes of meaning-making regarding
their sexual identity in this environment are of particular concern in this study. Students’ access
to campus support services and resources will provided necessary context for higher education
LGBTQ resource professionals and other student affairs personnel in designing and
implementing student support services for BPFQ students.
Review of Literature
Characteristics of BPFQ Population.
It is estimated that 10% of the US population is lesbian, gay, or bisexual (Lee, 2000). The
actual LGBT student population is unknown as sexual orientation is not typically a demographic
question included in higher education research. Students may be reluctant to self-identify for
three reasons: 1) students fear the social stigma associated with LGBTQ labels; 2) students are in
the early stages of the coming out process or sexual identity development and may not be self-
identified as such students; or 3) may reject labels altogether (Leider, 2000). Sherrill and
Hardesty (1994) found that 33% of lesbian, gay, and bisexual students dropped out of college
due to harassment on campus. D’Augelli (2003) found that 69% of lesbian and bisexual female
youth had suicidal thoughts and 39% reported attempting suicide. Victimization due to sexual
orientation was relatively high among this population, with 75% reporting verbal abuse, 13%
11
reporting physical abuse, and 12% indicating they had experienced sexual abuse. Respondents
also expressed a reluctance to report incidents, with 37% refraining from reporting (D’Augelli,
2003).
Research pertaining to sexual behavior and onset of sexual identification occurring
during adolescence and early adulthood posits that traditional college-aged BPFQ students may
encounter adjustment issues and risk. Dube (2000) explored the role of same-sex sexual
behavior for gay and bisexual men as it related to their sexual identification and adjustment to
sexual identity. He compared these processes using two sequences of sexual identification and
same-sex sexual behavior: sex-centered and identity-centered. Men following a sex-centered
sequence labeled their sexual identity only after having same-sex sexual experiences. This group
was predominately older, had higher numbers of sexual partners, and exhibited higher rates of
internalized homophobia on others. Men following an identity-centered sequence labeled their
sexual identity before their first same-sex encounter. This group was younger in age and
experienced more adjustment issues to their sexual identity once they labeled their sexual
orientation. These findings for younger males are relevant to understanding how gay and
bisexual men come to identify their sexual orientation through an increasingly identity-centered
approach, which may contextualize developmental challenges facing BPFQ students in the
college environment.
Early onset of sexual behavior and the meaning that students make of these experiences is
important in understanding their developmental and sexual health. In a study of 206 lesbian and
bisexual female youth, D’Augelli (2003) found that 69% of respondents had sexual contact with
both male and female partners and the average age of onset of sexual behavior occurred prior to
reaching 17 years of age. Lewis et al. (2009) also found that bisexual participants were
12
predominantly younger than other gay and lesbian participants and were more likely to be
females. Vaccaro (2006) found that Millennial students engaged in same-sex romantic and
physical relationships; however, they did not identify these attractions as gay or queer or any
other identity label (Vaccaro, 2006), in contrast to previous LGB generations. This contrasting
research highlights the range of sexual behaviors college students exhibit prior to arrival to the
college environment.
Origins of Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Politics.
Sociohistorical politics surrounding sexual identities is important given that college
campuses are microcosms of larger social systems and climate. The historical and political
relations between LGBTQ and heterosexual individuals in the United States are vital to
understanding the perceptions of each group by larger society and within these sexual identity
groups. This historical context highlights the emphasis on rigid reinforcement of membership
within dichotomous sexual identity categories. Eaklor (2008) posits that a gay rights movement
inclusive of bisexual issues and persons began in 1987 with the March on Washington for
Lesbian and Gay Rights; however, bisexual identity was marginalized and excluded from both
heterosexual and gay communities prior to this march. Issues of social and political inclusion are
central to the bisexual movement (Myers, 2003) and can be viewed as prominent challenges
encountered by college students today more than 20 years later. Bisexuality is often the
language used in academic literature to categorize individuals that cannot be characterized within
gay or straight binaries. Recent emphasis in queer studies and politics has been on the spectrum
of sexualities and genders, rather than narrowly defined sexual identity categories.
Rust’s (1993a) description of the historical and political relationship of lesbian and
bisexual women is helpful in understanding the status ascribed to bisexuality within LGBTQ
13
communities and locates bisexual identity on the margins of the gay rights movement. Lesbian
women are described to have negative perceptions of bisexual women and Rust (1993a)
characterizes their relationship as being one of tension, conflict, suspicion, and hostility toward
bisexual women due to their relationships with men. She acknowledges that both groups are
marginalized in a society where heterosexuality is normative; however, bisexual women occupy
a lower status due to their perceived power and leverage attained through relationships with
dominant social groups, men and heterosexuals (Rust, 1993a). The origins and context of social
status ascribed to bisexual populations in larger society provides an important starting point for
understanding campus climate issues.
Campus Climate.
Assessing the campus climate of the college environment for LGBTQ students has been
an area of important consideration in student affairs research. As in previous and current
research efforts, there has not been an effort to disaggregate BPFQ students as a specific
population of concern. Relevant research exists pertaining to general LGBT student perceptions
and experiences of campus climate (Rankin, 2003; Rankin et. al, 2010), availability of visible
LGBTQ higher education professionals (Ivory, 2005), effects of campus climate on LGBT
student identity development (Ivory, 2005), fear of abuse at school (D’Augelli, 2003), and
behavior modification due to perceived negativity or hostility in campus climate (D’Augelli,
2003). Given the specific developmental, social and political issues that bisexual students face
within the LGBTQ community and in the heterosexual community, the perspectives of these
students specifically need to be examined.
Rankin (2003) aimed to survey students, staff, faculty, and administrators regarding their
perceptions and experiences of campus climate for LGBT persons. Over one-third of students
14
reported experiencing harassment on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity and
43% rated their overall campus climate as homophobic (2003). Lesbian and bisexual female
respondents reported significant fears of abuse occurring while at school, 42% of respondents
feared verbal abuse and 28% feared physical abuse (D’Augelli, 2003). Thirty-nine percent
communicated that they modified their behavior to avoid victimization (D’Augelli, 2003).
Rankin (2003) also found that 41% of respondents did not feel that their institution was
addressing issues related to sexual orientation and gender identity within policies and actions.
The perception of homophobia, harassment, and victimization of LGBTQ individual in campus
environments is indicative of the need for closer examination of BPFQ students’ experiences and
perceptions of their campus climate.
Students exposed to negative campus climates can experience adverse developmental
effects in the absence of adequate support from visible campus mentors. The availability of
visible LGBTQ professionals in higher education is generally limited (Ivory, 2005). Ivory (2005)
asserts that hostile campus environments can hinder the identity development and coming-out
process of LGBTQ students, resulting in a variety of serious problems, such as low self-esteem,
feelings of isolation and invisibility, depression, substance abuse, violence, and suicide (Sanlo,
2004). These studies highlight the potential impact of negative campus climate experiences for
the larger LGBTQ student population and points to the need for research pertaining to BPFQ
student experiences.
Stereotypes and Perceptions.
The prevalence of biphobic attitudes and perceptions originate from within
heteronormative communities, LGBTQ communities, as well as individually in the form of
internalized biphobia. Current research on stereotypes and perceptions stemming from within
15
heteronormative communities has looked at stereotypes of lesbians (Geiger et al., 2006),
religiosity and homophobia (Finlay & Walther, 2003), attitudes towards gay males, bisexuals,
and lesbians (Herek, 2002), performative bisexuality (Fahs, 2009), and attitudes and predictors of
homonegativity and binegativity (Eliason, 2001).
Geiger and colleagues (2006) conducted a study with the goal of understanding how
college students perceive and categorize those in subpopulations of lesbian, gay, and bisexual
communities. They examined the complexity of stereotypes of lesbians from a cognitive
perspective framework (Geiger et al., 2006). They found that respondents reported both positive
and negative stereotypes, of which the researchers classified into several subcategories as having
positive attributes: lipstick lesbian, career-oriented feminist, soft butch, and free spirit. Negative
subcategories consisted of hypersexual, sexually confused, sexually deviant, and angry butch.
Although this study focused on the stereotypes of lesbians, respondents implied associations
between lesbians and bisexuals within the subcategory entitled “hypersexual,” which was found
to be the strongest stereotype. Stereotypes of lesbians as hypersexual consisted of several
characteristics, such as promiscuous, sex crazy, and bisexual. The association of bisexual as a
stereotype of lesbians with hypersexuality has implications for the prominence of these
stereotypes and its impact on the incidence of homophobia for college-aged students.
Finlay and Walther (2003) examined the influence of religiosity and its relationship to
gay, lesbian, and bisexual persons in measuring homophobic attitudes. They found that
Conservative and Moderate Protestants had the highest scores pertaining to anti-homosexual
attitudes, or homophobia. The frequency of religious attendance correlated with stronger
homophobic attitudes. They also found that homophobia decreased when individuals
experienced frequent social interactions with LGB individuals or had family members or friends
16
that were LGB. Lastly, they noted that men were more likely than women and racial minority
group members to hold homophobic attitudes. This research brings to light the role of religious
ideology, gender, and social interactions with LGB individuals in predicting homophobic
attitudes.
Herek (2002) examined heterosexuals’ attitudes toward bisexuals and found differences
in attitudes by gender, sexual identity, and race/ethnicity. Both heterosexual men and women
held negative attitudes towards bisexuals. Heterosexual men rated male bisexuals and
homosexuals less favorably than females, whereas heterosexual women rated bisexuals
significantly less favorable than they rated homosexuals of both genders. White heterosexual
women had significantly more favorable attitudes than other women and all men. Though this
study was not specifically focused on student attitudes, it is possible to surmise that male and
female students would hold similar views.
Increasingly, popular culture is portraying hyper sexualized images of bisexual
relationships and we are left to wonder whether this represents a shift in society’s acceptance of
same-sex couples or the exploitation of female sexuality. Fahs (2009) investigated the
phenomenon of “performative bisexuality” and positioned it as the new “compulsive
heterosexuality,” a term coined by Adrienne Rich to describe the rigid heterosexual expectations
of women’s sexuality as ultimately serving the purpose of male satisfaction in society. Similar to
this idea of “compulsive heterosexuality,” she noted the increased visibility of heterosexual
women performing bisexual acts in social spaces and the influence of male satisfaction outcomes
on these behaviors. Her study aimed at uncovering whether this increased visibility of same-sex
behaviors had positive implications for social acceptability of LGBTQ communities or if
women’s sexualities were being exploited for the “male gaze.” She found that younger women
17
were more likely to engage in performative bisexuality in public social spaces at the behest of
strangers or non-partners. Fahs (2009) studied participants’ views on civil rights issues for
LGBTQ communities and found that individuals’ inclinations to engage in performative
bisexuality did not correspond with positive political beliefs about LGBTQ rights. Here we see
the presence of bisexual acts and the absence of positive attitudes toward LGBTQ-identified
individuals, which are important considerations of campus climate experiences for BPFQ
students.
Fahs’ (2009) study highlighted two major points relevant to the experiences of BPFQ
students. First, the increased presence of performative bisexuality is misleading as it cultivates
the belief that the climate is safe for BPFQ students and accepting of same-sex relationships.
Second, performative bisexuality reinforces stereotypes of promiscuity and exploits women’s
sexuality in general and marginalizes bisexual-identified students as their identity is invalidated
by heterosexual women’s performance of bisexuality. She found disparities in women’s
behaviors and attitudes about homosexuality, specifically the prevalence of homophobic attitudes
by women engaging in same-sex encounters. The prevalence of ‘performative bisexuality’ can be
misleading for BPFQ students as they develop their sense of self in this environment under the
assumption of positive views of their sexuality; however, this study emphasizes the potential
negative impact of this occurrence. The presence of performative bisexuality may negatively
affect the campus climate for BPFQ students as it may falsely paint a picture of acceptance of
these sexualities and the validity of their experiences.
Scarce research is available on the experiences of BPFQ students who encounter
homophobia, particularly for male BPFQ students. Eliason (2001) felt that the negative attitudes
directed at bisexual and homosexual individuals required distinct terminology, and labeled
18
traditionally homophobic behaviors as bi-negativity. Eliason (2001) investigated variables for
predicting bi-negativity in relation to predictors of general homo-negativity. He surveyed 229
respondents at a large Midwestern state university and the majority of respondents rated bisexual
men as “unacceptable” (61%) and 50% rated bisexual women as such. Bisexual men also had
the highest ratings for being perceived as “very unacceptable,” with 26% of the respondents
holding this view. Eliason (2001) concluded that the predominance of participants responding
“don’t know” when presented with stereotypes of bisexuals indicates that heterosexual students
don’t have sufficient information about the experiences of bisexual students. Overall, he found
that similar variables associated with homo-negativity also acted as predictors of bi-negativity.
These variables included gender, gender role ideology, personality traits, religion, and
geographic region. He found that the prevalence of bi-negativity towards men was high among
heterosexual students. He postulated that these attitudes originate from society’s traditional
notions of gender roles that promote rigid forms of masculinity in which emotional and physical
expression between men is not permitted. This study brings to light the role of gender as a
predictor of bi-negativity as well as a factor in varying views on the acceptability of bisexual
men and women. The differences in perceptions by gender reinforce the heterogeneity of
experiences pertaining to perceived stereotypes of bisexual men as distinct from those of
bisexual women.
The existence of homophobia within LGBT or queer communities adds a layer of
complexity to bisexual students’ experiences of stereotypes and perceptions. Rust (1993)
examined lesbians’ negative and socio-politically driven perceptions of bisexual women, while
Rhoads (1997) studied the hierarchy of sexual identity within gay and bisexual male subculture.
19
Rust (1993b) provided an interesting framework for understanding interactions between lesbians
and bisexuals. She used the Intergroup Relations Theory to provide the context for
understanding lesbians’ perceptions of bisexuals, concluding that lesbian-bisexual relations are
in the “amicable consensus” stage of political relations (p.214). She believed that these relations
will change as bisexuals gain more political legitimacy and become a threat to lesbians.
Lesbians viewed the bisexual experience as not being authentic and this positioned bisexuals as
political threats. Lesbians’ negative views of bisexuals were found to be widespread.
Bisexuality is also an area of tension within the gay and bisexual male subculture. Rhoads’
(1997) participants described a hierarchy of sexual identity where “being a bisexual man is
second rate compared to being a gay man” (p.474). These studies reinforce the marginalization
of bisexuals within a community that operate on the illusion of inclusivity, as implied in LGBT
as the encompassing terminology, and provide a theoretical lens in which to understand this
issue.
Internalized biphobia, or negative self-perceptions resulting from internalized feelings of
shame around a bisexual self-identity is often difficult to conceptualize in practical settings
serving students. Rust (1993a) explored self-perceptions by comparing the sexual identity
histories of 427 women who currently identify as lesbian, bisexual, or not sexually identified.
Sexual identity histories pertain to the age at which psychological events occurred and the
resulting chronological patterns. Respondents were asked about their first awareness of
homosexual attraction, when they first questioned their heterosexual identity, and when they first
self-identified as lesbian or bisexual. Respondents that currently identified as lesbian were asked
whether she wondered whether she might be bisexual or has identified herself as bisexual to
others. Bisexual-identified respondents were also asked whether she wondered if she might be
20
lesbian or has identified herself as lesbian to others. Rust found that bisexual women switch
between lesbian and bisexual identities more frequently than lesbian women, with 58% of
bisexual respondents reporting switching between these identities two or more times.
Respondents also indicated their first homosexual attraction and first questioning their
heterosexual identity between 16 and 19 years of age, at rates of 28% and 29% respectively.
These rates indicate the highest age group for initial sexual identity questioning, followed by
31% of respondents’ first self-identification as lesbian or bisexual in this age group.
Klesse (2005) investigated the effects of bisexual stigma on bisexual-identified
individuals due to promiscuity and non-monogamy allegations. The effects of this hegemonic
definition are compounding for bisexual women. A woman’s identification as bisexual may
have negative implications for her reputation due to the assumptions of promiscuity and
heightened sexuality. Klesse suggests that queer communities welcome diversity and draw upon
feminist and anti-racist ideologies to move towards awareness of intersectionality and
subordination. Through the examination of social attitudes and stereotypes of bisexuals as
distinct from those regarding homosexuals, one can assess the powerful forces weighing down
on bisexual individuals.
Identity Development.
The sociopolitical influences guiding social identity labels and corresponding experiences
with stigma and homophobia (Ivory, 2005) may influence the identity development of bisexual
students (D’Augelli, 2003). Specifically for BPFQ identity development, there is a lack of
research. It is important to consider the challenges unique to bisexual student in developing a
positive and healthy sexual identity. A hostile campus climate can have a negative impact on the
development of a positive identity for LGBTQ students (Ivory, 2005; Rankin, 2005).
21
Identity development models provide a common point of reference in guiding the work of
student affairs professionals and have often been referred to as sexual minority or LGB identity
development models. Identity development models often describe a linear progression in a stage
format to describe the phases in which LGB students proceed through in developing a strong
sense of identity, although there is little to no research that validates these theoretical
frameworks in their application or relevance to BPFQ student populations given the presumed
homogeneity of gay, lesbian, and bisexual population characteristics.
The two prominent sexual orientation identity development theoretical models are those
of Cass (1979, 1984) and D’Augelli (1994). Cass’ (1979,1984) psychosocial model positions
identity development as a process consisting of six stages: (1) identity confusion, (2) identity
comparison, (3) identity tolerance, (4) identity acceptance, (5) identity pride, and (6) identity
synthesis. This model takes into consideration the active decision-making and behavioral
processes of individuals. Completion of each stage attributes a sense of foreclosure for the
individual and they are perceived to acquire necessary strengths to move towards the final stage,
identity synthesis.
D’Augelli (1994) did not refer to identity development as occurring through the
progression of stages; rather he referred to them as processes. His model of LGB identity
development outlines six processes; (1) exiting heterosexual identity, (2) developing a personal
lesbian/gay/bisexual identity status, (3) developing a lesbian/gay/bisexual social identity, (4)
becoming a lesbian/gay/bisexual offspring, (5) developing a lesbian/gay/bisexual intimacy status,
and (6) entering a lesbian/gay/bisexual community. These models locate development of a
sexual identity as more inclined to a sequential and linear advancement. The need for campus
climate research focused on BPFQ students is essential to informing and grounding student
22
support services. Student services are guided by the underlying philosophies of these identity
development models. However, students are likely to move backward as well as forward when
encountering developmental challenges
Rust (1993) proposes that homosexual identity development is not linear and calls for a
new social constructionist model that is not orderly and posits homosexual identity as a valid
alternative to heterosexual identity. Additional research has focused on the relationship of
internalized homophobia and self-esteem on lesbian identity development (Peterson & Gerrity,
2006), identity development of gay males (Rhoads, 1997), alignment of multiple non-
heterosexual male identities with current identity development models (Dilley, 2005), and the
impact of the college environment on gay male identity development (Stevens, 2004). Dube
(2000) found that gay males followed along one of two sequences of sexual identification and
same-sex sexual behavior: sex-centered and identity-centered.
Peterson and Gerrity (2006) applied Cass’ gay identity development model to the
developmental processes of lesbians in relation to internalized homophobia and self-esteem.
They found that Cass’ model, previously tested on gay and lesbian populations, is a useful
framework for understanding lesbians’ identity development. They found a significant
relationship between internalized homophobia and self-esteem with that of identity development.
Lesbian participants were found to experience higher rates of internalized homophobia and lower
rates of self-esteem in earlier stages of identity development. They found participant recruitment
of “closeted” participants to be a valuable source for information. Although the study included
12 lesbian, 14 bisexual females, and 9 heterosexual-identified female participants, the findings
point to the lack of disclosure or labeling of their same-sex attractions and development of a
lesbian identity.
23
This study is important in shedding light on the applicability of gay and sexual minority
identity development models to the experiences of invisible populations, such as lesbian,
bisexual, and closeted heterosexual women. These women would not traditionally be targeted
for participation in studies, but shed light on the anonymity of their experiences and processes.
They highlight the relationship between disclosing a lesbian identity and associated increases in
self-esteem. Implications for practice are supporting both identity development and self-esteem
issues in sexual minority college women.
Rhoads (1997) asserts that research on lesbian, gay, and bisexual student experiences
portrays them as a “homogeneous body” (p. 460) rather than recognizing the diversity of their
identities; in turn, stage theories are problematic when used to conceptualize individual identity
development. Rhoads aims to highlight this diversity among the experiences of gay and bisexual
males and argues that this understanding is necessary for academic and student affairs
practitioners. He implemented an ethnographic study of 40 gay and bisexual males at Eastern
University to provide “localized understandings” in order to “offset the limitations of
developmental stage models” (p.461). He examines the commonalities, or “webs of connection”
and the differences, or “points of tension” (p. 465) to apply an understanding of the gay and
bisexual male subculture. He investigates the “webs of connection” by elaborating on students’
interpretations of their interactions and categorizes these qualities as space, style, and substance
(1997, p.469). The “points of tension” found in this subculture were gay politics, racial
differences, and bisexuality issues (p. 471-475). Bisexuality issues, as a point of tension in this
subculture, represented varying conceptualizations of sexual identities and perceptions of
hierarchical organization. This study exemplified the conflict occurring between gay and
bisexual males about identity politics and bisexuality. The absence of similar opinions on
24
bisexuality points to the lack of sufficient progress in correcting the historical stigma attached to
bisexual identity. Given the variance in experiences of gay and bisexual males, existing identity
development models may not be applicable for such diverse experiences. Rhoads argued that
practitioners must consider the limitations of stage theories to prevent overgeneralization and
that sexual identity processes must be placed in context of individual experiences.
Dilley (2005) argued that multiple male non-heterosexual collegiate identities exist and
called for a reconceptualization of non-heterosexual and heterosexual identity development
models. From 1945-1999, Dilley (2005) conducted semi-structured interviews of 57 different
male undergraduates, as well as one focus group, to ascertain the perspectives of non-
heterosexual males from multiple generations. He argued that six identities have existed from
the 1940’s to present day and these identity types don’t fit within existing models of identity
development. The six identity types were: homosexual, gay, queer, closeted, normal, and parallel
(Dilley, 2005). Granted, there are inherently generational differences regarding identity politics
given the context of the gay rights movements and corresponding social change; however, the
underlying language of identity development models is quickly outdated as identity trends shift
through time.
Stevens (2004) examined the impact of environment on the development and exploration
of a gay identity, specifically perceptions and assessment of acceptable sexual identities. Using a
grounded theory approach, he explored the experiences of 11 gay male college undergraduates.
He found that a student’s “sexual identity is complexly integrated and often at odds with other
aspects of the individual’s identity” (p. 185). Self-acceptance, disclosure to others,
environmental influences, individual factors, and exploring multiple identities were found to be
integrative categories essential to a student’s ability to find empowerment, which Stevens
25
considered the central category of identity formation (2004). Stevens asserted that current sexual
orientation models are not sufficient to address the development of the multiple identities, such
as religious or racial, and their relationship to the development of a gay identity. The purpose of
the study pertained to the interaction of crucial incidents with other dimensions of their
identities, dependent on the meaning attached to these incidents. He also found that positive or
“supportive incidents” increased a student’s sense of comfort in the integration of their gay
identity (p.191). Experiencing heterosexism and homophobia on campus were prominent critical
incidents described by male students in this study.
Current understanding of developmental needs of sexual minorities is limited due to
conflicting views on the applicability of stage identity development models. Knowledge of the
needs of BPFQ students as a unique community is even more limited due to the aggregation of
identity categories. Peterson and Gerrity (2006) found Cass’ identity development model useful
for understanding women’s development of sexual identity. Stevens (2004) and Dilley (2005)
argue for the reconceptualization of models and Rhoads (1997) argue for the emphasis on
considering the context of students’ experiences in examining identity development for sexual
minorities.
Identity Politics.
The sociohistorical forces shaping identity politics provides an important background that
frames the shift from rigid categorization to a more fluid understanding of sexuality. Rust (1992)
describes the social and political consequences of sexual minority identity formation from a
social constructivist perspective, emphasizing the sociohistorical influences on politics
surrounding bisexual identity. Rhoads (1997) found that gay and bisexual men held mixed views
26
of categorization, some oriented toward a spectrum of sexualities and others viewing bisexuality
as one of three identities including gay or straight identities.
Muehlenhard (2000) examined the category of bisexuality and asked whether it was more
threatening than homosexuality according to how we have defined and reinforce them. She
argues that gender and sexual orientation are two categories in which we, as a society, have
socially constructed and have changed over time due to political influence. The reification of
these categories leads to a focus on exaggerating the differences between categories of male and
female, as well as heterosexual and homosexual. She argued that focusing on the exaggerated
differences between groups promotes stereotyping and inherently promotes a homogenous
understanding of similarities occurring with groups. She recommends applying a similarities and
a differences perspective. Muehlenhard emphasizes the duality of categories and our perception
of bisexuality as focusing on the “aberration of the person rather than the arbitrariness of the
definitions” (p.102, 2000). Her research reiterates Rhoads’ (1997) emphasis on the diversity of
identities within groups, rather than an assumption of homogeneity of experiences.
Current research on the identities of Millennial students found that they described their
identities as complex and fluid, whereas Baby Boomers and Gen Xers described their gay
identity as a salient feature if their identity development and did not identify the intersection of
other identities as prominent in their experiences (Vaccaro, 2008). Vaccaro (2008) found that
Millennial students exhibited a reluctance to identify or label their sexual identity and preferred
to encompass fluid and complex identity labels. This complexity involved simultaneous ease
and struggle with one’s multiple identities that created an ongoing process of understanding and
developing identity. Millennials’ conceptualization of their identity as resistant of labels and
27
fluid in nature has implications for the language used in academia to understand students’
experiences.
Disclosure of Identity.
Recent research posits that students are arriving to college having engaged in self-
identification processes related to the development of their sexual identities earlier than previous
generations. Stevens (2004) found that more than half of the gay male undergraduates in his
study described their coming out process, or disclosure of their gay identity, as occurring prior to
arriving to the college environment. D’Augelli (2003) found that self-identification and
disclosure of a lesbian or bisexual identity occurred prior to reaching 17 years of age for female
youth. Vaccaro (2006) found that although Millennial students reported experienced same-sex
sexual and romantic behavior and attractions, they did not necessarily label their sexuality with
non-heterosexual labels.
Mental Health.
Current research on sexual minorities suggests they are “at risk for the physical, mental,
and emotional stresses associated with being underrepresented on their campuses and for
behaviors in which they participate as a result of the stresses they experience” (Sanlo, 2004,
p.100). The mental health of gay, lesbian, and bisexual students has been an area of extensive
examination in academia. Current research explores predictors of mental health and their
implications for students’ experiences on college campuses, including gender nonconformity and
mental distress in gay and bisexual Latino men (Sandfort et. al, 2004), defense mechanisms and
psychopathological symptoms (Bimbaum & Ruscio, 2004), and stressors associated with sexual
orientation (Lewis et. al, 2009). Findings point to the negative effects on the mental health of
LGB students due to stressors caused by their sexual identity.
28
BPFQ students reported experiencing more conflict regarding their sexual orientation
(Lewis et. al, 2009), as well as higher levels of anxiety, depression, and suicidal ideation
(Birnbaum & Ruscio, 2004). Gender expression was found to result in more mental distress for
Latino gay and bisexual men displaying perceivably effeminate gender expressions than their
peers displaying normative masculine gender characteristics (Sandfort et. al, 2007). It is difficult
to gauge similarities and differences in mental health indicators for BPFQ students given the
tendency for previous research to focus on grouping gay and bisexual experiences together.
Resiliency.
Although the majority of available research on LGBTQ populations focus on the
adversity and homophobia they experience, it is equally as important to note the development of
strength, resiliency, and self-empowerment. Smith and Gray (2009) posit that this gap in
resiliency research for LGBTQ populations is due in part to the lack of available instruments to
measure resilient traits. In an attempt to respond to this absence, they created the Courage to
Challenge Scale that measures the connection between the development of personal hardiness
and the courage to challenge negative social messages for LGBTQ adults (Smith & Gray, 2009).
They found that an individual’s ability to take a stand against negative social messages was a
direct indicator of their level of personal hardiness (Smith & Gray, 2009), a central component of
resiliency. They also argue that a focus on the development of positive personal traits, such as
resiliency and hardiness, will prevent practitioners from relying on assessments or interventions
based on a “risk, vulnerability, and deficit-based orientation” (Smith & Gray, 2009, p. 86).
LGBTQ students report gaining strength when faced with adversity (Scourfield, Roen, &
McDermott, 2008). They also noted the importance of finding safe places and communities in
order to develop a strong and positive sense of self (Scourfield, et al., 2008). Russell and
29
Richards (2003) studied the effect of stressors experienced by LGBT people due to anti-gay
political campaigns. Resiliency was experienced by LGBTQ people despite the politically
charged climate of homophobia. Sources of resiliency were derived from the support felt by
fellow LGBTQ community members and allies, the possibility of a larger political movement for
equal rights for LGBT people, being witnessed by others as an LGBT person facing political
attack, and confronting one’s own internalized homophobia (Russell & Richards, 2003). They
argue for an “effort to minimize stressors and capitalize on resilience factors” (Russell &
Richards, 2003, p.326). The social and political climate for LGBTQ students is often hostile and
unwelcoming, yet the effects on these individuals can often strengthen their sense of self and
resiliency despite the adverse social conditions.
Theoretical Framework
The social identity perspective (Hogg & Abrams, 1988) will be utilized as a framework
in understanding the experiences of BPFQ students on college campuses. This perspective
allows an understanding of the social and cognitive aspects of group membership and group
interactions. Social identity perspective is described as an “analysis of intergroup relations
between large-scale social categories” (Hogg, Abrams, Otten, & Hinkle, 2004, p.246). Although
the focus is on intergroup relations, individual and small group behavior is explained through
membership to collective groups with assigned social norms guiding appropriate behavior.
Norms are viewed as prescriptive, socially influenced, and context-dependent, serving two
functions: 1) (to) “express ingroup similarities and ingroup identity” (Hoggs et. al, 2004, p.259)
and 2) (to) distance the ingroup from all that the outgroup stands for” (Hoggs et. al, 2004, p.259-
260). Conformity is the process by which behavior is transformed in order to adhere to
30
prescriptive norms. Norms become internalized and conformity is central to social group
identification.
An individual may have numerous social and personal identities that vary with specific
contextual information and this perspective differentiates between the two identities. One’s
personal identity is comprised of a cognitive understanding of themselves and an individual’s
social identities are determined by their collective group memberships, which are “context
dependent not only in terms of which social identity but also in in terms of what form the identity
may take” (Hogg, Abrams, Otten, & Hinkle, 2004, p. 252).
Within the processes guiding reinforcement of in-group and out-group membership, we
see stereotyping and adherence to prototypes. Prototypes are representations of group types, can
be viewed as a set of attributes that define group relationships and prescribe behavior. These
prototypes often represent the ideal representation of a given social identity and may never fully
be realized by any individual, but they provide the basis of understanding to guide members’
behaviors in determining which individuals are in-group members and out-group members.
Stereotyping is the “prototype-based perception of out-group members” (Hoggs et. al, 2004)
collectively and individuals may self-stereotype when referencing in-group characteristics for the
salient identity to determine normative behavior in which guides their own behavior,
Reinforcing in-group and out-group membership is dependent on polarization of
characteristics for these groups. Individuals engage in social comparisons in order to make clear
the distinctions between in-group and out-group membership). Social identity is “anchored in
social comparisons that strive for similarity within groups and differentiation between groups”
(Hoggs et al., 2004, p.258). Competition for status, prestige, and distinction between social
groups is a key component.
31
Social mobility, or “passing,” is one’s attempt at individual mobility to gain access to a
higher status group (Hoggs et al., 2004, p. 258). For bisexual students, attempts at individual
mobility may be disassociating with the subordinate group (bisexuals, homosexuals, or
heterosexuals depending on the context) in order to temporarily attain a higher status or privilege
or to avoid being labeled an out-group member. “Passing” is not permissible by the dominant
groups because it would abolish the comparison group that attributes the dominant group its
distinctiveness and status. When attempts at mobility fail, the member is left with a marginal
identity because they betrayed their group identity and are not accepted by the dominant group
(p. 259). Ultimately, it is imperative to maintain the status and power of one’s group
membership. Given the negative stigma attached to bisexuals as a social group, bisexual
individuals are left with the option of “passing” or they can disassociate with this group to avoid
social marginalization.
Intergroup relations between various social identity groups based on sexual identity
influence the conditions in which students experience their campus climate. Competing for status
and privilege within queer and heteronormative communities provides various changing contexts
and norms to guide intergroup relations. An individual’s attempts to identify with a particular
identity category may be met with opposition given the social dynamics guiding social group
membership, particularly for BPFQ students whose sexual identity does not conform to
acceptable heterosexual or homosexual identity categories and is largely context-dependent.
Campus climate experiences, in the context of social identity theory, can take on the form of
BPFQ students’ experiences with social forces reinforcing appropriate ingroup sexual identities.
Exposure to negative or positive stereotypes, invalidation of their self-identity by others, and
32
lack of programming or resources specific to their needs or identities are tangible ways in which
a student may perceive negative campus climates.
Definitions
Bisexual, as a category of identity, is frequently used in scholarly research, although the
definitions vary by researcher. James (1996) defines bisexuality as “the sexual or intensely
emotional, although not necessarily concurrent or equal, attraction of an individual to members
of more than one gender” (p.218). Rust (1992) posits that lesbian and bisexual women define
their identity through shared experiences characterizing behaviors and feelings of attraction as
forming their understanding of bisexuality. Bisexuality is often used in academia as an identity
positioned within a binary of sexes, pertaining to attractions to men and women, rather than a
spectrum of genders. James’ (1996) and Rust’s (1992) approaches to defining bisexual identities
vary greatly and points to the lack of consensus on terminology within research efforts.
Universal understandings of relevant terminology are contextual and can greatly vary
within and across institutions, within academia, and most profoundly at the individual level.
Language used in the discussion and implications sections will follow a social constructivist
paradigm, in which the participants have constructed language relevant to their identities and
experiences through sociohistorical negotiations (Creswell, 2007). Language pertaining to
LGBTQ concerns and communities utilized in this specific institutional setting was uncovered
through document analysis of materials disseminated through the campus’ LGBTQ Campus
Resource Center. This institutional language may or may not reflect that in use by sexual
minority students at Western University, however, it is useful in establishing a benchmark for
normative language used within the campus environment. Relevant terminology includes:
33
Biphobia The fear of, discrimination against, or hatred of bisexuals seen within
the LGBTQ community, as well as in general society.
Bisexual A person emotionally, physically, and/or sexually attracted to
males/men and females/women.
Coming out May refer to the process by which one accepts one’s own sexuality
or the process by which one shares one’s sexuality with others
Gay Term used to refer to the LGBTQ community as a whole, or as an individual
identity label for anyone who does not identify as heterosexual.
Heteronormativity The assumption, in individuals or in institutions, that
everyone is heterosexual, and that heterosexuality is superior to homosexuality
and bisexuality.
Heterosexism Any attitude, action, or practice – backed by institutional power –
that subordinates people because of their sexual orientation.
Lesbian Term used to describe female-identified people attracted romantically,
sexually, and/or emotionally to other female-identified people.
Pansexual A person who is sexually attracted to all or many gender expressions.
Queer 1. An umbrella term which embraces a matrix of sexual preferences and
orientations, including lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, transpeople and intersex
persons, 2. This term is sometimes used as a sexual orientation label instead of
‘bisexual’ as a way of acknowledging that there are more than two genders to be
attracted to, or as a way of stating a non-heterosexual orientation without having
to state who they are attracted to.
Sexual orientation The desire for intimate emotional and/or sexual relationships
with people of the same gender/sex, another gender/sex, or multiple
genders/sexes.
Sexuality A person’s exploration of sexual acts, sexual orientation, sexual
pleasure, and desire.
Transgender A person who lives as a member of a gender other than that
expected based on anatomical sex.
Given the changing language used by student populations and the lack of inclusive
language, BPFQ is used to embrace bisexual, pansexual, and queer identities. Current language
used in academe refers exclusively to bisexuality and omits the experiences of students not
adhering to binary systems, communicating the invisibility of their identities (Cashore & Tuason,
34
2009). For example, students identifying as queer and experiencing attractions to multiple
genders may not identify with the bisexual student experience due to the political implications
and distinctions of the meanings attached to these identities.
Language used within the first two chapters will refer to BPFQ students as a term for
encapsulating the distinct identities that do not inhabit traditional gay, lesbian, or straight
categorizations of sexuality. Language and meaning attached to individual identities used by
each respective participant will comprise the basis for reference in chapter 4, 5, and 6 in order to
respect and understand how these identities contextualize their experiences. It is important to
understand the variance in meaning extracted from identity labels as distinct from a student’s
perception of their self-identification, referred to one’s social identities and personal identities
(Hoggs, Abram, Otten, & Hinkle, 2004).
This study is focused on the experiences of BPFQ students pertaining to campus climate.
For the purpose of this paper, I will refer to Rankin’s (2005) definition of campus climate as the
“cumulative attitudes, behaviors, and standards of employees and students concerning access for,
inclusion of, and level of respect for individual and group needs, abilities, and potential” (p.17),
with consideration of the influence of intergroup relations according to the social identity
perspective. Although it is sometimes difficult to differentiate the specific origin of negative
experiences, it is the purpose of this study to use the lens of student perception and meaning-
making to determine how students experience negativity in their campus climate.
In Chapter 3, I discuss the research design and methodology. I describe data collection
and analysis methods, outline the factors influencing my choice to apply a qualitative approach
and more specifically, a transcendental phenomenological approach and conclude the chapter
with a discussion of informant confidentiality, as well as site and population selection. Chapter 4
35
provides the students’ individual stories, through the extraction of anecdotes. Chapter 5
describes in significant detail the study’s findings. Chapter 6 offers a discussion of the
informants’ experiences and the implications of these findings. I conclude the study by
providing implications for practice in the delivery of intentional and grounded support services
for BPFQ students.
36
Chapter 3: Research Design and Methodology
Phenomena are the building blocks
of human science and the basis for all knowledge.
- Clark Moustakas
Introduction
The previous chapter provided the context necessary to understand the campus climate
issues potentially affecting BPFQ students and the implications for negative experiences. In this
chapter I outline the research design and methodology used in this study. First, I discuss the
rationale for utilizing a phenomenological qualitative approach. Then, I provide an overview of
the considerations regarding site selection and access, as well as criteria and recruitment methods
for informant selection. Next, I describe the procedures for data collection and data analysis in
the context of studying a sensitive population. I also present the measures imparted to protect
the emotional well-being and ensure confidentiality of informants’ identities. Issues of
trustworthiness and credibility are also covered. I conclude this chapter with a discussion of the
potential limitations of the study.
The following research questions guide this study:
1. What are the experiences of BPFQ college students at a large, public research university?
2. What are the social and interpersonal forces shaping sexual identity labels and meaning-
making?
3. Where and how do students access support on campus?
Research design
The experiences of BPFQ college students are not widely documented in academic
literature. This study aimed to capture the richness of BPFQ students’ experiences and is
inherently qualitative in its approach. According to Marshall and Rossman (2006), there are
37
numerous reasons to justify the use of qualitative methods in scientific inquiry. Research that
explores cultural description, subjective understandings, and focuses on little-known phenomena
are relevant justifications for the utilization of an exploratory or qualitative approach to this
study (Marshall & Rossman, 2006).
The research design decisions made in this study had the primary goal of making visible
the experiences of a historically marginalized and invisible population. The overall goal of my
study and the corresponding research design is to capture the essence “in its totality, in a fresh
and open way” (Moutsakas, 1994, p.34) of what it is to navigate the college campus environment
as a BPFQ student and social group member.
Epoche.
One important step in the data collection and analysis process was for me, as the
researcher, to engage in written reflection of my experiences before, during, and after the
conclusion of data collection. This process was necessary to bracket my personal experiences
prior to engaging in interviews with students regarding their own experiences and supplementing
field notes with reflections of informant interaction during the data collection stage, as well as
continued journaling before data analysis commenced. This phase of phenomenological inquiry
is labeled epoche and allowed for me to continue to examine my own preconceptions and the
interactions between myself and the informants. Spradley (1997) emphasizes the importance of
the collaborative relationship between the ethnographer and the informant in the production of a
“cultural description.” An informant, rather than a participant, “is a native speaker engaged to
repeat words, phrases, and sentences in his language or dialect as a model for imitation and a
source of information” (Spradley, 1997, p.25).
38
Phenomenology.
In order to accomplish the goals of capturing the essence and richness of informant
experiences, this study utilized a phenomenological approach. A phenomenological study
examines the meaning individuals make of their lived experiences of a specific concept or
phenomenon (Creswell, 2007). Important questions in transcendental phenomenology are:
What have you experienced with regards to the phenomenon?
What contexts or situations have typically influenced or affected your experiences of the
phenomenon?
Through the exploration of the commonalities of these lived experiences, a phenomenological
approach centers on an understanding of the universal essence (Creswell, 2007). The essence, or
“the very nature of the thing,” (Van Manen, 1990) consists of “what” they experienced and
“how” they experienced it (Moustakas, 1994). Moustakas (1994) details the process of
describing the “essence” of these experiences through the development and synthesis of textural
and structural descriptions, the “what” and the “how” of participants’ experiences respectively.
The goal of this study was to explore how BPFQ students perceive and experience their campus
environment as members of larger social groups.
Theoretical Framework
The social identity framework (Hogg & Abrams,1988) was discussed in chapter two.
Using a phenomenological approach within this lens required that I focus my efforts on framing
the interview questions as they pertained to intergroup relations. This social psychological lens
allowed for the informant to examine their individual experiences as members of larger social
groups. Within a transcendental phenomenological approach, it was important for me to
consider my own social psychological influences within the interview environment. Data
39
collection and analysis were designed to focus on the social psychological experiences of BPFQ
students, emphasizing their understanding of the social groups present on campus and their
definition and understanding of their own social group identity.
Site and Informant Selection
Site Selection.
Marshall and Rossman (2006) propose five criteria for selecting a “realistic site”:
describing a site where access is possible; a rich mix of processes, interactions, and people are
present; it is likely the researcher will be able to build trusting relationships with informants; the
study can be conducted ethically; and the quality of data is likely. Given the historical invisibility
of this student population, it was important to select a college environment that provided
resources and support specifically for LGBTQ students. Selecting a site for this study involved
assessing the level of support available for bisexual, pansexual, and BPFQ students in order to
increase the likelihood of gaining access to this population. Given my previous involvement
with the student life community at Western, I was aware of the level of LGBTQ climate and
support services. Document analysis was an important component in selection of a campus site
where a campus LGBTQ Resource Center (LGBTQRC) documented their support services for
the population in question.
This study was conducted at Western University, a large, four-year public research
institution in the Western region of the United States, with an enrollment of 20,000
undergraduate and graduate students. This institution boasts a racially diverse student body with
a 77.1% student of color population (campus website) and has an active LGBTQIA student
community. The exact size of the LGBTQ student population at Western University is
unknown; however, it is important to note the sexual minority population of Western’s statewide
40
system is approximately 6%, which is similar to estimates of the larger lesbian, gay, and bisexual
population in the United States of 5-10% (Grant, n.d.; Lee, 2000). The student population at
Western University mirrors the diversity of the regional race/ethnicity demographics, providing
an ideal setting to sample students for this study.
Western University houses six ethnic and gender resource centers that focus their efforts
on social justice and diversity, incorporating diversity activities for each incoming freshmen
during orientation and hosting an annual diversity retreat for students. They recently hosted an
annual regional queer student conference attracting over 700 participants from LGBTQ and ally
communities. Western also provides specific resources for the study’s target population on-
campus and in the surrounding communities, such as weekly supportive discussion groups
focused on the fluidity of gender and sexuality, hosting BPFQ speakers and role models, staff
and faculty ally program, and an online mentoring program that allows for informant
confidentiality in order to discuss BPFQ identities. Titles of programs and brown bag
discussions indicate a focus on invisibility of non-binary sexual identities and fluidity of
sexuality. Western University houses one of the state’s first staffed LGBTQ Resource Centers
and offers an academic minor in LGBT studies. Western was also ranked as one of the top
LGBT-friendly campuses nationwide according to the LGBT-Friendly Campus Climate Index
(Campus Pride, 2011). This index evaluates campuses in the following categories: 1) LGBT
Policy Inclusion, 2) LGBT Support & Institutional Commitment, 3) LGBT Academic Life, 4)
LGBT Student Life, 5) LGBT Housing, 6) LGBT Campus Safety, 7) LGBT Counseling &
Health and 8) LGBT Recruitment and Retention Efforts (Campus Pride, 2011).
41
Sample Recruitment.
Informant recruitment strategies were implemented with the goal of recruiting a broad
base of students, including those involved with the campus LGBTQ Resource Center and those
who are not. I worked with student affairs professionals currently providing LGBTQ services
and resources, as well as student leaders of campus organizations focused on LGBTQ concerns
to disseminate online invitation letters for participation in the study. Recruitment
announcements were emailed to student groups by the LGBTQ Resource Center staff, posted on
the LGBTQRC Facebook page, and emailed to enrolled students in Women’s Studies courses.
Informant Selection.
Informant selection was determined through the responses collected on the pre-screening
survey. The survey (Appendix I) collected basic information, including the student’s class
standing, academic major, gender, access and comfort with online video chatting technology, and
specific questions about the study’s criteria. The criteria for participation in the study was (a)
current self-identification as bisexual, pansexual, fluid, queer, or any other BPFQ label (referring
to attraction to more than one gender), (b) current enrollment in an academic degree program at
Western University, and (c) 18 years of age or older. Several potential informants indicated
identity labels or definitions of their sexuality in which I needed more information and were
emailed for clarification. Additionally, given the study’s occurrence during the summer session,
spring semester graduates were invited to participate as well, given their potential wealth of
experiences. Both the sample size and multiple data sources add to the richness of the
experiences and stories collected in this study. Seven informants that met eligibility
requirements were selected to participate in the study.
42
Data Collection Methods
The methods for collecting data consisted of:
1. Online pre-screening survey
2. Initial semi-structured interview
3. Two reflection activities
4. Follow-up member checking interview
5. Institutional document analysis
The pre-screening survey allowed me to collect demographic information, as well as
ensure informants met the study’s criteria. Secure data storage was one measure that was
implemented to protect the informant’s identity and responses through the use of Qualtrics, an
online survey tool that has tested security and storage measures, and is an approved survey tool
by the researcher’s institution. Upon reviewing their eligibility survey, I sent each informant
who met the criteria an email, providing the details of the study and to schedule the initial
interview. The first two informants felt heightened pressure about participation due to the
formality of the documents delivered to them via email. Given that rapport had yet to be
established and empathizing with a college student’s participation in such a study, I reviewed the
information sheet at the start of the interview and obtained verbal consent after the informant
was clear on the overall purpose and process given that the interviews occurred online. At the
conclusion of the initial interview, I emailed each participant the information sheet and LGBTQ
Resources Handout, as well as the link and directions for the reflection prompts. The initial
semi-structured interview (Appendix III) engaged informants in a discussion of 1) social identity
labels, 2) campus context, 3) campus community, and 4) general campus experience. Interviews
were conducted over the telephone, through a series of emails, or online via video conference
43
call using Skype software. I asked each informant to obtain a private space where they would
not encounter interruptions and would be alone during the interview and to access a secure
Internet connection. I ensured the same requirements were met. One informant, Cupcake, was
not able to secure a space where she could discuss her sexuality openly, so she and I conversed
through a series of emails over the course of two hours at her request. If students did not have
access to either of these, I informed them of possible accommodations at a private location on
campus. Access to the technology required for the study was not an issue for any of the
participants.
The use of a semi-structured interview allowed for informants’ stories to emerge and
captured the richness of their experiences. I created the interview protocol and reflection
prompts using Spradley’s (1997) guidelines for ethnographic interviewing questions. He
suggests that the most important elements of ethnographic interviews and the types of questions
necessary to elicit a rich “cultural description.” He emphasizes three types of questions: 1)
descriptive, 2) structural, and 3) contrast questions (Spradley, 1997). It was also important to
ensure the informant was aware and comfortable with the confidentiality measures in place. I
asked broad open-ended questions to gain rapport and proceeded to ask specific questions as
informants’ stories emerge. The first two informants received the interview questions in advance
to alleviate potential anxiety around sensitive topics relating to sexual identity. The first
informant communicated discomfort and the second informant ceased email communication after
receiving the questions. I then reduced the formality of the pre-interview process by reviewing
the study’s purpose, participation requirements, and answered the informant’s questions before
the start of the initial interview and refrained from sending formal research documents until after
the initial interview was complete. I gained verbal approval for the recording of interviews with
44
a digital voice recorder for the purpose of revisiting statements in their true form, increasing the
likelihood of remaining close to the informants’ stories and decreasing my own interpretation
bias.
The reflection activities allowed the informant to engage in a process of personal
reflection. The reflections prompts (Appendix II) were collected via Qualtrics and the link was
emailed to informants with instructions to answer the questions 48-72 hours after the initial
interview. Informants were asked to share openly and honestly, focusing on their experiences as
a BPFQ student at Western University, specifically their life on campus and a description of who
they are. Informants typed their reflections on the online form and submitted them. This type of
data was beneficial in capturing consistent and thorough descriptions, as well as getting to know
more about the informant’s background, however, there was a large difference in the amount of
text submitted by the collective group.
Following the submission of the two reflection activities, I scheduled a second and final
interview with the informant via online video conference call or via email prompts. The purpose
of this interview was to triangulate the themes, findings, and statements that I had collected thus
far. This gave the informant a chance to add any additional thoughts to the study since we first
talked. At the conclusion of the final interview, six of the informants received a $10 gift card to
a local coffee shop via staff at the LGBTQRC and one informant preferred email delivery for
their participation. The total participation time for each informant was approximately 90 to 160
minutes, largely depending on the amount of time they elected to complete the reflection
prompts.
45
Online Research Methods.
Online research methods, or Internet-mediated research (IMR), in qualitative inquiry has
both advantages and disadvantages. Hewson (2003) argues that the advantages of IMR are: cost-
effectiveness and efficiency, elimination of geographical boundaries, and the potential for
informants to be more candid in the sharing of their experiences. Given that I was located in the
Midwest and the informants in the Western United States during the study, the use of IMR was
advantageous in navigating differences in geographical location. James and Butler (2009) posit
that participants are able to engage more subjectively and generate richer descriptions in virtual
communication scenarios because all other frames of reference are removed.
In weighing the additional benefits of conducting research online, it is important to
contextualize the role of the Internet for the population in question. In a study conducted by
Mehra, Merkel, and Bishop (2004), the role of Internet use was examined for sexual minorities in
an attempt to develop strategies in order to close the digital divide. They found that online
communication served several important purposes, including providing a platform for promoting
awareness of LGBTQ concerns, acting as a social and political change agent, making available a
place where a community of support could be accessed and maintained, as well as offering a site
for cultural empowerment (Mehra, Merkel, & Bishop, 2004). Their findings point to the use of
the Internet and online communication as a domain where self-empowerment, community-
building, and social change can occur safely and effectively. The Internet also provides a space
to practice important aspects of their sexual lives, including identity, friendship, coming out,
intimate relationships, sex, and community (Hillier & Harrison, 2007). The Internet is a place
where sexual minorities can safely (and anonymously) develop confidence (McDermott &
Roen, 2012) and practice positive ‘queer’ identities (Hillier & Harrison, 2007). This study
46
highlights the positive connotations attached to Internet communication by LGBTQ communities
as a medium for community-building, social change, and developing ‘queer’ identities. In recent
years, there has been increased support for conducting research online, particularly for hidden,
stigmatized, and sensitive populations (Atkinson & DePalma, 2008; McDermott & Roen, 2012;
Hillier & Harrison, 2007). LGBTQ research has typically relied on survey methods and has
limited the development of “complex, in-depth, and theoretical explanations” (McDermott &
Roen, 2012, p.560). In a study of LGBTQ youth and the incidence of deliberate self-harm,
McDermott and Roen (2012) found virtual sampling methods and data collection to be effective
in addressing the “twin methodological dilemmas” (p.561), which they highlighted as recruiting
a hard-to-reach population and gathering in-depth data on potentially sensitive topics. The
race/ethnic backgrounds, genders, class standing, and academic majors present in the study were
fairly diverse. Online interviewing produced in-depth data that might not have occurred during
face-to-face contact and the researchers noted the presence of socioeconomic diversity among
their sample, of which they attribute to the online sampling methods employed (McDermott &
Roen, 2012). Atkinson and DePalma (2008) also observed that participants are more open about
sensitive topics in virtual settings. They attribute this increase in “honest” discussion to the
physical absence of the body and the increased anonymity virtual settings permit (Atkinson &
DePalma, 2008). Informants appeared to be comfortable and open within email, telephone, and
email settings. Data collection via email for one informant constituted the least detailed
responses, however, the impact of the invisibility of the informant’s sexual identity and the
corresponding language to describe it is unknown.
As discussed, there are numerous advantages for conducting research online for
marginalized and sensitive populations; however, it is equally as important to consider the
47
disadvantages of internet-mediated research (IMR). One potential disadvantage of IMR pertains
to the accessibility of computer technology and the challenge of obtaining a representative
sample given the profile of typical internet-users; however, access to computer technology has
been noted to be dramatically increasing in recent years. The profile of typical internet-users has
been educated, White, and middle-class, yet the findings also point to the increased global
accessibility and use of online technology as shifting these demographic differences (Hewson,
2003). A recent study found that the impact of the “digital divide” for racial minorities was not
significant for “Internet veterans,” those with more than ten years of internet experience. They
found little difference between internet use for “Black non-Hispanic (15%), White non-Hispanic
(12%), and Hispanic (12%) college students” (Jones, Johnson-Yale, Millermaier, & Perez, 2009,
p. 255). Jones et. al (2009) also found that male internet use (66%) was slightly higher than that
of female college students (56%). Given the increased stigma for bisexual males noted in
chapter 2, it is my belief that online recruitment and data collection resulted in the increased
representation of male informants, a population that is more difficult to reach through traditional
interviewing methods. The study involved 1 genderqueer informant, 2 males, and 4 females.
Despite the mixed findings regarding the disadvantages of IMR, I put in place safeguard
procedures to reduce this potential sampling concern, such as the use of staff and student
gatekeepers, as well as multiple data collection sources, both traditional and online (Hewson,
2003).
Storage of Data.
Data was stored in electronic format protected by a password accessible to myself and the
Institutional Review Board (IRB). I used informant pseudonyms on all electronic and hardcopy
transcriptions and coding documents. Hardcopy transcripts, field notes, and journals were stored
48
in a secure filing system and will be destroyed one year after the completion of the study.
Electronic correspondence was conducted through my institutional email account, which is also
password-protected. Information that would reveal the participant’s identity, such as email
addresses, phone numbers, or demographic information, was password protected on a Qualtrics
database or in a secure filing system.
Data Analysis Procedures
John W. Creswell (2007, p. 60-61,170) describes Moustakas’ (1994) process for
conducting phenomenological research (Appendix IV) as including the following steps:
1. Bracketing of researcher’s personal experiences prior to data collection
2. Collecting data from several participants who have experienced the phenomenon
3. Horizontalization, or developing “significant statements”
4. Developing clusters of meaning
5. Creating a textural description
6. Creating a structural description
The initial review of data allowed me to immerse myself in the participants’ experiences and
stories as a collective group. I then reviewed each of the four data pieces several times from
individual participants to gain an understanding of how she/he/they experienced the
phenomenon. During the third reading of the data, I then began coding the data by highlighting
“significant statements” in a process Moustakas (1994) terms “Horizontalization.” I developed
“clusters of meaning” (Moustakas, 1994) from these statements into larger themes. It is from
these “significant statements” and themes that I compiled a description of how participants
experienced the phenomena, or a “textural description” (Moustakas, 1994). The final phase of
phenomenological analysis involved the development of a “structural description” regarding the
49
contextual factors influencing how the participants experienced the phenomena. These steps
were necessary to reach the “essence” of each informant’s experiences, keeping in mind the
central unit of analysis is the shared experiences of several individuals (Creswell, 2007).
Measures to Protect Informants
Participant confidentiality was a central concern and measures, such as use of individual
and institutional pseudonyms, password protection of electronic transcription files, the use of
secure online database software, and destroying electronic and paper files one year after the
conclusion of the study, were and are in place to ensure confidentiality. I was also guided by
participants’ requests for omission of specific information that could possibly identify them as
BPFQ. I also provided the informants a list of campus and community LGBT resources in the
chance that sensitive issues arose during or as a result of this study.
Trustworthiness
Lincoln and Guba (1985) suggest the use of triangulation and member checking as two
procedures to increase the credibility of a study's findings. In this study, the use of multiple
methods and sources of data collection was employed in order to triangulate the data. My
inferences of the informants' statements and findings were clarified and made more authentic
through the process of member checking, where the informants were actively engaged in the data
analysis and synthesis process. Member checking also increased the trustworthiness of this study
as I reduced the chances of misinterpreting the participants' statements.
In order to increase the dependability and confirmability of this study, I kept a detailed
audit trail (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) of the process from design to analysis and synthesis. The
bracketing process involving periodic journals, or reflexive journals (Lincoln & Guba, 1985),
was an integral component of this documentation process. This trail tracked the decisions and
50
justifications throughout the process. This also aided in developing a thick description of the
stories involved (Varjas, Nastasi, Moore, & Jayasena, 2005).
Limitations
As discussed, the technological platforms used for participant recruitment and data
collection have historically provided barriers to recruiting representative samples and the impact
on recruitment is unknown. Common errors collecting qualitative data can threaten the
trustworthiness of the results; however, Easton, McCormish, and Greenberg (2000) provide
several suggestions to minimize potential errors. They describe equipment failure,
environmental hazards, and transcription errors as the most common pitfalls. They provide
practical solutions in order to minimize the possibility for error, such as checking the equipment
prior to the interview, informing participants of the importance of securing private meeting
location where interview will be uninterrupted, and notifying the participant of the length of the
interview prior to the meeting (Easton et al., 2000). Wireless and cellular reception problems
omitted and diced informants’ dialogue in the case of two interviews. These technical issues
required participants to repeat what they previously said and were disruptive to their streams of
thought.
Transcription is also a common area for errors to occur. I created the interview
transcription verbatim from the digital voice recording, omitting fillers, false-starts, and pauses
to stay true to the statement the informant was making. Transcription errors, such as inaccurate
punctuation, misinterpreted or misheard words, and unfamiliarity with jargon, or language can be
minimized by ensuring the same person conducting the interviews is transcribing them (Easton et
al., 2000). Taking careful notes of intonation and body language, and reviewing each audio
recording and transcription several times can help the researcher stay as true to the data as
51
possible (Hycner, 1985). Given the nature of email and phone communication, this limited the
accessibility of non-verbal body language. Hycner (1985) highlights the importance of linguistic
cues as they emphasize the true meaning of the statements. Taking these steps helped to
minimize the occurrence of these common errors and improved the credibility of the current
study.
The transcendental approach is based on inherent biases on the part of the researcher.
Disclosing researcher experiences through the bracketing process was one method to decrease
researcher bias. Although I engaged in journaling to bracket my experiences, it is unknown how
and to what degree my involvement influenced the interactions with informants. My familiarity
with Western University and its community members may have also presented limitations to the
findings, including issues of closeness with participants, role transition within the setting, as well
as other ethical and personal issues (Alveson, 2003). I met two of the informants previously and
have since kept in touch via Facebook. My own identity and experiences as a member of the
LGBTQ community can be viewed as both limiting and enhancing the study’s quality. In this
capacity, Kanuha (2000) refers to the researcher as native, insider, or indigenous (p.444) when
studying her own community, both equipped with pre-established conceptions and knowledge of
the population in question and inherently experiencing conflict in the new role of the researcher.
Kanuha (2000) also describes the benefits of my capacity as the “native researcher” as reduced
time for data collection and increased access to the population in question. At the conclusion of
the data analysis process, I felt it necessary to share my own story (Appendix VI) with the
informants in the true spirit of phenomenology. My history was also important in the design and
implementation of this study and the sharing of my story allows for transparency about my own
52
biases as the researcher. I shared this short story in the format of a journaling entry and emailed
it to each informant at the conclusion of the study.
The preceding three chapters have outlined the study’s context, literature, and research
methods. Chapter 4 highlights the individual stories of the seven informants. Chapter 5
highlights 11 relevant themes that emerged during participant interviews. In chapter 6, I
conclude with implications and recommendations for practice.
53
Chapter 4: Individual Stories
Introduction
Chapter 3 outlined the methodological decisions made in designing the study, as well as
the procedures used for informant recruitment and selection, data collection, and data analysis.
Van Manen (1990) recommends five strategies for organizing the textual interpretations of
phenomenological data: 1) Thematically, 2) Analytically, 3) Exemplificatively, 4) Exegitically,
and 5) Existentially, or any combination of these strategies. Van Manen also brings to light the
absence of a “blueprint to follow” (1990, p.167) regarding the writing process for
phenomenology. The current chapter is organized analytically, by reconstructing stories through
selected anecdotes that highlight the themes from each of the seven participants. Chapter 5 will
be organized thematically, where I will “use the emerging themes as generative guides for
writing the research study” (Van Manen, 1990, p.169).
Participant Stories
The Story of David Tran.
David Tran is a Biochemistry honor student who engages in a well-balanced regimen of
humanitarian and science topics and extracurricular activities. His humble and sweet demeanor
make one feel welcome and supported. His voice is self-described as effeminate, he is an
articulate advocate and an intrinsically motivated and passionate human being.
David is very fluid in his conception of his own identity and is resistant to labels in
general. His value for education and advocacy are key to contextualizing his experience at
Western. His progression from the summer honors program to the start of graduate school, was
that of growth and moving from what he calls a “minion” to holding multiple leadership and
mentoring roles in the campus community.
54
It’s the pinnacle of fruition. My first year I felt like I was trudging dirt, just tilling dirt,
getting it all ready, then blossomed forth from pavement (laughing) from all these
horrible, well not horrible ordeals, but a lot of self-oppression; so that’s what I would say
happened…I’m about to enter graduate school and hopefully I will continue educating
others on the diversity of not only my own culture, but other cultures as well.
He was involved in an LGBTQ-motivated hate incident, or gay-bashing, while visiting a
Midwestern city. His first instinct was to care for the other parties that were targeted and decided
to “check-in” on his own well-being afterward. He reached out to his network of campus mentors
because they “would always have my back.” Given that his campus experiences and the support
he received, he strengthening his sense of self. David felt fortunate that it did not happen to
…someone barely coming out. It would have potentially caused a suicide or a severe
mental illness…From an individual standpoint, thankfully it was me. They abused or hit
someone that was so confident and grounded in their own self-confidence that I cannot be
shaken.
The Story of Aurora.
Aurora, a White-identified senior studying Public Policy, was the only participant to have
lived on the Spectrum Floor, a co-ed residential hall for LGBTQ students and allies. Aurora is a
San Francisco transplant, so her broad knowledge of LGBTQ terminology and variant sexual
identities are an important consideration when contextualizing her campus experiences. She
primarily identifies her sexuality as pansexual and fluid, but often ends up telling others she is
lesbian due to their lack of understanding. Limiting speech and politically correct LGBTQ
agendas on campus drove Aurora away from the LGBTQRC, although she admittedly frequented
the space and met most of her friends there prior to distancing herself.
Aurora prefers a tight-knit group of friends, finding community with a group she calls the
“plastic gays” and especially with her best friend at Western. She finds people in the nearby
55
town to be “cold” and difficult to initiate conversation with, in stark contrast to her experience
with people in San Francisco. She is frustrated by the excessive restrictions other students have
been placing on appropriate and politically correct language and appreciates a shared sense of
free expression in her close group of friends.
The Story of BT.
Even as we encounter technical issues with the Internet connection during our online
video interview, BT, an incoming sophomore, is all smiles and has a very lighthearted demeanor.
BT is a multicultural female majoring in Biochemistry and she is the only participant to
commute to campus. Her values of family, life, and education are central to understanding how
she lives her life. BT likes to remain unbiased and her motto for her relationships is “I love
regardless of gender.”
BT graduated from a small Catholic school, being “born and raised Catholic.” Her
transition to Western’s large, diverse, and hyper-involved campus setting could have been
difficult if it was not for her experiences during New Student Orientation. Having revealed her
bisexual identity to very few friends in high school, she worried about the implications for her
college experience. Her participation during a Common Ground activity during New Student
Orientation allowed her to see there was a community of LGBTQ students and staff at Western
and felt comfortable enough to come out as bisexual. With these positive beginnings, BT has
since been involved in several components of student life and plans to strengthen this
commitment in her second year.
Since going to college, I have been given so many open opportunities. I believe the
greatest opportunity was meeting friends who helped me embrace myself. I met many
students and faculty that helped my transition into college that much easier. Also, I have
been involved within the LGBTQ Resource Center and they have been my greatest
support group yet. Other than that, I have been involved in numerous activities involving
my current major of Biochemistry. I'm involved in our campus' Future Pharm Club and
56
willingly participate in volunteer and fundraising events. And since I'm commuting from
home, all of these factors play important roles in keeping me on campus.
The Story of Mocha.
Mocha, a female neuroscience major, is entering her senior year at Western. She
describes herself as an American, a Vietnamese American, a woman, an athlete, a writer, a dog-
lover, and “science-ish.” Her arrival to campus created much internal anxiety and turmoil given
that she had no idea what the campus climate was for LGBTQ individuals. Although her first
two weeks were “ridiculously terrifying,” she has grown deep roots within the campus
community proclaiming she has “gone to everything” on campus.
Ridiculously terrifying for the first two weeks and then after that, it was cool. (laughing) I
just needed to stop freaking out, like “I’m in college. What am I going to do, no one’s
here. Like if something happens I’m totally fucked (laughing). My experience is I think
I’ve taken advantage of every opportunity that I’ve wanted to except peer mentor[ing],
and I’m kind of okay with that. It wasn’t the highest thing on my list. I’ve done
everything else; I’ve studied abroad, I’ve gone to conferences, I’ve worked at
conferences, I’ve done butt loads of volunteering, I’ve done an internship, I’m doing
research, I’ve kind of knocked down everything on my list, and I fit it in. I think I’ve
gotten the most out of college I could have gotten. I don’t think if I went back, I would
change it. I really think I did everything I could. It was stressful, but I did it.
Mocha’s sexual identity labels can either be described as complex and multifaceted or
label-less, depending on her mood. She believes in the functionality of language and vocabulary
to move “the conversation forward” and insists that we use it for everything. Although she uses
multiple labels, such as bisexual, fluid, gay, and lesbian to describe her sexual identity, she does
not feel attached to them and would prefer not to use any label at all. She has developed and
accessed an extensive support system on campus from all facets of campus service providers,
including student life, student affairs, academic support, and residential life. Mocha considers
herself a “person in the middle” in many aspects of her life.
57
I can be into guys and girls and it doesn't matter that I'm not on one side. I think it was a
little easier because I am a person in the middle in almost all aspects of my life. I am all
numbers and science but I greatly appreciate good literature and art. I am ambidextrous.
I'm a dancer and hard core basketball player. I am a traditional and yet modern American.
I am outgoing and quiet. I don't have favorite things. So I believe being in the middle is
much more natural state to me than other people.
The Story of Vika.
Vika is a political science major entering their sophomore year. Vika identifies their
gender as Genderqueer and prefers the following gender pronouns: they, them and their. Vika’s
demeanor is very friendly and they smile throughout the interview. Vika is resistant to labeling
identities because they are restricting and will use language with other people to inform them
that “something’s up.”
I identify strictly as a Mestiza /Mestizo or both. Mestizo is a mixed person, that’s what it
means. So that’s straight to it, you’re a mixed person you know? It doesn’t put a
nationality type of thing, so I stick with that. It’s something that’s just there to keep an
identity and identify with past cultures and things like that.
Although they weren’t ‘out’ in high school, their experiences at New Student Orientation
and within the residence hall helped Vika to come out and begin to confidently develop their
identities. At the time of this study, Vika is making big plans to engage in campus life activities
in their sophomore year. Vika’s openness and casual disposition highlight their sexual identities,
queer and fluid, and complement their queer politics. As Vika would say about friends on
campus, “They have nice politics – and I like politics.”
Well, on campus I definitely learned a lot about queer issues, people of color issues, stuff
like that, without taking a class. People are willing to inform and get info out there. My
views on things have definitely flipped since I got to Western. I’ve had a lot of political
changes, self-identity changes. I’ve definitely learned a lot without taking a formal
course.
58
The Story of Raj.
Raj is first and foremost, a feminist. He lived on campus the first two years and will live
off-campus for his third year. He is a business economics and women’s studies student from
Southern California, entering his senior year at Western. He identifies his sexuality and sexual
identity as queer, bisexual, and bottomy and also identifies as East Asian and an Atheist. The
identity label changes depending on his understanding of the sexuality politics present in the
environment. Raj is a firm believer, both in his actions and words, that everybody can create a
Queer identity in order to take a stand against oppression. He posits that sexual identity labels
operate as a political stance and move past the simple description of sexuality. “My political
stance is always going to be the same, I’m highlighting different aspects of my political stance
by using different identities, such as bisexual and queer.”
Raj has thrived in the environments provided by the Women’s Studies department and
the Women’s Resource Center on campus and has established himself in these communities.
My campus experience has been really social. I met a lot of my best friends in my
freshman year dorms. That’s really been where I’ve thrived, with all my really best
friends. I’ve been able to meet so many people and find the people that really connect
with me, that I can really be friends with. Western is so diverse that I’ve found so many
people that I can hang out with.
The Story of Cupcake.
Cupcake, a senior in creative writing and self-proclaimed introvert, identifies her
sexuality as bisexual and reveals this facet of her identity only to close friends; it is not openly
expressed on campus. Her experiences on campus were markedly different than her peers in this
study, given that she does not engage in LGBTQ programs or services, visit the LGBTQRC, and
would not feel comfortable being out as bisexual to anyone she did not have a close relationship
with. Cupcake’s participation in the study entailed email communication and some identifying
59
information was omitted or modified to prevent the chance of ‘outing’ her. Cupcake attended a
small, all-girls Catholic high school and maintains a small social network of close friends at
Western.
Cupcake has lived on and or near campus for her first three years of college. Her
extracurricular involvement has been within one particular student club and she hopes to get
more involved in campus life opportunities during her last year of college. She describes
Western as a great place to get involved and feels it is a very welcoming place and she
anticipates a successful senior year.
I am currently going into my fourth year at Western, majoring in creative writing. At
first, coming to a large campus such as this was a huge change for me. I attended an all-
girls Catholic high school with about 800 students total, so obviously, Western was a
huge awakening from that. I got used to the college life pretty quickly, however, and I
came to enjoy being "on my own," at least as far as living in the dorms and not with my
parents. I was especially lucky to be able to join a group right away that helped earn me
some friends as well as role models -students of all years in college who were able to
help me transition while always being friendly and supportive. I was with this group for
three years and I got a few lifelong friends out of it, and they really helped me grow and
adapt to college life.
Conclusion
Each of the seven informants painted the picture of their experiences at Western and their
identities as bisexual, pansexual, fluid, and queer. The spectrum of student experiences
pertaining to campus involvement, development of support networks on campus, and exposure to
identity prototypes were diverse. Chapter 5 illustrates the eleven themes emerging from the their
collective stories and chapter 6 provides a detailed discussion of the implications for practice in
higher education settings.
60
Chapter 5: Findings
Introduction
The stories provided in Chapter 4 provided a glimpse into the lives of seven bisexual,
pansexual, fluid, and queer students at Western University. This chapter will outline and discuss
the eleven themes that emerged from the collective experience organized by the research
questions framing this study. Relevant literature outlined in chapter two will be connected to
students’ experiences as necessary. The next chapter will provide implications of these themes
and recommendation for postsecondary institutions looking to evaluate or enhance their efforts to
support BPFQ students.
Research Question One: What Are the Experiences of Bisexual, Pansexual, Fluid, and
Queer College Students at a Large Public Research University?
Theme 1: Transition to College.
Participants attributed their growth and initial feelings of comfort with their summer
transitions experiences. The students who were out to family members and friends in high
school also had anxiety about coming out in college. Some of the students were not ‘out’ at all
in high school and experienced great anxiety about what Western held for them. Though some
had concerns about a potentially negative adjustment to college, students reported feeling safe
and a part of a community on campus. Students’ initial experiences with programs were
instrumental in their transition, including the Academic Honors Orientation Program, freshman
residence halls, and New Student Orientation Programs. Meyer (2003) and Stevens (2004) note
that influence of a supportive social environment in promoting positive identity development.
Perceiving the campus environment to be supportive of their BPFQ identity in their college
61
transition period is integral to finding personal empowerment and is essential to the integration
of students’ identity development (Stevens, 2004). Meyers (2003) noted the importance of social
support systems in acting as protective agents when faced with stress experienced by sexual
minorities. Students’ earliest experiences on campus were vital to their identity development
processes, as well as forming networks of protection against potentially negative social forces.
Mocha described the anxiety she experienced while questioning her sexuality during her
transition to college:
The summer before college I had an especially difficult time coming to terms with my
sexual orientation because one day I was sure I liked guys and one day I was sure I liked
girls. It would go back and forth and these thoughts would keep me up at night. "I
definitely liked Rachel, so I'm a lesbian? But I was really into Jon, was Rachel a fluke?
I've been into a lot of guys but was I really into them or just going with society?" This
would go in circles for weeks. For some reason there was a feeling that I needed to be
either only into girls or only into guys, to have a solid distinction. There are people who
are "straight" until they realize that they don't fit.
Coming to college I wasn't sure of the climate here. I didn't know if I should come out to
my roommates, if it was their right to know or if it would cause too much conflict… Or if
I should be out in general on campus. Would it be dangerous? After I went to the center
[LGBTQRC] and made some queer friends I became much more comfortable and I am
out on campus without fear.
David’s first introduction to campus occurred in the Academic Honors Orientation
Program, a type of summer bridge program held for incoming students who would participate in
Academic Honors Program and his freshman residence hall. Here, he began to feel a part of a
community at Western:
What sparked a community was the summer Academic Honors Program. It felt like a
community within college… then it was my first year residential hall where I developed
close friendships…They were the one that got me comfortable with myself because I was
really awkward when I was in high school.
Mocha attended the New Student Orientation Program and her first interaction with the
LGBTQ community at Western was a series of educational pamphlets on LGBTQ issues at a
table hosted by student volunteers for the LGBTQ Resource Center:
62
There are little pamphlet things (laughing), I remember those. I remember I went to
orientation and I went to their table and I read all the dorky little pamphlets because I was
so nervous. It was just like random information, How to be an ally how to come out, what
is bisexuality, what to do if you are a parent, what to do if your friend is queer, blahdy
blah. It was nice because it was like “Oh my God, I’m going to college! What am I going
to do? Am I going to get the shit beat out of me?! I don’t know!
Mocha’s anxiety about the climate was quickly eased when she participated in an activity
called Common Ground during New Student Orientation:
…everyone is in a giant circle and they will say sometimes very personal subjects and if
it applies to you, you step into the circle, if not you stay outside. It’s a way to divide and
yet bring people together and it’s a way to see that people are in the same position that
you are. Whether you are or aren’t part of the topic, you still have your own group,
because there’s two rings. One of the topics was like “Are you a part of the queer
community” and stuff like that, so that was the whole experience was, because I was not
used to anything like that was like, I was crying like a big baby, but when the queer one
came up at least a few people stepped in…that made me feel a lot safer.
BT was not formally ‘out’ as bisexual in high school and coming from a small Catholic
school, it was important to her to meet people with similar stories and identities:
The first day I was on campus I was scared, kind of lost, I didn’t know what to do with
myself. I was kind of looking for guidance, I explored a little bit, went to orientations
here and there, and I finally found my place. I feel more comfortable now. I got to meet
people and clubs I can relate to. They help me become involved in more activities that I
love and I have more friends…like, private school you only have a group of 5 or 6
friends. In college, especially in Western, I have different groups for different things and
I love that. There’s just more open opportunities to do things
Yeah, after orientation I came out. I felt more comfortable with myself, because I was
still unsure beforehand…We would play games, we got to know each other, and we all
had similar coming out stories. I didn’t think I would find someone that would relate to
my story. I had met quite a few people who went to private school and that didn’t come
out until we graduated. I felt they could relate to me. I felt at home (smiling). It was
really nice.
Vika explains that they were unsure of how they planned on coming out at Western until the
Common Ground activity engaged students in diversity topics, including queer identities:
When I first arrived to campus, I had decided I wanted to be “out” to people, but I had
only been out to one person before college, in high school. I wasn’t sure how to go about
it. I had done an event during summer orientation, it’s an event that we all have to do;
it’s called Common Ground. People walk into the center of the circle if they have a
specific identity or something like that, and walk back out. One of the topics was queer
63
identities and me and one other person walked out into the circle out of like 200 people or
something. I remember from that point, I was like ‘I’m out to here, at least to some
people.’
The students connected their transition to campus and their early feelings of community and
safety to their summer orientation experiences. Four of the participants in the study specifically
discussed the Common Ground activity as the moment when they ‘came out’ and saw that other
students and staff were ‘out’ as well.
Theme 2: First Year Residential Experience.
Five of the students’ residential experiences were in freshman residential halls and two
students lived in off-campus housing. Students living in the residence halls described the overall
comfort and openness in these communities and explained their LGBTQ identities as a central
focus of their first-year adjustment concerns. This occurrence is in contradiction with existing
research on residence hall environments for LGB college students as being unwelcoming and
hostile (Rhoads, 1994).
Within the environment of the resident hall, David assessed the climate for LGBTQ
inclusion:
I was out when I was in high school. I came out first as bi, then gay. By the time that
college rolled around, I cowered back into the closet and gauged the level of tolerance in
my first year residential hall experience. I came out around the middle of my first year
and I was able to grow in an exponential fashion throughout my whole undergraduate
career.
After David came out to his peers and hall mates, he felt liberated “that I was comfortable to be
in my own skin, I guess, prance around in my underwear (laughing).” His living experiences,
both on-campus and adjacent to campus, were positive. He describes his freshmen residential
community with pride. When asked about his second year experience “I was fortunate [to have]
a lot of my close friends from the residence hall to live in my apartment complex, so some of that
community transferred with me.”
64
David learned a lot about his own identity within the campus environment. He was able
to proceed from feelings of hesitation about disclosing his sexual identity to feeling comfortable
in his own ski. He had an eye-opening moment about his ethnicity, noting that he was
surrounded by people that shared his ethnic background in high school.
I moved into the residential hall and it was then I realized I was Asian. I've always lived
in an Asian dominant area and didn't realize it ‘til I stepped foot into such a diverse
community of students.
David’s exposure to a diverse residential and campus environment made him aware of his own
ethnicity as a distinct identity, rather than one previously held in an ethnically homogenous
environment. David’s experiences in a residential hall for liberal arts students aided his
development of a positive sense of self and led to his realization of having multiple identities.
Aurora described her experiences living on the Spectrum Floor, a residential community
for LGBTQ and ally students. Her first year living experiences were distinct from the other
informants in the study given the LGBTQ theme of the residential hall. Aurora noted the chaos
of the social life in the community:
Yeah, I actually spent my freshmen year on the Spectrum Floor, which was the LGBTQ
hall, and they coordinated with the [LGBTQ Resource] center a lot. It was crazy! I hated
every minute of it (laughing). It was the only hall in the dorms that was co-ed and my
roommate was probably the only sane one there. There was another two guys down the
hall and they were really cool.
Aurora’s observations of the floor as co-ed are an important distinction to the single gender
environment in which most of the informants lived during their first year at Western.Mocha:
We moved into the dorms a few days before schools started and I told my RA “I don’t
know how to approach this. Should I tell my roommate? What is the environment on the
school [campus] like? Should I be watching my back? I just wasn’t sure about anything
and she introduced me to another queer RA that was in our same building, so she took me
in [to the LGBTRC].
Mocha’s introduction to a Resident Advisor (RA) that identified as Queer was an important
event in her early experiences on campus. The presence of a visible LGBTQ RA was found to
65
be an important consideration for students’ perceptions of the residence life department and
overall campus climate (Evans, Reason, & Broido, 2001). Additionally, LGBTQ RAs serve as
confidants and are perceived to be instrumental in connecting LGBTQ students with the LGBTQ
campus community (Evans et al., 2001).
Vika decided not to live on the Spectrum Floor and lived in a hall for liberal arts
students:
I thought about that when I was filling out the housing application. I almost decided to
live there [Spectrum Floor] but I wasn’t out yet, so I was like “I don’t know, maybe
they’ll send me mail and ‘out’ me and I don’t want that” (laughing). I was afraid to do
that, but it wasn’t the deciding factor. The deciding factor was I could live with queer
people or I could live with mostly straight people and allow them to meet someone who
was queer- identified who they may not have encountered someone. A lot of my friends
hadn’t met someone who was queer yet, a lot of them said “you’re my first gay friend”
and I was like “interesting.” I don’t really like being called “the gay friend” but it’s still
interesting (laughing).
In the residence hall I made a lot of friends, Liberal Arts Hall, I don’t remember signing
up for it but I definitely got it. There were a lot of creative people there, a lot of people
could sing and stuff like that and a lot of them already had gay friends back at home so
that was warming.
Vika was placed with two roommates, one of which they could openly talk to:
Having that one roommate that I could talk to and live with knowing it didn’t bother him
was very comforting; I would have felt very unwelcome without that having happened. I
made some really good friends last year, three of whom I will be sharing an apartment
with this upcoming academic year, all three of them are from the residence halls and I
feel very comfortable living with them. They are easy to talk to about basically anything
and they are very accepting of me being a queer person…
I did hang out a lot with people from Spectrum Floor. I would hang out there a lot, but I
made better friends with the people I lived with in my hall than I did with Spectrum
Floor, so I’m actually really glad.
Theme 3: Fear of Initially Accessing the LGBTQRC.
Mocha expressed her nervousness about visiting the LGBTQ Resource Center: “I went
[to the LGBTQRC] the first day, of school…all kinds of terrified… (laughing).” Vika visited the
second week of school:
66
I was really nervous; I had never been to one of these. I walked in there and someone said
hi to me, they started to talk to me. That was a really good start; I probably wouldn’t have
come back if it weren’t for that.
BT had anxiety about the implications of visiting the LGBTQRC as well, but she was warmly
greeted by staff members:
Super friendly right off the bat. I went to the resource center and Cari and Grey were just
chilling in their office and I was so nervous to come inside. It was my first time, I would
come close to the office, but I would always backed away. I finally came inside and
Grey and Cari were super, super friendly. They came out of their offices and they
showed me around the resource center and they sat me down and told me about the other
students that were involved in the resource center. They made me feel at home. They
gave me a lot of activities to go to. They told me I should go to pride prom and other
activities. They introduced me to a lot of the students, like “this is BT, she’s new. Make
her feel comfortable here”. It was really nice, I liked it. I went to weekly chats, National
Coming Out Day, yeah.
David was “dragged in” by a friend:
To recall the first initiation I got into the LGBT Resource Center. I was actually brought
along, dragged along, by a friend of mind because I was actually really fearful; I wasn’t
out at all. It took me a year to get back into it and I can walk in there and tell you so
many amazing stories about that place.
David also expressed his connection with LGBTQRC staff: “I found community instantly with
the director, Cari, because she has a very maternal feel to her.” Although Aurora did not describe
her first experience visiting the LGBTQRC, she was living on the Spectrum Floor and became
aware of their programming through a partnership between the LGBTQRC and the Spectrum
Floor:
The RA would coordinate with the LGBTQRC and they would get us free tickets to drag
ball and pride prom. Regular students would have to pay anywhere from 5-10 dollars and
we would get in free and get in early for the event. Sometimes it was mandatory; our RA
would pound on our door until we would leave because she didn’t want to go alone. I
wouldn’t have gone to pride prom unless she had dragged me along. It was fun, it was
small, but it was fun. I had no idea what drag ball was and therefore I wouldn’t have
gone to it.
When asked about her experiences in the LGBTQRC, Aurora noted the recent increase of peer
monitoring of language used in the Center “In the beginning it [the LGBTQRC] was really fun.
67
It was nice to have a place to go and hang out, talk to random people. But recently, it has a lot of
rules.”
Cupcake visited the LGBTQRC once for a program:
Although I haven’t had much personal experience, I feel as though it is a very open
community that is accepting of all people. When I went during my freshman year to the
[LGBTQRC] center for a “coming out stories” type event, everyone was very welcoming
and there wasn’t a lot of pressure to say or do anything. I feel as though the community is
just there as a support mechanism and tool for outreach, and that they are very inviting
and accepting of anyone.
Participants became frequent visitors to the LGBTQRC after getting over the fear of
initially visiting. David and Mocha, looking back on their time at Western, experienced extensive
growth and involvement in the LGBTQRC after visiting the first time, although David did not
return for a year. Friendly and supportive interactions from staff and students at the [LGBTQ
Resource] Center aided in the students returning time and time again. Cupcake was the only
participant in the study who was still not ‘out’ on campus and her involvement was limited to
attending one program at the LGBTQRC.
Theme 4: Perception of Campus Climate and Safety.
An important theme that was prevalent throughout the students’ stories was their
perception of campus climate before and during their undergraduate experience. Students
reported ongoing assessment of their environment and their decision to use varying sexual
identity labels or express a non-normative sexual identity. Each participant noted the distinction
between their perception of on-campus and off-campus physical safety, in which campus was
viewed as a very safe environment, however, anywhere off-campus was a cause for concern.
Aurora describes her decisions to use different sexual identity labels:
My labels change depending on the environment. Whenever I’m at a party, I go with
‘hey I’m a lesbian, so go away.’ I'm always a lesbian at parties. Around my family, they
don’t care. It’s not that they’re not okay with it, it’s just not a talked about subject. They
68
think that it’s none of their business and why should it be. I’m almost asexual around my
family. Around my friends that know me, they’re constantly talking about ‘hey, that girl’s
hot” or “that guy’s hot,’ they don’t care either way, they’ll start talking about people,
we’ll gossip and people watch.
Cupcake feels the campus is inclusive but will not “officially come out” unless she is seriously
dating a girl:
Personally, I don’t openly express my identity on a regular basis on campus…my
bisexuality is something that I don’t need to proclaim to everyone, as I might feel
obligated to if I were a lesbian, for example. Unless I found myself wanting a serious
relationship with a female, which would force me to make an official coming out to my
parents for example, I don’t really need to bring it up because so far, it isn’t an issue for
me. I can just as easily pursue relationships with males without having to explain my
attraction to females as well.
Raj’s assessment is complex and involves an assessment of the politics surrounding
language of the people in his changing environments, specifically depending on how queer and
bisexual identities are perceived in his environment:
If I was in a group of people who all identified as queer, gay, pansexual, bisexual, I
would identify myself in that situation as bisexual, because I believe that sometimes the
oppression that bisexual people get is within the queer community. If I was within the
queer community, I would identify myself as bisexual. That’s something that I find
important is to remove that oppression that bisexual people face. However if I was in a
community where queer wasn’t really accepted as a word or it wasn’t a very queer
environment, I would definitely use the word queer. It’s a very broad statement but it’s
very effective and I feel that it has a different damage than it does within the queer
community and within a community that doesn’t really know about queerness.
All participants noted the campus’ inclusivity and some noted the difference between on-
campus and off-campus climates. Vika perceives campus to be a ‘bubble’:
I feel very safe on campus. Off campus, I have to tone it down when I walk off campus; I
don’t know if I really have to, I feel I have to. Campus is like a bubble; I feel safe there. I
really do like being on campus because it feels like a good place for being queer.
Similarly, Mocha perceives the campus climate to be positive:
I think our campus is really advanced to say that the LGBT issues are not an issue versus
the need to push forward acceptance and all this gung ho stuff to say that they’re kind of
LGBT-friendly. Ours is like “we’re so past that it’s not a thing, it’s nothing”- it’s friggin’
beautiful.
69
Raj believes Western is one of the top in the nation for inclusivity:
It really is a great community. The majority of the people are very open and so kind. I
think Western is very close to being one of the top schools in the nation in terms of being
open and being so diverse, being so accepting of so many other sexualities and ethnicities
and stuff like that.
Mocha attributes the role of campus diversity in creating an inclusive campus environment:
I think our campus is a “freak show of diversity,” it’s ridiculous (smiling). I think that
plays a huge role in terms of the LGBT [issue] because everyone, when you go into class,
the people surrounding you will all be from a different country and its ridiculous in that it
completely helps, any other discrimination, racism, all those issues are put aside, there’s
not a problem, that translates into the LGBT issues also pretty well. I think diversity is
the biggest thing, in terms of making our campus safe for LGBT people.
Mocha’s perception of the presence of global diversity on campus as lending to a campus that is
safe for LGBT people and was echoed by other participants. Malaney, Williams, and Geller
(1997) suggest that institutions can improve campus climate by aligning their practices with their
values for diversity and inclusion. At Western, their enrollment of a diverse student body is one
of the ways it has reinforced its commitment to creating an open campus environment.
Participants noted very specific spaces where they did not feel safe. As a neuroscience
major, David noted the climate in his science lecture halls:
If there was one, it would probably be within my science classrooms, simply because
there are 300-500 students within the lecture hall and it’s not like I need to say that I’m
fluid, because I’m there to learn, I’m not really doing anything, I’m just absorbing
material from the bio professor. When I do have a question, I just ask. I know that I do
have a slightly effeminate voice.
Vika described their perception of discomfort within foreign language classrooms. They
perceived that their peers’ countries of origin and the LGBTQ climate in these regions influenced
the classroom environment
I’m pretty comfortable being out everywhere, except for my foreign language classes. A
lot of students come from the cultures of the language and a lot of those cultures have
different perceptions of gender and sexuality that don’t really coincide with the Western
genders and sexualities that I know.
70
Raj noted feeling uncomfortable when high school students are present on campus:
I would say I’m pretty comfortable everywhere on campus. The only time I don’t is when
the high school students are on campus…you know they’re high school students, they
haven’t learned as much and other people have. When you’re around them, they kind of
have a glare at you and look at stuff they believe is a little bit abnormal. Those are the
environments where I don’t feel comfortable, but I wouldn’t say there’s one particular
environment on campus, I feel very safe on campus. This is a diverse campus; it’s really
awesome that I can actually go around campus with hot pink nail polish and I get some
looks, but most of the time I feel like it’s a really open campus and nobody really judges
me.
Raj also felt uncomfortable around members of campus fraternities and sororities:
Another place I wouldn’t feel comfortable is around the fraternities. I just wouldn’t go
around there wearing my nail polish, because that’s just something waiting to happen.
The fraternities and sororities, I think it would be helpful if they went through some sort
of ally seminar or something because they’re there every week setting up signs for rush.
You can always find a critical gaze coming from them. It’s because that’s the kind of
reputation they’ve built of the fraternity or sorority. That’s one aspect of the campus that
needs to be addressed. They need to go through some sort of training before they become
a part of a fraternity or sorority in terms of LGBT issues.
BT feels comfortable everywhere on campus because the campus is more ‘open’ and
accepting, but she worries about revealing her sexuality to friends from high school. “More
towards guys I previously talked to in the past that are unaware of my sexual orientation. I feel
uncomfortable talking about it because I don’t know how they’ll perceive me, so I just leave it at
that.”
All participants noted not feeling safe off-campus and most participants felt unsafe
anywhere during the night time, both on- and off-campus. Raj talked about the back area of
campus and anywhere on- or off-campus at night:
Anywhere around the campus at night; mostly the streets and the back parts of campus,
near the B___ at night time. Definitely near the B___ area at night, I would definitely not
go there with nail polish at night; I wouldn’t feel comfortable.
71
Aurora has a similar perception of the adjacent neighborhood “Anywhere on campus. On the
streets if I’m walking anywhere with a girlfriend or something like that at night, or anywhere off
campus at night. It’s not a very gay-friendly neighborhood at all.”
Three students refer to bias incidents they heard of involving LGBTQ students near
campus. When asked about whether she had been involved in any such incidents, Aurora
describes her friends’ experiences:
…my friends have, which is why I don’t feel comfortable being outside at night time
either alone or with a partner anymore. Even the day time, my friends had something
thrown at them on the street. They were walking down the street holding hands together,
it was broad daylight, and they threw a shoe at them and yelled “faggot!” [from a moving
vehicle].
Mocha heard of a similar incident involving physical violence against LGBTQ students:
I know a few people got attacked by D___Street and Fourth Avenue. That street is like a
block away from school. You kind of get out of the safety buffer, so you have to be
careful once you leave campus.
Raj also heard stories about similar incidents. “I’ve heard stories of people being harassed
because of their sexuality around there, at least people throw stuff at people, yell really
homophobic remarks, and I have heard stories.”
Mocha’s study abroad opportunity, even further removed from the campus setting,
required research of the regional climate for LGBTQ individuals:
I was definitely not gonna go to the Middle East (laughing) or any other incredibly
blatantly dangerous places for me, in terms of the sexuality thing. When I was
researching, I tried to check out the climate and see how things were, ultimately my
decision had to do with location without that. While I was there, I was definitely nervous.
I saw queer couples around and no one cared, so that was nice.
Students’ perceptions of campus climate were mostly positive, accepting, and safe.
Although Rankin (2003) found that 41% of students did not feel their institution was addressing
issue of inclusion and diversity, students in this study communicated otherwise. When
describing their perceptions of off-campus safety concerns, some of the students alluded to
72
“toning it down” or “watching your back.” D’Augelli (2003) would posit that these students are
modifying their behavior due to perceived negativity or hostility in their environment.
Throughout the students’ stories, I got the distinct impression they were constantly engaging in
assessing and reassessing their physical environment, the social context, and LGBTQ politics in
order to determine which behaviors, identities, or gender expressions were suitable or acceptable
in a given instance.
Theme 5: Campus Involvement Opportunities.
Students spoke of the enormous amount of involvement opportunities on campus,
whether they were on involved on campus or not. It seemed to be the marker for which they
attribute much of the openness of campus. Longerbeam, Inkelas, Johnson, & Lee (2007) found a
difference in the types of involvement opportunities bisexual students participate in compared to
their heterosexual peers, noting a higher level of involvement in arts, music, and social activism
activities. The presence of diverse clubs, interests, and causes gave students the impression that
campus was bustling with opportunity. BT describes the campus as “Bigger, more diverse,
there’s more open opportunities there. There are so many opportunities for you to be involved in
something you like, whereas in high school, there was only a few select things to do.” She
additionally spoke of her involvement in a student club called Tomorrow’s Pharm, a club for
students preparing to become pharmacists:
Tomorrow’s Pharm, I really like that club. One thing I liked about them is they’re more
open to different ideas and they loved… (laughing) this will sound weird, but they really
loved gay people. They were very unbiased, they didn’t care who joined. They more or
less, loved it when people from the LGBT community would come in to the club and
help out.
Mocha talked about the overall campus community and the responsibility of the student to take
advantage of the countless opportunities:
73
Friggin’ awesome. I think it’s amazing. There’s a lot of different opportunities. If you
want to get into anything, all you have to do is go for it. Once you meet one person, you
meet a dozen other people that can help you move towards whatever you want.
Everything is open; you just have to step forward. There’s just so many opportunities,
the only downside is if, and it’s in the person’s hands, if they choose not to go forward
toward anything, they won’t get anything out of it. There’s just so many opportunities,
there’s just no way you could leave with nothing.
Raj describes the queer community at Western:
Very outgoing. There’s a lot of stuff going on. It’s a very thoughtful community, we’re
really often just thinking of new ways to think about queerness in the context of Western;
it’s very studious. A lot of people who are in the LGBTQ community on campus have
taken women’s studies classes or are in queer studies, it’s a very studious community.
Were always trying to think of new theories, think of the best ways to create a more open
environment at Western.
When asked about the groups he belonged to on campus, David playfully responded “Do I have
a limit?”
It’s so hard... Well, first and foremost, I believe I belong to the honors group on campus.
They were the one that got me comfortable with myself because I was really awkward
when I was in high school. Second of all, it would be the LGBTQ Resource Center
because they got me connected, they got me my footing, my official start into college.
Thirdly, would be the programming board on campus. That gave me the power to believe
in my own dreams, and to execute them, and to come to fruition. Fourthly, on campus I
also did scientific research in the evolution department. It was great knowing that even
though it was an individual pursuit, that we were doing it together, that I was helping
someone to attain that. Lastly, it would be my a capella group I started on campus. We all
had the same passion and we all sung together in one voice.
David also feels that these roles on campus require a particular set of values:
For all five roles, I believe transparency and accountability and just being motivated
should be then only things that are accepted. You should be honest to yourself and to
others. If you can’t do something, tell someone that you can’t do it. You shouldn’t be
expected to do everything, you’re only one person. The things that are unacceptable is to
admit failure, to intentionally cause harm to other people, to not do things for the right
reasons is also something that is really unacceptable. That’s what I try to follow by.
In contrast, Cupcake noted concentrating her extracurricular time in one particular campus group
and expressed a desire to expand her campus involvement in her senior year:
I have not been as involved in campus activities as I could have been. My first month of
college, joined a club on campus which was the basis of my social life for the next three
years. Because of the time I devoted to this group, I didn’t really have the time to go out
74
and pursue other clubs, so I could not make additional friends that way. Naturally, I’m a
somewhat introverted person, and so I don’t often go to campus events like the music
festivals. It is hard for me to branch out and try to meet new people, but I know that once
I start to make the effort to do so, that there will be clubs and groups of people that will
be willing to welcome me in, because I feel that as a campus, Western is very accepting
and inviting to anyone.
Research Question Two: What are the Social and Interpersonal Forces
Shaping Sexual Identity Labels and Meaning-Making?
Theme 6: Resistance to Labels.
Students communicated a resistance to labels, though most reported using them when
asked to identify their sexuality to others. Leider (2000) believes students are reluctant to self-
identify their sexual orientation because they reject labels altogether. Aurora talks about what
identity labels mean to her:
Nothing to me personally, it makes it easier for people to get to know you, understand
where you’re coming from. It’s for others, not for me. I look at people’s personalities and
if I’m attracted to them, not based on gender really.
Vika tries not to put a word to their sexuality at all:
I usually try and not define myself internally, but for others to understand, I’ll try and
stick with something, a specific identity like gay or something like that, even though I
don’t identify that way, totally or all the time, it wouldn’t be very useful for me to tell
them I’m gay and then later I’m a lesbian or something else. If I keep telling them
different things, they just might get tired of me or something like that.
One thing I noticed for sure is that people always do want the label. They ask “how do
you identify?” and you say “I don’t identify,” they don’t really get it. They’re like “what
do you mean?” I don’t even know what I mean; it’s something difficult to articulate.
Mocha elaborated “I feel that any label, no matter how broad, is still too constricting
because I am not attached to the words or the boundaries of them.” BT prefers a statement
regarding her stance on love rather than using the bisexual label. “I love regardless of gender.
No one really understands that, but I could care less if they do or not. I feel that my identity is
more fluid.”
75
Although students were not inclined to label their sexuality internally or for use in social
settings, they encountered pressure to do so. Often, peers and others would not understand
BPFQ identities and students found themselves defining their attractions and experiencing
frustration due to the pressure this process puts on them to repeatedly validate themselves.
Vika:
Sometimes I’ll just try and describe it sentence-wise and will end up saying “well
sometimes I’m attracted to these people and sometimes…like, the longer description, like
what it is I’m really trying to put into words what I feel. Trying to describe what I feel is
the most effective way, but it takes longer and it’s a little more stressful on me.
Hogg and colleagues (2004) position daily interactions as prescribed by their membership
in various social groups. These students appear to be creating new social identities as they resist
prescribed behavior expectations of historically binary categories of gender and sexuality. They
also emphasize the role of social comparisons, in this case sexual identities, in allocating status,
privilege, and the distinction between social groups.
Theme 7: Language Politics.
The larger political context surrounding sexualities and push for politically correct
language were often influential factors referenced by students. Raj engages in language politics
in his belief that queer and bisexual identity serve as a political stance to eradicate oppression:
I generally like to use queer because I try to fall outside, or try to use words that are
outside the gender binary. I do use bisexual, but I don’t use that all the time; I don’t really
like labels that go with a gender binary. I’m very slow to identity myself as bisexual, I try
to use queer as much as possible.
Bisexual …when I use them as an identity, they’re more of a political stance. Yeah they
do describe my sexuality and my sexual desires; they’re more of a political stance.
I think everybody can create a queer identity, where they take a political stance against
oppression, against everything that is considered non-normative. I believe everybody can
identity as queer.
76
Mocha questions the importance of labels and the influence of others’ understandings of those
labels. “…People don’t want to be put in a box or whatever, like, and they’re arguing against the
vocabulary of them, but it doesn’t make sense because we use vocabulary for everything. She
elaborates on the use of vocabulary, using the example of the word “desk” in order to move
conversations forward:
The problem is they’re more sensitive to [vocabulary], because it’s about their own
personal identity, so they don’t like this constrictive idea. But the constricted idea of “that
is a desk” and “when I see a desk, you understand a desk, but we might not be thinking
about the exact same desk,” it’s an idea. People have a problem with a word that
describes themselves and the other person not having the exact same idea.
Why are they so important or unimportant? Some people are really super tight and
incredibly offended, but then I go with my whole “desk thing” and it really doesn’t
matter. It’s only to push the conversation forward about the subject, so my thing is I don’t
understand why people have such great issue with labels in the first place or attach very
tightly to their label.
Mocha’s understanding of language and its functionality corresponds with her lack of strong
connection to any sexual identity labels. She notes the difference between others’ definition of
the label being used and emphasizes that the point is to share a common language rather than
others sharing the same precise understanding of the label.
Vika described a sense of community with others that don’t identify their sexuality:
There are a lot of queer people on campus I can identify with in terms of fluidity and
attraction, like being open to a free love kind of thing where they don’t identify strictly. I
know a lot of people who are very fluid and who are very queer in the sense.
Recent regulations on politically correct speech in the LGBTQRC pushed Aurora away
from the space:
For a while there, you couldn’t say “queer” and everyone fought that one, because that’s
just retarded! And you can’t say “retarded” (laughing). And it’s just...you can’t be that
way all the time, it’s too restrictive, so I don’t go there much anymore, for that reason.
George was also a part of that and he thinks that everything should be equal (sarcasm)
and everything should be perfect, everyone should be on their toes and be perfectly polite
and politically correct in every single way. And it’s just...you can’t be that way all the
time, it’s too restrictive, so I don’t go there much anymore, for that reason.
77
Politics surrounding language used regarding sexuality is the reinforcement of acceptable
and unacceptable social identities. Students are pushing for more fluid, flexible definitions of
sexuality and are therefore a part of a large social reconceptualization of identities. There
appears to be a social reconstruction of sexualities occurring at Western. This environment has
the potential for re-framing prototypes associated with bisexual, pansexual, fluid, and queer
students, or people who “can’t choose” and “are greedy” to a new conceptualization of those
who “love everyone regardless of gender.”
Theme 8: Exposure to Stereotypes.
Students also reported encountering bisexual stereotypes during conversations with peers
on- and off-campus. Vika experienced negative stereotypes within queer communities:
There’s racism, biphobia, and I don’t even know what it’s called, fear of lesbians, and
things like that by some people within the queer spaces, which kind of surprises me. It
exists, not something to ignore…I’ve heard a lot of things about different identities, like
bisexuality, the usual stuff “need to choose a side” or they’re greedy, the usual bigotrist
things you hear of course. For gay, it’s usually that there is a way of acting that is
associated with being gay so a lot of people think “I don’t get. How come you’re not like
this person or not like this person?”…things like that. I think all identities have things
tacked onto them, lesbians usually people think of butch lesbian or they’ll specifically
think of a femme lesbian, but it’s never both, they always just have one thing in their
head. Not to say that it’s only butch and femme, but that’s what people usually have in
their minds, either this or that, and they think we’re all supposed to act one way.
Vika also noted that transphobia was not allowed:
People say “I wouldn’t date a bi person” and I say “I’ll date anyone” and they’ll say
“well they’ll probably leave me for a man,” if it’s two women. I do know that
transphobia is not tolerated anywhere near the center, though. A lot of people are really
good in getting their politics out there, fighting for change, but it does pop up some
places and that can’t be ignored.
Vika’s observation is an important indicator of campus climate for transgender and BPFQ
students, given that transphobic remarks are not tolerated; however, the negative reinforcement
of stereotypes regarding bisexual individuals occur within the campus environment. Raj has also
78
encountered stereotypes attached to bisexual males and lesbians, although his experiences are not
stated to have occurred exclusively on-campus:
I guess there is one characteristic I’ve heard about being bisexual is I think a lot of people
have a lot of homophobic statements like ‘you’re a traitor to your own gender” stuff like
that. Definitely when the AIDS epidemic was big, and still is really big in America,
bisexual men have been considered to be highly promiscuous and that they’ve been
criticized and oppressed because people believe they were bringing HIV & AIDS from
their same sex relationships to opposite sex relationships. So I think that’s something
that has been attached to a bisexual identity.
Part of lesbian subculture is, a lot of stuff such as butchness, butch characteristics, such as
short hair, wearing pants, wearing t-shirts, that’s only part of the lesbian subculture, but
what people maybe think is they associate the lesbian sexuality with automatically part of
the lesbian subculture. I think to automatically combine the two is a big injustice. I think
that removes part of the idea that being lesbian is socially constructed, to add certain
characteristics to lesbian identity…people have to acknowledge it’s a part of a subculture;
it’s not automatically part of sexuality.
BT overheard high school peers speaking about bisexuality stereotypes. “People think
bisexuals are confused, it’s just a phase, it’s experimental, and they’re just going to end up with
the opposite sex after high school.” David observes that people associate fluidity with
bisexuality:
I believe the term fluid is too new to brandish any stereotypes so far. I think a brother
label would be pansexual to fluidity, so the traits of a pansexual man would be ‘greedy’
or ‘they have to choose one binary sex or gender.’
Vika describes fluidity:
Fluidity, when I describe fluidity to people, they usually think, the first thing they hop
onto is bisexual. They think that you’re attracted to guys and you’re attracted to girls and
they also think in binaries, so it’s already out of the ball park, they didn’t get it. Fluidity
is usually something they don’t understand, so they attach it to…well, if you’re attracted
to girls and you’re attracted to boys now, then you’re bisexual right? I’m like no, no, no.
things like that. Fluidity definitely has confusion.
Students experienced negative stereotypes for bisexual identities and behaviors within
heteronormative and queer environments. Their internal definition of their sexuality would not
leave them susceptible to these encounters, yet their peers made the association with traditional
labels, such as gay, lesbian, and bisexual, as they moved toward understanding the student’s
79
identity and definition. Students did not report feeling that these stereotypes directly referred to
their sexuality as their labels were constructed within paradigms of sexual fluidity. I was left to
wonder whether their use of alternative labels created a disassociation with the stereotypes
attached to historical bisexuality, therefore avoiding negative stereotypes. I was interested in the
extent to which the preponderance of queer politics on campus has crafted a new paradigm in
which fluidity of genders and sexualities can be accepted.
Theme 9: Internal versus Social Group Identities.
The social identity perspective describes one’s social identity as being comprised of their
personal identity and their social group identity. One’s personal identity is cognitive, or an
internal perception of themselves, whereas one’s social group identity is socially constructed and
enforced. Participants use varying identities, such as pansexual, fluid, queer, bisexual, and
bottomy to describe their sexuality to others as they encounter a conflict with their personal
identity.
Students also perceived the “newness” of their sexual identity labels and point out their
experiences with this phenomenon in daily conversations. David notes “The term fluid is
generally within the LGBT community, relatively new.” Raj adds “I feel like people don’t really
know what queer means. A lot of people who aren’t educated on the subject, they just think
“gay” and they really miss the target.” He posits that queer is a collective identity:
I know a lot of people who tend to use the word queer rather than gay, lesbian, bisexual;
don’t get me wrong, they do use those other words, but queer is collectively used; it puts
a whole bunch of different groups together.
When others don’t understand their identity, they are likely to use more commonly
understood terms at the expense of the true meaning they attach to their identity. These
negotiations happened frequently in participants’ experiences and appeared normative and could
80
be a product of the lack of clear prototype for fluid, pansexual, and queer sexualities. Vika uses
basic terms to explain their sexuality to others:
I definitely think in very basic terms to myself, I think “I’m Mexican,” my grandparents
came from there, my parents…I put a national label on myself. “I’m American, too,”, but
when I actually think about it I realize these aren’t the labels I actually identify with
they’re just the labels that have been taught to me. There are a bunch of labels, like
Mexican American, things like that…I definitely identify as a queer person of color.
After coming to college, I’ve had a lot more time to think and I think about ability and
class that I didn’t use to think about and now I do. I realize I’m a person of the middle
class; I’m an able-bodied person, all kinds of things like that, still growing on stuff
(laughs).
Raj also uses common terms with others. “For myself, I get very specific and with other
people I try to use common terms, such as gay, straight, bisexual, or pansexual.” He expresses a
deeper understanding of the importance of the identity politics of queer and bisexual identities:
Bisexual I use more because I feel people that identify as bisexual are oppressed in a
different way than other people that identify as lesbian, or gay, or queer, people have said
that there are only two sexualities, which are gay and straight, and leave out bisexuals in
that situation. I use queer more when I’m thinking of myself outside of the gender binary
and I’m trying not to specify what gender I am and limit myself to a certain gender or
sex.
Students also reported particular strategies for getting through conversations with
confused peers. Aurora will begin to describe her attractions if someone doesn’t know what
Pansexual means. “If they don’t know what pansexual is, I usually go on with “do you know
what fluid is?” then I’ll go into the “gender plays no role in it, blah blah blah…”
Mocha’s strategy is to use the label that will shorten the conversation:
when I use “fluid” I have to explain that; so most of the time if it’s with non-queer people
I’ll just say bisexual because it’s just easier. It doesn’t matter to me very much anyway.
In like more queer settings I’ll use fluid and sometimes not even that just cause I don’t
feel like explaining it, whatever, I really don’t care at all (laughing). I adjust it to the
audience that I’m talking to, then otherwise it doesn’t really matter to me. Whatever
shortens the conversation, you know?
Some students noted the pressure that is placed on them due to their constant engagement
in these types of conversations. They find themselves educating others on sexualities and
81
sometimes note that these conversations are tiring and occur often. Within a social identity
perspective framework, these social forces of ingroup and outgroup reinforcement depend on the
polarization of characteristics for these social groups, which from the students’ reports appear to
fall in binary systems of gay/straight, gay/lesbian, and attractions to male/female bodies. Given
the students’ attempts to resist identity labels and their peers’ persistence in using preconceived
identity prototypes, they are reluctantly placed in a definitive group despite their efforts to
promote fluidity. These intergroup relations provide BPFQ students with prototypes of
acceptable and unacceptable behaviors during daily interactions.
Research Question Three: Where and How Do Students Access Support on Campus?
Theme 10: Factors Determining Access to Support.
Gender, cultural, and sexuality campus resource centers at Western consist of a Women’s
Resource Center, Asian Pacific Islander Student Programs, Latino Chicano Student Programs,
Native American Student Programs, Pan African Student Programs, and the LGBTQRC.
Friendliness of staff and students was a primary consideration for students’ decision to visit
campus resource centers. Aurora felt a connection with the LGBTQRC Assistant Director, Grey.
“I do know if I ever wanted to talk to anyone on campus that’s a resource community kind of
thing, the LGBTQRC, they have really nice people there, especially Grey, she’s awesome; she’s
so chill.” Vika describes the LGBTQRC:
There was a lot of diversity in the lounge... After that I go there consistently. It’s
definitely one of my favorite places on campus. I go there whenever I can. It’s in between
a lot of my classes, it’s just a nice place to sit down and study, things like that. It’s where
I meet a lot of my friends actually.
Mocha also had a positive experience in the LGBTQRC “It was pretty friendly; you learn a lot of
political correctness, all the terminology I was unaware of... It’s cool, free printing.” BT
82
reported feeling welcome by the LGBTQRC staff. “They came out of their offices and they
showed me around the resource center and they sat me down and told me about the other
students that were involved in the resource center. They made me feel at home.”
Raj described his perception of the LGBTQRC:
It’s very chill, it’s very calm, it’s very collective, you can go there and sit down and sleep
if you wanted, you can go there and talk to somebody if I want, I know everybody there
is very helpful, very kind, and they’re all there for you. It’s a very calm environment and
very friendly, too.
In addition to accessing support in the LGBTQRC, students received support from other
sources as well. Raj spent much of his time in the Women’s Resource Center:
I’m involved with the Women’s Resource Center. I’m part of the Campus Safety Escort
Service there and that’s usually where I spend most of my time, the Women’s Resource
Center. I’ve grown accustomed to many people there and many of them are good friends
of mine. That’s usually where I like to spend my time…As a feminist, that’s really been a
community that I’ve thrived in and I really appreciate a community that just wants to help
other people and keep them safe.
Raj also accessed support from his Women’s Studies professor and the counseling center on
campus:
A place where I found support was with my Women’s Studies teacher. Her name is J___.
Her office is very open and she is one of those really smart teachers that knows exactly
what you’re talking about and I think she’s really helped out with a lot of issues, not only
personal issues that I’ve had in terms of my sexuality, but also in terms of academics.
She’s just one of the finest people I’ve seen.
Raj additionally visited the campus Counseling Center and described his positive experience:
Besides that, I have gone to the counseling center on campus and they’re very helpful and
open. They’re all member of the LGBTQRC Allies Group. I think that’s really awesome
that all of them are a part of the allies program.
Raj was made aware of the counselors’ participation in an Ally Training series facilitated
by LGBTQRC staff members. Upon completion of this training program, participants receive a
83
LGBTQ Ally placard to display in their office to indicate it is a safe zone for LGBTQ and
questioning students and staff members. Mocha also highlighted the Ally Training series:
Basically, [they] teach you terminology, teach you how to approach different situations
without being offensive, and just how to be an ally. After allies training, there’s also
trans allies training, which I haven’t done, so it will follow the same thing, just geared
towards trans.
Each of the counselors displayed their placard and Raj took note of this display of
acceptance and thought it important to detail in his description of the counseling center as an
“open” environment. Aurora also utilizes the counseling services on campus. “Personally, I go
to the campus counseling center, I have a therapist there, she is really cool.” Aurora went
through a difficult time when her cousin’s discovery of her sexuality led to her father’s family
disowning her and she sought support. “I talked to my therapist [on campus] and my psychiatrist
about it. At this point, I had both (laughing). I talked to those two and my best friend.”
Programs and services offered by the campus resource centers were also noted by
students as a reason to be involved with their offices. Three participants attended a Vagina
Monologues performance, in which they also noted this event was put on by the Women’s
Resource Center. Cupcake’s one and only visit to the LGBTQRC was to attend a program:
When I went during my freshman year to the center for a “coming out stories” type event,
everyone was very welcoming and there wasn’t a lot of pressure to say or do anything. I
feel as though the community is just there as a support mechanism and tool for outreach,
and that they are very inviting and accepting of anyone.
Raj heard of LGBTQ programs on campus, but never formally attended:
I haven’t been to any of their events. I have been to events for women’s studies classes,
but not for the LGBTRC. I have been on various panels on campus. They have
LGBTRC people come to the front of the room and ask questions about sexuality, about
services at the LGBTRC. That’s one of the big things that happen on campus. They also
put on a dance in one of the student dorms where they encouraged everyone to dress in
drag and I think that was very helpful in at least getting people to be courageous enough
to dress in drag and explore parts of their sexuality. I did not attend that one, but I did
hear it was pretty good.
84
David accessed many of the programs offered by the LGBTQRC:
There were discussion groups that spoke upon sexuality, gender, queer people of color
issues, and BDSM, and I really got into all those topics. Other ones would be online peer
mentoring and I partook in that activity and eventually became a peer mentor, myself.
From the peer mentors point of view, it has a really great diversity, there are some
individuals coming into the chat room to talk about coming out, queer people of color
issues, don’t ask don’t tell, and some want to talk about pop culture and that how that
kind of deals with the media’s portrayal of LGBT individuals or how it affects LGBT
individuals.
Mocha also became a very engaged member in cultural and sexuality programs and services on
campus:
…I’ve studied abroad, I’ve gone to conferences, I’ve worked at conferences, I’ve done
butt loads of volunteering, I’ve done an internship, I’m doing research, I’ve kind of
knocked down everything on my list, and I fit it in. I think I’ve gotten the most out of
college I could have gotten. I don’t think if I went back, I would change it. I really think
I did everything I could. It was stressful, but I did it.
Mocha described programs and services in the LGBTQRC:
The peer mentoring is a really, really good resource. I think the anonymity really helps a
lot for people who don’t bring up the nerve to walk into the center. There is the library,
that’s pretty cool, you can check out books and movies. Ally trainings, that’s really
helpful too.
Students reported anxiety about accessing the LGBTQRC initially and each felt the space
was welcoming after they overcame this fear. Factors that inhibited access to campus resource
centers were feeling unwelcome by their peers within cultural spaces and excessive language
restrictions within the space. Vika described experiences at the Latino Chicano Student
Programs and Asian Student Programs Offices:
I’ve gone into Latino Chicano Student Programs a few times, but no one really talks to
me in there, but it’s not like the LGBTQRC. I don’t think it’s as friendly, I don’t feel as
comfortable there as I do in other spaces. I visited the Asian Student Programs; they’re
actually really nice in there. They’ll help me with my homework sometimes, with my
Korean homework.
I don’t want to say the [Latino] Chicano center is not as friendly…they’re not as outgoing
I guess. I haven’t really met much of them, mostly because I can’t just go up and talk to
someone very easily. There was someone from the LGBTRC in Chicano student
85
programs so I talked to them and they gave me a tour; that was pretty nice. It was
someone from the LGBTQRC, so it was kind of cheating (laughing)
David described his experience working as a programming liaison between the gender, sexuality,
and cultural centers:
I want to say that they were a different environment all together, I feel like
subconsciously that they were…I don’t want to use the word hostile, but a word less than
hostile, like not as welcoming as the LGBTQ Resource Center.
Aurora felt pushed away from LGBTQRC due to language restrictions “and it’s just...you can’t
be that way all the time, it’s too restrictive; so I don’t go there much anymore, for that reason.”
Cupcake had other reasons for not accessing the centers:
Honestly, I don’t spend a whole lot of extra-curricular time on campus, and even when I
do, sexuality is never really an issue that’s needed to be addressed, so I haven’t felt the
need to be “out” in that sense. If I were ever to attend an LGBT event then I probably
wouldn’t mind being more open.
Students communicated that their perception of the centers as welcoming and friendly by
students, as well as staff members, was integral to their decision to remain engaged with these
spaces. Staff in the centers were referred to as friendly, helpful, and welcoming frequently by
students; however, there were different perceptions as to how other students in the space
welcomed them individually or as a member of the larger LGBTQ community.
David presumed his feeling of discomfort stems from the community in question’s
perception of the LGBT community, referring to social media messages:
I think it’s between two effects, one is within me. It’s the media portrayal of their
society’s outlook of LGBTQ people. A small example would be the black community;
they don’t really see the LGBTQ individuals as, you know, in society they view LGBTQ
people as subhuman and I think that’s something that’s still within me. I don’t think they
are really that happy to see me.
David made an earlier reference to internalized homophobia within the Asian community
regarding anything deviating from the norm. David perceives the conflicting prototypes
assigned to his non-straight identity and his Asian identity:
86
First off, being in an Asian culture, there’s a lot of oppression if one is not straight, so
anything that deviates from that is brought upon as shameful. Secondly, to acknowledge
ones sexuality and to go into the LGBTQ resource center is kind of like ‘oh you’re
having pride in something you should be shameful for’…that kind of engrained
homophobia, the internalized homophobia.
In his time at Western, David has established a network of mentors for which he seeks
support and guidance. Among them, there are campus professionals from the Academic Honors
Program, LGBTQ Resource Center department, student affairs administration, and Campus
Program Board. When describing his mentors, he noted their race/ethnicity, gender, and often
their sexual identity, regardless of whether their sexuality fell within the LGBTQ spectrum or
normative heterosexual spectrum.
Yes, there are four main informal mentors that I have on campus. One of them is an
administrator; he also identifies as a gay Asian male, so we find a lot of community
within that. The other one is Grey, a staff member at the LGBTQRC... Thirdly, Lina, my
former boss identified as a straight Filipina women. Lastly, but most importantly, I guess
is Amber from the Academic Honors Program; she identifies as a straight Asian female.
They all kind of see my problems and they attack it from different viewpoints.
Mocha attributes campus offices she has sought assistance from “Student Life, Student Affairs,
LGBTRC, [Asian Pacific Islander Student Programs, counseling center, your academic advisor,
or your RA if you’re in the dorms.”
David and Raj communicated having LGBTQ mentors on campus and all students
reiterated feeling they could talk to staff members in the LGBTQRC, who are also LGBTQ-
identified. Ivory (2005) notes the lack of visibility of LGBTQ faculty and professional mentors
on higher education campuses, so it is quite fortunate that Western boasts a diverse body of
professionals and faculty members.
Theme 11: Queer People of Color Spaces.
Five of the participants were non-White identified and indicated involvement in spaces
and groups with an emphasis on multiculturalism. Vika and David identified as queer persons of
87
color. Vika describes their involvement in a Queer People of Color (QPOC) group on campus:
I like the Queer People of Color group on campus. The politics speak directly to me as a
queer person of color so meeting people there who have similar experiences is really
helpful. It’s really neat to meet people. Plus, these people have really nice politics and I
like politics. I try to learn from them and just see other people’s experiences. Everyone
participates in dialogue, gets their different viewpoints and perspectives out there and it
creates a very nice space for queer people of color and that’s a space that doesn’t exist
anywhere else in my experience.
Carving out this space on campus specifically for the perspectives and experiences of queer
students of color was very important to establishing a community at Western. Vika’s
experiences highlight the importance of engaging in issues relevent to the intersection of their
sexuality and race/ethnicity. The existence of this group on campus created a safe space for
students occupying multiple minority identities. David elaborated on his role in adding to the
diversity of “White-dominated” spaces on campus:
I believe my sexual identity helped me in these roles. The reason why is because I believe
I account for a lot of diversity in most of these spaces, that I am a queer person of color
and a lot of them for some reason or another are White-dominated, cisgender, cissexual,
monosexually dominated.
David also describes his perception of separate cultural communities on campus:
…When you go to an Asian Pacific student rally, all you see are Asian Pacific students.
You don’t see Chicano or African American individuals there rallying for their cause.
There are a lot of people of color within LGBT groups. The term LGBT can encompass
all these cultures and “get away with it.”
David and Mocha were involved in queer and multicultural conferences and other queer
people of color programs at Western.
David:
I have hosted two conferences, one was a queer conference. One was queer and one was
put on by my work, sort of a grab bag of identities. I was elected co-chair my third year
and took responsibilities my fourth year at a queer people of color conference.
88
Mocha:
I think I might have gone to everything. So there’s QPOC, queer people of color group,
the Queer Alliance group...and I went to the Q&A, Queer and Asian Conference in
Berkeley and they funded that, the Western Regional conference, and the QPOC
conference…which Western hosted last year. It focuses on the intersecting of queer and
cultural backgrounds. I also facilitated a QPOC workshop. I had a panel of students from
very different backgrounds talk about their struggles of queer and cultural identities.
In addition to educational and involvement opportunities, Mocha was involved in campus
leadership and community outreach activities:
I've been to the Common Ground Retreat which is a weekend based on the common
ground activity and we try to find ways to make a more culturally unified campus. Also,
a youth conference, so they try to bring a bunch of high school students from the area and
it’s basically a multicultural conference, so they’ll have different topics of different
identities and things and how to deal with segregation, discrimination, or bullying in your
own high school. Also, we push the kids to go to college.
Spaces allocated for issues concerning the intersection of queer and cultural identities
were important to these students. Finding a community of peers that they relate to while learning
more about their own identities was beneficial for them. In turn, they created and supported
opportunities to provide educational and community-building opportunities for other queer
students of color.
Researcher Reflection
My original intent was to uncover the stories of an invisible and socially marginalized
community. What I discovered was the vast spectrum on which these students understood and
conceptualized their sexualities and genders. Additionally, my own preconceptions and biases,
specifically as a lesbian woman and previously-identified bisexual woman, colored my initial
design decisions in my assumptions of the prevalence of biphobia and binegativity on college
campuses. It was through subsequent conversations with my committee members and the
89
bracketing of my own experiences that opened my eyes to my preconceptions and the
sociohistorical context of being bisexual a decade ago.
Students in this study shared stories of constant adaptation and resilience in the face of
hostility from their beloved family members, peers, and complete strangers. I was delighted to
hear of the growth and acceptance these students experienced at Western University. There is a
large part of me that feels sorrow for not being able to highlight and honor the true identity of the
university given its commitment to creating inclusive environments and promoting the
celebration of diversity and difference. The fact remains that some of the participants in this
study require this anonymity for their own identity development, health, and general safety.
Therefore, until the larger social climate is accepting of sexualities historically deemed non-
normative, especially bisexual, pansexual, fluid, and queer identities, research efforts may not be
able to truly highlight both the work done by campuses and honor the experiences of BPFQ
student experiences.
Through these seven stories, I uncovered the common essence of their collective
experiences pertaining to overall campus experiences, sexual identities and meaning-making, as
well as access to campus support. In chapter 6, I will discuss the implications of this newly
acquired information and make recommendations for those providing student academic and
support services, as well as those influencing policy on college and university campuses. These
recommendations are not a one-size-fits-all solution to improving campus climate for BPFQ
students; however, it is helpful to use some of the programs and support services as a benchmark
in assessing the available support and climate on other campuses.
90
Chapter 6: Implications and Recommendations
Summary of Findings
The purpose of the study was to examine the overall campus experiences of BPFQ
students at a large public university. Students’ stories paint the picture of a generally welcoming
and inclusive campus environment, where involvement and politically correct language are
encouraged, and students will inevitably make friends from every part of the world. They also
described their understanding of their own sexuality and how they engaged in frequent
negotiations in order to get others to understand their identities and attractions outside of
traditional binary systems. They discussed factors that made them want to return to campus
support centers, such as friendliness, visibility as LGBTQ allies, and perceiving the space to be
welcoming of their sexual identities. They also shared the dynamics contributing to their
decision to refrain from visiting campus centers. The analysis of the stories produced 11 themes.
This chapter will discuss the implications and recommendations for practice.
Through the analysis of their stories, eleven themes emerged describing the essence of
being a BPFQ student at Western University. These themes were: 1) transition to college, 2) first
year residential experience, 3) fear of initially accessing the LGBTQRC, 4) perception of campus
climate and safety, 5) campus involvement opportunities, 6) resistance to labels, 7) language
politics, 8) exposure to stereotypes, 9) internal versus social group identities, 10) factors
determining access to support, and 11) queer people of color spaces.
Discussion of Implications
As discussed in chapter 2, there is a push in academe to closely examine the universality
of LGBTQ identity development models, such as those of Cass and D’Augelli, for BPFQ
students. Dilley (2005) argues that these models are unable to keep up with the trends in sexual
91
identification labels. Although it is clear that each student’s development of their sense of
personal and social identities is unique, it is unclear that one model could capture their identity
development as a collective group. Certainly, this presumption is not exclusive to LGBTQ
individuals and could be argued for identity models in general. Students report being at different
stages or phases of their identity development by choice dependent upon the context rather than
time or accomplishment of developmental tasks exclusively. One thing is certain – students
report feeling that LGBTQ identities are acceptable in the campus community.
Given a choice in their social environments, the participants in this study would elect not
to label their sexuality at all. Academic research could take a closer examination of this trend as
well as the push for labels indicating fluidity of genders and sexualities, in an effort to accurately
represent the communities in which we are studying. From a critical race or feminist
perspective, researchers should use language that rejects oppressive, binary, or exclusionary
language in reference to communities in which we hope to give voice to and implement social
change. Rhoads (1997) and Muehlenhard (2000) encourage us to emphasize the importance of
diversity within groups rather than assume their experiences are homogeneous. This trend
regarding the reluctance to label sexual identities is observed by Millennial students and within
BPFQ students in this study (Vaccaro, 2008).
Access to support on campus took on various forms. Students attended programs,
established connections with mentors on campus, engaged in student club or academic
communities, and visited the campus gender, sexuality, and ethnic resource centers on campus.
Sexuality, race, and culture-specific programming and resources are a trademark of this campus.
I’m left to wonder how these students would have fared in the absence of any of these resource
centers. In student affairs, it is challenging to prove effectiveness and legitimacy of programs
92
and offices providing these types of programs. In consideration of the stories told by the seven
Western students, the essence of their collective experience revolved around the mere existence
of an LGBTQRC on campus, whether they chose to visit once, daily, or not at all. The LGBTQ
Resource Center operated as a hub for programming, study space, socializing, and acted as a
central component in participants’ perception of the campus climate. On a few occasions,
students mistook questions about the LGBTQ community on campus for an inquiry about the
actual LGBTQRC itself. Additionally, there was a lack of distinction between programs hosted
by the LGBTQRC and those put on by LGBTQ student clubs and organizations.
Recommendations for Practice
In order to improve the campus environment and maximize support and resources in the
context of negative campus climates, I have seven recommendations for intentional practices by
student affairs professionals: 1) conduct assessment regarding fluid identities, 2) facilitate
Common Ground activity, 3) implement collaborative and inclusive orientation and transition
programs, 4) examine freshmen residential education, 5) conduct sensitivity and ally trainings, 6)
provide programs allowing for anonymity, and 7) promote campus racial diversity. These
recommendations are not meant to apply as a universal application to BPFQ student
communities; however, they are recommendations for students like those participating in this
study. Interventions will vary according to the climate and institutional context.
Conduct Assessment Regarding Fluid Identities.
Students communicated a resistance to labels and identifying their sexuality within pre-
determined categories was not preferred. Programming and support may be helpful to educate
the campus community around the spectrum of sexualities, attractions, and desires that students
experience. Ally and Safe Zone Training programs for faculty, staff, and students are a great
93
start to revitalizing, or re-branding campus awareness of LGBTQ community characteristics.
Additionally, institutional efforts to collect LGBTQ demographics data, such as college
freshmen and senior surveys, and survey data in general are often collected in specified response
categories. This method limits responses to pre-determined categories rather than a “fill-in-the-
blank” approach that would allow for fluid sexual identities. A reevaluation of traditional
categories of sex and gender as either male or female on assessment instruments would allow for
the inclusion of students that identity outside of these binaries, including genderqueer students,
or students that identify as transgender. It is unknown whether students in this study would
select identity labels to describe their sexuality.
Facilitate Common Ground Activity.
This activity was a defining moment in the college experiences of four of the students’
coming out process. Their fond recollection of this diversity activity, as someone who supports
college students and has participated in its facilitation, was rewarding to say the least. They
often marked their participation as the moment at which they were now out to a group of
students with similar experiences, even if it was only one other student that stepped into the
circle.
As someone who has facilitated the questions in the Common Ground activity, there are
many topics related to race and ethnicity, multicultural identities, religion and spirituality, and
other identity issues. The students reporting a perceived sense of openness and acceptance,
David, Mocha, BT, and Vika, represent a wide variety of identities and intersections from
Atheist to Catholic, Mestiza/o to Vietnamese, and so on. These students felt that they were a
member of a group, sometimes taking the step into the circle with others, or staying in the outer
circle with others. Their identities and experiences were normalized and granted visibility and
94
legitimacy in that moment, therefore setting the tone for their next four years at Western. For
institutions looking to incorporate this activity in their campus programming, see Appendix V
(LGBT Architect, 2012).
Implement Collaborative and Inclusive Orientation and Transition Programs.
Students communicated extreme anxiety about their arrival to campus and the
implications for safety, success, and community pertaining to their LGBTQ identities. These
students did not express nervousness stemming from the possible rigor of courses, being
incompatible with their roommate, or even affording their tuition and books – they were worried
about not being accepted by peers or worst, harmed because of their sexuality. Most students in
this study were not ‘out’ in high school, yet they pinpoint their summer experience, whether it
was attending summer courses, participating in an Academic Honors Program, or a New Student
Orientation as the moment they realized things were going to be okay for them at Western.
Western University has a very collaborative Orientation model, where campus offices and
resource centers are involved in welcoming incoming first-year students.
Examine Freshman Residential Education Programs.
Students communicated positive experiences in their freshman dorms. As someone who
has worked with first-year residential college students, I know that extensive effort is necessary
to create the type of inclusive environment the students described. This involves intentionality
on behalf of the Residential Life departments, including sensitivity training for Resident
Advisors, a departmental vision that incorporates the celebration of diversity, and the visibility of
LGBTQ and historically underrepresented students and professionals.
95
Conduct Sensitivity and Ally Trainings.
Students communicated a need for campus staff and students participating in Greek Life
opportunities to complete LGBTQ diversity training. The campus counseling center was noted as
participating in Ally Training program and displayed placards alerting students to their Ally-ship
and participation in a formal training program. Three of the participants noted accessing services
at the counseling center and being very happy with the support they received there. Western is
one of the many campuses proving Ally Training programs for interested students, staff, and
faculty members. It is recommended that training materials provide awareness of BPFQ
identities, as well as students’ possible rejection of labels altogether. Additionally, professionals
providing LGBTQ Ally Trainings recommend promoting these types of programs as optional,
rather than mandatory.
Provide Programs Allowing for Anonymity.
Providing support programs that ensure anonymity and occur in non-LGBTQ spaces are
recommended strategies to outreach to BPFQ, closeted, and questioning students. Online peer
mentoring was recommended by two of the participants as an ideal program for BPFQ students.
Thinking about my own experiences as a first-year student questioning my sexuality, I accessed
web resources extensively as they ensured anonymity. In consideration of enhancing an
institutional webpage, it is recommended that the website clearly communicates the institution’s
climate and investment in diversity and inclusion. Additionally, Western has a series of
educational materials available for download, links to external LGBTQ websites and
organizations, and they are streaming a series of student photos and quotes of LGBTQ students
and staff at the time of this study.
96
Promote Campus Racial Diversity.
The diversity of the campus community was an important consideration for students.
Western is the most racially diverse campus in its system and was noted as such by two
participants. The presence of a diverse campus gave students the impression that other identities
might be accepted as well. Campuses are encouraged to recruit a student and professional
community that emulate the race/ethnic, religious, socioeconomic, ability levels, and so forth of
a global society. Students perceived this to be an indicator of likely acceptance prior to applying
for admission at Western. One of the participants recommended more collaborative
programming efforts that span racial, gender, and sexual identities, but focused on the
commonality of these communities and experiences.
Limitations
My own identity as a butch lesbian may have positively or negatively influenced the
study. Participants were unaware of my past identification as bisexual and my own cisgender
history of gender expression. It is unknown to what extent my own experiences as a bisexual,
now lesbian woman influenced the design, data collection, and analysis process. I felt, as a
researcher and a visible LGBTQ community member, that the students and I established rapport
comfortably. This could be attributed to the possibility of their acknowledgement of the
potential similarities of our experiences or identities.
Technology also produced limitations. Several potential informants were not
comfortable being interviewed online or didn’t feel comfortable being contacted by email,
therefore they did not include their email or contact information to be included in the study.
Wireless internet and cellular reception caused several moments of distorted dialogue during our
97
interview and could have omitted dialogue portions without the knowledge of the participant or
myself. Additionally, this study did not include students whom never accessed the LGBTQRC
Future Areas of Research
Programs That Support and Attract BPFQ Students.
As a student affairs professional, the first area of concern for future research pertains to
the programs that attract and support BPFQ students primarily. Are these students accessing
support through the program’s website, telephone call to staff, or within their peer groups? What
are the characteristics that would attract students that this study may have been missed because
they are closeted or don’t label their sexuality at all? One of the participants alluded to being
aware of numerous students that are afraid to access the LGBTQRC. It is unknown how these
students are receiving support for their LGBTQ and overall identity development. Specifically
examining the experiences of students that have never accessed LGBTQRC’s is a necessary are
of future inquiry.
How Do Campuses without LGBTRC Support Students?
Another topic that should be examined, especially in the context of the current budget
implications for education programs, is how do campuses provide education, support, and
resources about LGBTQ concerns without an office or a resource center? Students also reported
access to support networks and resources external to campus. Little is known about the larger
picture of social support accessible to BPFQ students. Some participants noted a close
connection with their biological family, while others were disowned, grew distant, or developed
a new family of peers and mentors.
98
Experiences of BPFQ Students Not Represented in this Study.
What are the experiences of international students regarding BPFQ sexual identities?
What are the experiences of transfer and spring admit students given the breadth of support
student received from New Student Orientation programming for traditional first-year students?
Transfer and spring admit student experiences with BPFQ identities are unknown; additionally,
perceptions of international and African American students were mentioned without hearing
from students within those communities. I am left to wonder how BPFQ identities intersecting
with an African American identity would influence campus experiences. The international
student experience, from an admissions, academic, or student life standpoint, can vary greatly
between international students and from that of domestic students. An international student, as
an umbrella categorization, includes countless possible global identities and their experiences as
BPFQ college students are unknown.
Polyamory.
Polyamory was a topic one student brought up during this study. Vika described
polyamory: “I think that you don’t have to only love one person, not only one person can love
you, lots of people can love you, you can love lots of people.” They wondered how it related to
pansexuality, fluidity, and queerness. Exploring polyamory and its implications for a wide
spectrum of sexual identities is an intriguing area of inquiry.
Conclusion
This study examined the campus experiences, social identity labels, and campus support
for BPFQ students at Western University. From the seven students’ stories, emerged 11 themes
pertaining to the essence of being a BPFQ student at Western. The themes were 1) transition to
college, 2) first year residential experience, 3) fear of initially accessing the LGBTQRC, 4)
99
perception of campus climate and safety, 5) campus involvement opportunities, 6) resistance to
labels, 7) language politics, 8) exposure to stereotypes, 9) internal versus social group identities,
10) factors determining access to support, and 11) queer people of color spaces.
The implications of the data point to the necessity of positive perceptions of campus
climate and diversity and support from LGBTQ and ally staff and students on campus. For the
most part, students expressed resiliency, a positive sense of self, and pride in their role as an
LGBTQ campus community member. Recommendations for practice in seven areas were made,
including 1) conducting assessment regarding fluid identities, 2) facilitating the Common
Ground activity, 3) implementing collaborative and inclusive orientation and transition
programs, 4) examining freshmen residential education programs, 5) conducting sensitivity and
ally trainings, 6) providing programs allowing for anonymity, and 7) promoting campus racial
diversity. Four areas of future research were offered: programs that attract and support BPFQ
students; how campuses provide LGBTQ services without an LGBTQ office or resource center;
what are the experiences of BPFQ student communities not represented in this study; and
polyamory.
This study highlighted the campus experiences of seven BPFQ students. The nature of
their individual experiences varied, as well as the meaning they made of their sexual identities
across different social contexts. Sharing their stories is essential to make their lived experiences
visible in academia and the intention was to additionally provide recommendations for use by
higher education practitioners in supporting BPFQ students.
100
References
Alvesson, M. (2003). Methodology for close up studies- Struggling with closeness and closure.
Higher Education, 46, 167-193.
Atkinson, E., & DePalma, R. E. (2008). Dangerous spaces: Constructing and contesting sexual
identities in an online discussion forum. Gender and Education, 20, 183-194.
DOI 10.1080/09540250701797192
Ault, A. (1996). Ambiguous identity in an unambiguous sex/gender structure: The case of
bisexual women. The Sociological Quarterly, 37(3), 449-463.
Birnbaum, M.A. & Ruscio, M. (2004). Differences between matched heterosexual and non-
heterosexual college students on defense mechanisms and psychopathological symptoms.
Journal of Homosexuality, 48(1), 125-141.
Campus Pride. (2011). LGBT-friendly campus climate index. Retrieved from
http://www.campusclimateindex.org
Cashore, C. & Tuason, T. (2009). Negotiating the binary: Identity and social justice for bisexual
and transgender individuals. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 21, 374-401.
Cass, V. (1979). Homosexual identity formation: A theoretical model. Journal of Homosexuality,
4, 219-235.
Cass, V. (1984). Homosexual identity formation: Testing a theoretical model. Journal of Sex
Research, 20, 143-167.
101
Creswell, J.W. (2007). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five
Approaches. Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA.
D’Augelli, A.R. (1994). Identity development and sexual orientation: Toward a model of
lesbian, gay, and bisexual development. In E.J. Trickett, R.J. Watts, and D. Birman
(Eds.), Human Diversity: Perspectives on People in Context (pp. 312-333). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
D’Augelli, A.D. (2003). Lesbian and bisexual female youths aged 14 to 21: Developmental
challenges and victimization experiences. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 7(4), 9-29.
Dube, E.M. (2000). The role of sexual behavior in the identification process of gay and bisexual
males. The Journal of Sex Research, 37(2), 123-132.
Eaklor, V.L. (2008). Queer America: A GLBT history of the 20
th
century. Westport, CT:
Greenwood Press.
Easton, K., McCormish, J.F., &Greenberg, R. (2000). Avoiding common pitfalls in qualitative
data collection and transcription. Qualitative Health Research, 10(703), 703-707. DOI
10.1177/104973200129118651
Eliason, M. (2001). Bi-negativity: The stigma facing bisexual men. Journal of Bisexuality,
1(2/3), 137-154.
Evans, N. J., Reason, R. D., & Broido, E. M. (2001). Lesbian, gay, and bisexual students'
perceptions of resident assistants: Implications for resident assistant selection and
training. College Student Affairs Journal, 21(1), 82-91.
102
Fahs, B. (2009). Compulsory bisexuality?: The challenges of modern sexual fluidity. Journal of
Bisexuality, 9, 431-449.
Finlay, B. & Walther, C.S. (2003). The relation of religious affiliation, service attendance, and
other factors related to homophobic attitudes among university students. Review of
Religious Research, 44(4), 370-393.
Geiger, W., Harwood, J., & Hummert, M.L. (2006). College students’ multiple stereotypes of
lesbians. Journal of Homosexuality, 51(3), 165-182.
Grant, J. (n.d.). How big is the LGBT community? Why can’t I find this number? Retrieved from
National Gay and Lesbian Task Force website: http://www.thetaskforce.org/
downloads/release_materials/tf_lgbt_community.pdf
Herek, G.M. (2002). Heterosexuals’ attitudes toward bisexual men and women in the United
States. The Journal of Sex Research, 39(4), 264-274.
Hewson, C. (2003). Conducting research on the internet. Psychologist, 16(6), 290-293.
Hillier, L. & Harrison, L. (2007). Building realities less limited than their own: Young people
practicing same-sex attraction on the Internet. Sexualities, 10, 82-100.
doi: 10.1177/1363460707072956
Hogg, M.A. & Abrams, D. (1988). Social identification: A social psychology of intergroup
relations and group processes. London & New York: Routledge.
Hogg, M.A., Abrams, D., Otten, S., & Hinkle, S. (2004). The social identity perspective:
intergroup relations, self-conception, and small groups. Small Group Research, 35(3),
246-276.
103
Human Rights Campaign. (2009). State hate crimes laws. Retrieved from
http://www.hrc.org/documents/hate_crime_laws.pdf
Human Rights Campaign. (2010). School state laws and policies. Retrieved from
http://www.hrc.org/documents/school_laws.pdf
Hycner, R.H. (1985). Some guidelines for the phenomenological analysis of interview data.
Human Studies, 8(1985), 279-303.
Ivory, B.T. (2005). LGBT students in community college: Characteristics, challenges, and
recommendations. New Directions for Student Services, 111, 61-69.
James, N., & Busher, H. (2009). Online Interviewing. London: Sage.
Kanuha, V.K. (2000). “Being native” versus “going native”: Conducting social work research as
an insider. Social Work, 45(5), 339-447.
Klesse, C. (2005). Bisexual women, non-monogamy and differentialist anti-promiscuity
discourses. Sexualities, 8(4), 445-464.
Labor, S. (2011). Serving nonmonosexual students: Identifying trends and collecting best
practices. Retrieved from Consortium of Higher Education LGBT Resource
Professionals website: http://architect.lgbtcampus.org/research/serving-nonmonosexual---
bi---pansexual---stud/download
Lee, R. (2000). Health care problems of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender patients. West
Journal of Medicine, 172(6), 403-408.
104
Leider, S. (2000). Sexual minorities on community college campuses. Los Angeles: ERIC
Clearinghouse for Community Colleges. (ED 427 796)
Lewis, R.J., Derlega, V.J., Brown, D. Rose, S., & Henson, J.M. (2009). Sexual minority stress,
depressive symptoms, and sexual orientation conflict: Focus on the experience of
bisexuals. Journal of Social & Clinical Psychology, 28(8), 971-992.
Lincoln, Y.S. & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Longerbeam, S. D., Johnson, D. R., Kurotsuchi, I.K., and Lee, Z.S. (2007). Lesbian, gay, and
bisexual college student experiences: An exploratory study. Journal of College Student
Development, 48(2), 215-230.
Lyons, A. C., Cude, B., Lawrence, F. C. and Gutter, M. (2005). Conducting research online:
Challenges facing researchers in family and consumer sciences. Family and Consumer
Sciences Research Journal, 33, 341–356. doi: 10.1177/1077727X04274116
Malaney, G.D., Williams, E.A., & Geller, W.W. (1997). Assessing campus climate for gays,
lesbians, and bisexuals at two institutions. Journal of College Student Development,
38(4), 365-375.
Markham, A. N. (2008). Internet in Qualitative Research. In (Ed.), The Sage Encyclopedia of
Qualitative Research Methods (pp. 455-459). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Retrieved
from http://sage-ereference.com.libproxy.usc.edu/view/research/n231.xml
Marshall, C. & Rossman, G. .(2006). Designing qualitative research. Sage Publication:
Thousand Oaks, CA.
105
McDermott, E. & Roen, K. (2012). Youth on the virtual edge: Researching marginalized
sexualities and genders online. Qualitative Health Research, 22(4), 560-570.
Meadows & Morse (2001). Constructing evidence within the qualitative project. In J.M.
Swanson, & A. Kuzel (Eds.), Nature of Qualitative Evidence (pp. 187-200). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mehra, B., Merkel, C., and Bishop, A.P. (2004). The Internet for empowerment of minority and
marginalized users. New Media Society, 6(6), 781-802. DOI 10.117/146144804047513
Meyer, I. (2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual
populations: Conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 674-
697.
Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological Research Methods. Sage Publications: Thousand
Oaks, CA.
Muehlenhard, C. (2000). Categories and sexuality. The Journal of Sex Research, 37(2), 101-107.
Myers, J. (2003). The A to Z of the lesbian liberation movement: Still the rage. Lanham,
Maryland: Scarecrow Press.
Peterson, T.L. & Gerrity, D.A. (2006). Internalized homophobia, lesbian identity development,
and self-esteem in undergraduate women. Journal of Homosexuality, 50(4), 49-75.
Rankin, S.R. (2003). Campus Climate for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender People: A
National Perspective. New York: The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy
Institute. www.ngltf.org.
106
Rankin, S.R. (2005). Campus climate for sexual minorities. New Directions for Student
Services, 2005(111), 17-23.
Rhoads, R.A. (1994). Coming Out in College: The Struggle for a Queer Identity. Westport, CT:
Bergin & Garvey.
Rhoads, R.A. (1997). A subcultural study of gay and bisexual college males: Resisting
developmental inclinations. The Journal of Higher Education, 68(4), 460-482.
Rhoads, R.A. (1998). Freedom’s web: Student activism in the age of cultural diversity.
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Russell, G.M. & Richards, J.A. (2003). Stressors and resilience factors for lesbians, gay men
and bisexuals confronting anti-gay politics. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 31(3-4), 313-328.
Rust, P.C. (1992). The politics of sexual identity: Sexual attraction and behavior among lesbian
and bisexual women. Social Problems, 39(4), 366-386.
Rust, P.C. (1993a). “Coming out” in the age of social constructionism: Sexual identity formation
among lesbian and bisexual women. Gender and Society, 7(1), 50-77.
Rust, P.C. (1993b). Neutralizing the political threat of the marginal woman: Lesbian’s beliefs
about bisexual women. The Journal of Sex Research, 30(3), 214-228.
Saewyc, E.M., Bearinger, L.H., Heinz, P.A., Blum, R.W., & Resnick, M.D. (1998). Gender
differences in mental health and risk behaviors among bisexual and homosexual
adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 23, 181-188.
107
Sandfort, T.G, Melendez, R.M., Diaz, R.M. (2007). Gender nonconformity, homophobia, and
mental distress in Latino gay and bisexual men. Journal of Sex Research, 44(2), 181-189.
Sanlo, R.L. (2004). Lesbian, gay, and bisexual college students: Risk, resiliency, and retention.
Journal of College Student Retention, 6(1), 97-110.
Scourfield, J., Roen, K., McDermott, L. (2008). Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender young
people’s experiences of distress: Resilience, ambivalence and self-destructive behavior.
Health & Social Care in the Community, 16(3), 329-336.
Sherrill, J.M., & Hardesty, C. (1994). The gay, lesbian, and bisexual students’ guide to colleges,
universities, and graduate schools. New York: New York University Press.
Smith, M.S. & Gray, S.W. (2009). The courage to challenge: A new measure of hardiness in
LGBT adults. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 21(1), 73-89.
Spradley, J.P. (1997). The Ethnographic Interview. Holt, Rinehart and Winston: New York:
NY.
Stevens, R. A. (2004). Understanding gay identity development within the college environment.
Journal of College Student Development, 45(2), 185-206.
Stotzer, R.L. (2009). Straight allies: Supportive attitudes toward lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals
in a college sample. Sex Roles, 60, 67-80.
Vaccaro, A. (2008). Intergenerational perceptions, similarities, and differences: A comparative
analysis of lesbian, gay, and bisexual Millennial youth with Generation X and Baby
Boomers. Journal of LGBT Youth, 6, 113-134.
108
Van Manen, M. (1990). Researching the Lived Experience: Human Science for an Action
Sensitive Pedagogy. Hignell Book Printing: Winnipeg, Manitoba.
Varjas, K., Nastasi, B.K., Moore, R.B., & Jayasena, A. (2005). Using ethnographic methods for
development of culture-specific interventions. Journal of School Psychology, 43(2005),
241-258.
109
Appendix I
Online Pre-Screening Survey
Directions: Please answer the following questions. If selected to participate in this study,
you will be asked to complete two reflection activities by email and two interviews using
online video conferencing software in a private location. Several measures have been put in
place to ensure confidentiality and your identity will remain confidential at all phases of the
study.
1. Are you 18 years of age or older? Yes No
2. Which labels do you use to identify your sexual orientation? _(fill in; 5 spaces)______
3. Briefly describe your sexual orientation in your own words:
4. Are you currently enrolled in an academic degree program at (Western University)?
Yes No
5. Class standing: Freshmen, Sophomore, Junior, Senior, Graduate Student
6. Gender: __(fill in)____
7. May the researcher contact you by email? Yes No
a. If yes, please indicate which email address you prefer: _____________
b. If no, please indicate an alternate method of contact: ______________
8. Do you have access to a computer, cell phone, or laptop with a web camera? Yes No
9. Have you ever video chatted online? Yes No
10. If so, which software have you used?
a. Skype
b. OoVoo
c. iChat
d. Google Chat
e. Fring
Thank you for your submission. The researcher will contact you if you are selected to participate
in this study.
110
Appendix II
Reflection Activity Prompts
Directions: Please address each of the prompts below. Please share openly and honestly and
focus on your experiences as student at Western University. If you feel uncomfortable answering
a question or need clarification, please notify the researcher. Names of individuals, groups, and
institutions will be changed by the researcher to protect confidentiality.
Topic: Campus Life
Prompt 1:
Tell me about your life on campus...(academics, involvement, friends, transition from high
school, living situation)
Topic: Who Are You?
Prompt 2:
Who are you? Please tell me about yourself (e.g. Where were you raised? What is your family
like? Who are your closest friends? What are your values?)
111
Appendix III
Semi-Structured Interview Protocol
Interview Questions
Social Identity Labels
1. Which label(s) do you currently use to identify your sexuality?
2. What does this label mean?
3. How do you define your sexuality (to yourself? To others?)?
4. Can you describe your experience using sexual identity labels on campus?
5. Do you believe there are behaviors or traits associated with sexual identity labels (both
acceptable and unacceptable)?
6. Are the identity labels you use regarding your own sexuality the same in all contexts and
environments (e.g. with family, in church, with college friends)?
7. How would you describe your sexual identity compared to other labels in the LGBTQ
campus community?
8. Are there any other identity labels that define who you are (e.g. race, ability, religion,
culture, geographical region, academics)?
9. Is there anything else about identity labels or identities that I didn't ask about or that you
would like to add?
Campus Context
1. Can you describe an office, person, or place on campus where you would go to ask for help
with a personal issue? With an academic issue?
2. Have you ever visited the LGBTQ Resource Center on campus? If so, can you describe your
experience(s)? If not, is there any particular reason you haven't visited?
3. Have you participated in any events or services provided by the campus LGBTQ Resource
Center? If so, can you describe your experience(s)? If not, is there any particular reason you
haven't participated?
4. Have you been involved with any of the cultural or gender resource centers on campus? (e.g.
Native American, Latino Chicano, API, women's)
5. Can you describe any spaces or environments on campus where you feel comfortable being
"out" as participant's self-identity label ?
6. Can you describe any spaces or environments (if any) on campus where you do not feel
comfortable being "out" as participant's self-identity label ?
7. Is there anything else about the campus environment that I didn't ask about or that your
would like to add?
Community
1. How would you describe the Queer/LGBT campus community?
2. How would you describe the overall campus community?
3. Can you describe a community (or group) that you belong to?
4. What is your role in this community/ group?
112
5. Can you describe any acceptable or unacceptable behaviors or traits related to your role in
this community or group?
6. Is there anything about campus community that I didn't ask or that you would like to add?
Campus Experience
1. Can you describe your overall campus experience from the time you first arrived on campus
to the present?
2. Is there anything about your campus experience that I didn't ask or that you would like to
add?
Concluding Remarks
Thank the participant for their time and sharing their experiences. Remind the participant that
they will receive two journal prompts by email within the next 48-72 hours and to write their
thoughts freely. Ask whether they can think of any additional students that could share their
experiences and ask that she/he provide researcher’s contact information to potential participants.
They can contact me by email with any questions or concerns. There will be a chance for them
to double-check the accuracy and meaning of the findings and discuss emerging themes during
the follow-up interview.
113
Appendix IV
Template for Coding a Phenomenological Study
114
Appendix V
Building Common Ground Activity
Instructions
Let’s all stand in one large circle.
What can we tell about each other by looking around this circle?
In a moment, I will make a series of statements. If what I say is true for you, please walk
to the center of the circle.
Remember it is okay to pass if you do not feel comfortable stepping into the center of the
circle. Pay attention to how you feel as you decide whether to step forward.
This is a silent activity. Please hold your comments and thoughts until the end.
“Please common ground and move into the center of the circle if... (Insert statement)… Notice
those in the center and those around you.”
Questions
1. You identify as a woman
2. You identify as a man
3. You identify as African American or Black or African
4. You identify as Asian
5. You identify as Pacific Islander
6. You identify as Latino/a, Chicano/a,
7. You identify as Native American Indian
8. You identify as Middle Eastern
9. You identify as White, Caucasian or European American
10. You identify as of multi-ethnic or have multi-heritage
11. You are Christian
12. You are Muslim
13. You are Hindu
14. You are Buddhist
15. You are Jewish
16. You are Catholic
17. You attend worship services on Saturdays
18. You don’t practice an organized religion
19. You are the oldest sibling in your family
20. You are an only Child
21. You are Adopted
22. You were raised in a single parent household
23. You were raised in a farming community
24. You grew up in the Suburbs
25. You believe your parents understand you and your life
“Thank you for your support and respect, and please remember this is a SILENT activity”
115
26. You were home schooled
27. Attended private schools for most of your education
28. Both of your parents are College Educated Professionals
29. You have a visible or hidden disability
30. Your first language is not English
31. Have parents that are immigrants
32. You are an immigrant to this country
33. You had to translate conversations for your parents or other adults
34. Your parent/s (or the people who raised you) did manual labor to make a living
35. You believe that Abortion should always be an option
36. You are a registered voter who actually votes
37. You believe Abortion is always wrong
38. You or a member of your family have been incarcerated or been in the juvenile justice
system
39. You have been a victim of gang violence
40. You or a close family member has ever received government assistance
41. Grew up in a family where there was verbal or physical abuse
42. Grew up in a family where there was alcohol or drug abuse
43. A close friend or family member has AIDS or is HIV positive
44. A close friend or family member has attempted or committed suicide
Group Discussion
Thank you for taking part so respectfully in this activity.
Can anyone share what it felt like to move to the middle of the circle?
Can anyone share what it felt like to watch others step to the center of the circle?
How did it feel to be defined by a single characteristic?
Have you ever defined someone else based on a single characteristic about them?
Were there any times you felt a sense of pride stepping to the center of the circle?
We are all at the Retreat because we share at least one thing in common – we all identify
in one way or another with the LGBT community at ____. In what other ways are we
similar? Different?
116
Appendix VI
Personal Reflection
This personal excerpt from my own life aligns with the views of bell hooks and engaged
pedagogy. She believes in the necessity of learning environments to foster the shared
responsibility of teaching and learning by both the student and facilitator. In asking these seven
students to share their personal stories pertaining to their sexual identities and college
experiences, it is fair and equitable that I, too, share my story with them. This sharing, in effect,
alleviates some of the power disparities inherently present in the researcher-informant
relationship. Here is a brief piece of history, which brings to light my personal investment to this
study.
When I graduated from a high school in a small town in California, I left behind
teammates, friends, and two serious boyfriends to move to San Diego, which was four hours
away. My best friend and I decided to leave that town for bigger, better things, although we had
no idea what they were yet. We found ourselves enrolling in the local community college as a
step toward the future. These first two years constituted a time in which my life perspectives and
sense of self were turned inside out.
My first year in college opened my eyes to all the things I had known previously as truths
and shook the foundation I had built in my first 18 years of life. The status of women in society,
the building of this country on the mass killing and exploitation of indigenous people, and the
presence of more than one sexual orientation, or rather the awareness of society’s inclination
toward hetero-normativity, were all earth shattering news for me. More than anything, I felt
betrayed by society and disappointed in myself for blindly accepting these things without a
117
question. I had been carrying with me for years these feelings of guilt, blame, and general
confusion as to why things never “clicked” with my previous boyfriends. The romantic
connection and chemistry from complementing personalities developed seamlessly; however, the
physical connection was the challenging part.
I began taking women’s studies courses and became very engaged in my college career. I
made a friend in one of my classes that identified herself as a lesbian. I found myself drawn to
the expertise she held of this other world, as my first “gay friend.” She was the first person to
“pull me out of the closet” as she was convinced that I was the only one who didn’t know I was
gay. This thought troubled me and really turned my world upside down. I have always been
interested in advocating for the betterment of marginalized groups and was convinced my
interest in women and gay/lesbian experiences was just that.
Fast forward one year. I’m living with my best friend and we are preparing to move to
Los Angeles. I had my first heartbreak from a woman who identified as bisexual. She ended the
relationship because she wasn’t out to her parents. I had also dated two guys in these first
college years and nothing really developed. I was constantly struggling with who I was
becoming, constantly reminded of who I was in the past, and confused by what it all meant.
My best friend and I were inseparable from the time we met in high school until the
moment came when I faced the reality that I was a lesbian. She was always my biggest
supporter. She would say “You know what, ‘Brina? If that’s what you wanna do, then I’m cool
with it.” As we made our move to Los Angeles, I became more confident in my identity as a
lesbian and increasingly ashamed of my “past life” as someone that dated men. I was getting
mixed messages from the gay community (at that time I wouldn’t be able to correctly say or
118
label LGBT) about my bisexual relationships, perceiving that they were treacherous and
shameful. My high school friends were confused about my bisexuality in the first place, but they
accepted it because there was still the possibility that I would end up with a guy.
Once I arrived to the public university, I sought out a community of like-minded students
that shared my lesbian identity. This wasn’t the easiest task given that it was a commuter
campus and I was extremely shy. I would hang out in the campus multicultural resource center,
finding any reason to be in there, hopeful that I would meet new people. I couldn’t muster up the
courage to go to any gay and lesbian events on campus. Finally, I made a friend in a sociology
class. My world opened up as I was able to concentrate a bit more on my classes and started to
develop roots in a small lesbian community. I could never really talk to my best friend about
what was going on with me. I worried that she wouldn’t understand and I slowly pushed her
away. Most of our friendship had revolved around guy issues and dating, given that those were
our priorities during our teenage years. I distanced myself from her, particularly when she was
dating my high school sweetheart’s brother and he moved into our apartment. I couldn’t stand
the constant tension between who they knew me as previously and who I was becoming. I found
it particularly difficult to express a more masculine gender identity, one in which I was allowed
to partially express as a tomboy and high school athlete. I felt that it was time to move out and
start my “new life” so that I could feel comfortable with who I am and feel supported in my
transition.
My best friend never stopped having my back. Sure, she was often confused, but always
understood because she left room for that understanding to develop. Where I was at in my
sexual and gender identity development left little room for others from my past to coexist. I
ended things poorly with my two roommates and regret my adolescent management of the
119
situation. I could have left room to share the words attached to my feelings, told them I was
becoming someone on the outside that I felt always dormant on the inside. We didn’t depart our
living situation on speaking terms and my roommate’s boyfriend was killed in a random act of
violence weeks later. Almost a decade has passed since I have spoken to my best friend and
many of the people from my “past life.” I carry these lessons with me and believe in the
importance of sharing stories to bring visibility to the tumultuous interpersonal experiences
occurring simultaneously to college life and life in general. Similar to the students in this study,
I gained my footing and was then able to succeed and grow in my own skin; the skin I feel
belongs to me.
Abstract (if available)
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Assessing LGBT student experiences and perceptions: a campus climate case study
PDF
Visibly invisible: the experiences of black queer women on campus
PDF
Discovering the sources of impact of college on LGBTQ students' identity development and mapping those experiences
PDF
Leader-queer students at the intersection of social identities
PDF
A semester late: a phenomenological study examining the experiences of spring admits in higher education
PDF
When parents become students: An examination of experiences, needs, and opportunities which contribute to student parent engagement in community college
PDF
Preparing for the field of student affairs: White graduate students and the social justice and inclusion competency
PDF
The growing gender gap among Latino students attaining a postsecondary education: a study of a minority male support program
PDF
Latino and Latina faculty members’ funds of knowledge: a qualitative study of empowerment agents’ experiences and practices
PDF
A grounded theory study on the academic success of undergraduate women in science, engineering, and mathematics fields at a private, research univerisity
PDF
Departure from the student affairs profession: a study of professionals who left the field
PDF
Campus change agents: examining the experiences of cultural center scholar practitioners at a predominantly White institution
PDF
Asian American and Pacific Islander student-faculty interactions: experiences of first-generation community college students
PDF
STEM identity development: examining the experiences of transfer students
PDF
Nothing without us: understanding the belongingness of students with disabilities
PDF
Resilient voices of success: counter‐narratives of foster youth in graduate school
PDF
Whiteness: a narrative analysis on student affairs professionals, race, identity, and multicultural competency
PDF
The racialized experiences of Black students in online master’s degree programs at a Predominately White Institution
PDF
Organizational structures of religious life offices at private secular universities: a qualitative study
PDF
Transfer students from California community colleges: a narrative approach to understanding the social capital and institutional factors that lead to a timely transfer to a public, four-year univ...
Asset Metadata
Creator
Labor, Sabrina L.
(author)
Core Title
Beyond the binary: a phenomenological study of the campus experiences and social identities of bisexual, pansexual, fluid, and queer students at a public university
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Master of Education
Degree Program
Postsecondary Administration and Student Affairs
Publication Date
09/19/2012
Defense Date
09/05/2012
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
bisexual,LGBTQ,OAI-PMH Harvest,pansexual,phenomenology,queer,social identity perspective
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Tambascia, Tracy Poon (
committee chair
), Corwin, Zoe (
committee member
), Tubbs, Nancy Jean (
committee member
), Vigil, Vincent E. (
committee member
)
Creator Email
sabrina.labor@gmail.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-98314
Unique identifier
UC11288927
Identifier
usctheses-c3-98314 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-LaborSabri-1208.pdf
Dmrecord
98314
Document Type
Thesis
Rights
Labor, Sabrina L.
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Tags
bisexual
LGBTQ
pansexual
phenomenology
queer
social identity perspective