British and New Zealand LGBT students

1
British and New Zealand LGBT students accounts
of homophobia, heterosexism and heteronormativity
on campus An inductive, thematic analysis of
semi-structured interview data Victoria Clarke
and Virginia Braun
Most of these studies focus on the experiences of
gay men and lesbians and attitudes towards gay
men and lesbians and homosexuality. When
bisexuality is included, it tends to be grouped
with lesbianism and male homosexuality (e.g.,
Malaney et al., 1997) (likewise, lesbianism and
male homosexuality tend to be grouped), and the
possibility of differences in attitudes towards
bisexuals, lesbians and gay men are not explored
(and differences in the experience of bisexual,
lesbian and gay students are not explored). Most
studies, until recently (e.g., Ellis, 2009) also
exclude transgender. Most research has been
conducted in the US, there are a handful of UK
studies (Ellis, 2009 Fahey, 1995 Hodges and
Pearson, 2008 Nixon and Givens, 2004
Prendergast et al, 2002 Taulke-Johnson and
Rivers, 1999 Rivers and Taulke-Johnson, 2002),
and no New Zealand studies of which we are
aware. Because this was a small-scale and an
unfunded study, we chose to recruit students from
within our own universities. In other words, we
chose to use a convenience sampling technique,
generating a sample from the students most
accessible to us as researchers. The sample was
also purposive, another very common sampling
method in qualitative research, in that we sought
participants who had a particular
characteristic/experience (identifying as
lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or
non-heterosexual). In our advertising, we
emphasised our desire to speak to a wide range of
LGBTQ/non-heterosexual students however we did
not make any particular efforts to recruit
LGBTQ/non-heterosexual students from specific
groups (e.g., non-white, disabled). We placed
advertisements around campus and contacted the
LGBT Societies at each university and they
circulated an email to all the students on their
mailing list. We also asked each interviewee if
they knew anyone else who might be interested in
the project, and some of the participants were
recruited through this use of snowball
sampling. From a data-set of twenty interviews
(10 conducted in the UK, 10 in New Zealand), we
have selected four interviews conducted by
Victoria with gay men studying in the Bristol
area to illustrate our emerging analysis (a small
city in the South West of England its useful
for readers to know that Bristol is the largest
city in the predominantly rural area of the South
West, and UWE, where Victoria works, attracts
large numbers of students from the surrounding
small towns and villages). Only looking through
the lens of sexuality distorts our perception
of homogeneity. LGBTQ research is often limited
by a sole focus on sexuality researchers often
fail to explore how, for example, gender, age and
race intersect with (homo)sexuality and shape the
experience of being a gay man. In our analysis of
the data, we use intersection theory (Fish, 2008)
to make sense of the multiplicity of the
participants identities and the ways in which,
for example, age, race and class permeate their
experiences of being gay male university
students.
Introduction There is a small and fragmented body
of literature on the experiences of LGBT students
at university. There are a number of quantitative
campus climate studies, exploring perceptions
of how safe or gay friendly a particular
universities are (Ellis, 2009, Fahey, 1995) (or
particular departments within universities are,
such as law schools, Austin et al., 1998),
through surveying LGB-identified (and sometimes
heterosexual-identified) staff and/or students
(DAugelli, 1992 Malaney et al., 1997 Norris,
1992). Other research has examined the attitudes
of heterosexual students toward their
non-heterosexual peers (e.g., DAugelli and Rose,
1990 Ellis et al, 2002), and the attitudes of
particular staff groups such as resident
assistants (DAugelli, 1989) and career
counsellors (Bierschke and Matthews, 1996)
towards non-heterosexual students. These
quantitative studies, in general, indicate that
homophobia (overt prejudice and discrimination
against non-heterosexual people) and heterosexism
(often more subtle discrimination against
non-heterosexual people based on the assumptions
that everyone is or should be heterosexual and
that heterosexuality is inherently normal and
superior to homosexuality) are widespread on
university campuses, and universities do not
provide a safe spaces to be open about
sexuality and gender identity (Ellis, 2009).
There are also a number of small-scale
qualitative studies exploring the experiences of
(primarily) lesbian and gay students studying a
particular academic discipline (e.g., education,
Nixon and Givens, 2004 medicine, Risdon et al.,
2000 psychology, Hodges and Pearson, 2008), or
in relation to a particular aspect of university
life (e.g., student housing, Evans and Broido,
1999, Evans et al., 2001 Taulke-Johnson and
Rivers, 1999 Rivers and Taulke-Johnson, 2002
the classroom, Lopez and Chism, 1993). Most
qualitative research (with good reason)
emphasises the heteronormativity of university
life, however, the author of a recent British
study of the lived experiences of six gay male
university students challenged the common and
(mostly) unquestioned practices of defining gay
students solely on the basis of their negative
accounts of their experiences, labelling them all
as victims and locating the entire population
within a pathologised framework (Taulke-Johnson,
2008, p. 121). Taulke-Johnson argued that
although heterosexuality was the assumed,
expected and compulsory discourse at university,
the participants made positive sense of their
experiences... and through careful negotiation
they were able to address, explore and engage
with their (homo)sexual identities and
orientation (p. 121).
Themes
Conclusions In common with participants in other
qualitative studies (Taulke-Johnson Rivers,
1999), our participants described (directly and
indirectly, explicitly and implicitly) monitoring
and assessing the environment and the people in
it for evidence of potential heterosexism and
weighing up whether it was safe to come out and
be out. Participants made decisions not to come
out, when, for example, people made overtly
anti-gay comments. For example, the comment one
thing I just cant understand is gay people
counted for Asha as strong evidence of a
potential negative response to a coming out, so
he chose not to come out to this person.
Responses to such heterosexism included
blacklisting (Asha) these people. In
contrast, they made decisions to come out when,
for example, friends mentioned having gay
friends, discussed gay related things in a
broadly positive way, or expressed gay friendly
sentiments, such as wanting to be the ultimate
personal fag hag (Asha). This monitoring of the
environment was sometimes a relatively passive
process (I just picked up tell tale signs about
it, Asha) at other times, participants actively
tested the waters (David) and tried and
manipulate the conversation to head in that
direction and see how to respond to it (Asha).
There's always that level of uncertainty"
Compulsory heterosexuality at university. This
theme maps the participants experiences of
(infrequent) homophobia and (constant)
heterosexism and highlights tensions experienced
in relating to (straight) others, particularly
people who are common sources of heterosexism and
overt homophobia (i.e., straight men members of
religious and non-white groups), and feelings, or
fear, of exclusion and not-belonging.
Heterosexism meant participants negotiated their
sexual identities in an uncertain environment,
and experienced constant (but minimised) fear of
people's reactions to their sexuality. They had
expected university students to be liberal and
open minded, and were surprised and disappointed
they werent. But they felt this applied if you
were straight-acting, indicating university is
a safe space only if you are a good gay.
Participants experienced difficulty coming out
at university, but also internalised and took
responsibility for these difficulties, rather
than viewing coming out as something that is
difficult because of compulsory heterosexuality.
Although participants expressed some anger about
experiences of overt homophobia, some homophobic
and heterosexist banter (e.g., anti-gay humour)
was acceptable if from friends - an indication
that friends were comfortable with their
sexuality, but wasnt acceptable from strangers.
The heterosexual assumption and compulsory
heterosexuality were typically framed as a
to-be-expected part of normal life.
"I don't go out asking for trouble" Managing
heterosexism. Outlines the ways the participants
modified their speech, behaviour and practices to
avoid heterosexism and homophobia, and
continually monitored people and the environment
for evidence of potential heterosexism or
homophobia. They constantly weighed up whether it
was safe to come/be out with a particular person
or in a particular space. The participants
typically assumed responsibility for managing
heterosexism (they dont ask for trouble) and
accepted this as a normal part of life. They
seemed to lack a sense of entitlement to live
free from heterosexism and a political and
conceptual language with which to interpret their
experiences of heterosexism and homophobia. "I'm
not hiding, but I'm not throwing it in people's
faces" Being out (but not too out) at
university. Focuses on the degree to which the
participants were out and open about their
sexuality at university, and the management of
sexual identity amidst competing pressures to be
a 'happy, healthy gay' (comfortable with and open
about their sexuality, with a fully realised
gay identity) and a good gay (not too overt
not 'forcing' their homosexuality on others).
Mincing queens vs. ordinary guys who just happen
to be gay. Focuses on participants resistance to
a gay identity as a master status(Becker,
1963), an identity that overrides all other
identities they wanted to be seen as an
ordinary guy who just happens to be gay. They
took responsibility for carefully managing other
people's perceptions of their sexual identity,
acutely aware that it takes very little to be
judged as 'too gay' (a bad gay). They felt very
limited by popular conceptions of gay men and
worked hard to distance themselves from image of
the camp gay man, the mincing queen, the Sex
and the City gay best friend, the gay style
guru... The classroom and the curriculum
Heteronormativity rules okay! The classroom and
the curriculum (for all of the students studying
people subjects) were ruled by heteronormativity
- both the casual heterosexist assumptions of
other students and staff and the systematic
exclusion of LGBT issues. The inclusion of LGBT
issues on the curriculum was a double-edged sword
for most of the students - they valued the
inclusion of LGBT material (if not for
themselves, but for the benefit of others or as
compensation for, in their view, inadequate
schooling), but many felt under the spotlight,
vulnerable and exposed, during any discussion of
LGBT material, and at risk of being perceived as
too gay if they spoke up in class. Those that
had experienced teaching and learning about LGBT
issues were often critical of the material, or
the delivery of the material, and many felt that
(presumed) heterosexual lecturers were deeply
uncomfortable with, and ignorant about, LGBT
concerns. The students wanted LGBT staff to come
out, to provide them with meaningful role models
(and an alternative to the gay style guru role
models), and many reported avid speculation about
certain lecturers sexuality, Victoria included,
among the students in their cohort, but they
empathised with LGBT lecturers who chose not to
come out.
Finding a community (and finding it wanting) All
of the students had had some contact with the
LGBT (Student) Society on campus and with the
local gay scene and most had lots of criticisms
of both. Although they were keen to emphasise
that they didn't need the LGBT Society as a
source of support or friendship (because they had
a fully realised gay identity and were conforming
to the imperatives of the healthy, happy gay),
they felt that the LGBT Society should provide
this to people coming out or exploring their
(homo)sexuality. They distanced themselves from
the image of the 'scene queen' and were keen to
emphasise that they only went out on the scene
occasionally, or because their friends went out
on the scene. They felt that both the LGBT
Society and the gay scene focused on sex and the
surface aspects of life (looking good, getting
drunk) and they were looking for something more
meaningful and for other ways to be gay (long
term relationships, political action, meeting
like-minded gay people, rather than just other
gay people).