Policies and practices of L.G.B.T. friendly institutions to support students who are attracted to more than one gender. Public Deposited

http://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/concern/graduate_thesis_or_dissertations/kw52jb99n

Descriptions

Attribute NameValues
Alternative Title
  • Supporting students who are attracted to more than one gender
Creator
Abstract or Summary
  • Within the United States, the number of "out" Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual (LGB) individuals attending a college or university is on the rise (Rosario, Schrimshaw, Hunter & Braun, 2006). With this increase, the new and/or different ways that lesbian and gay individuals can present and express their sexual orientation has also risen. For example, many college students now identify as pansexual, sapiosexual, and other identities that are not bound within the gender binary and preconceived sexual orientations. These individuals often experience marginalization, not only from the heterosexual majority, but from their homosexual counterparts as well. Forms of institutionalized support for lesbian and gay students have also continued to rise, but evidence of support for emergent LGB identities is not as evident in the literature (Fine, 2012; Sanlo, 2000). This study examined U.S. colleges and universities that have been identified as leaders in the LGB student support field and investigated how they develop policy and provide services and support for those individuals who identify on the LGB spectrum, but not as lesbian or gay. The research questions that framed this research were as follows: (a) What policies have the administrations at these institutions enacted to support students who are attracted to more than one gender? (b) What practices have the administrations at these institutions employed to support students who are attracted to more than one gender? and (c) How do the physical, aggregate, organizational, and constructed dimensions of involvement impact the ways in which institutions are able to support students who are attracted to more than one gender? This research used a case-study tradition with the researcher gathering data from eight US colleges/universities via interviews with institutional professionals and examination of existing institutional documents such as the website, meeting agendas and minutes. Three key findings emerged. First, inclusive LGB programming is favored by university programs serving the LGB population over targeted programming for students who are attracted to more than one gender. Second, generalizable LGBT policies are chosen more often than policies designed for specific identities. Finally, physical location of institutions, layout and flexibility of LGBT centers, availability and visibility of professional staff members, and the ability for a student to become involved with institution/LGBT center are important components to supporting individuals who are attracted to more than one gender. In considering these findings, the researcher offers three main implications. First, assessment of programs and policies designed to support individuals who are attracted to more than one gender should occur on a regular basis. Second, institutions may want to examine the language used within programs and policies to ensure that constituents are truly represented. Third, practitioners may want to use a critical eye when developing programming to ensure that it is supported by institutional policy. If such programming is not motivated by policy, then practitioners should be able to show a need for the programming thereby providing insight into possible gaps in student support.
Resource Type
Date Available
Date Copyright
Date Issued
Degree Level
Degree Name
Degree Field
Degree Grantor
Commencement Year
Advisor
Committee Member
Non-Academic Affiliation
Keyword
Subject
Rights Statement
Peer Reviewed
Language
Replaces
Additional Information
  • description.provenance : Submitted by DJ Zissen (zissend@onid.orst.edu) on 2014-05-19T23:35:55Z No. of bitstreams: 2 license_rdf: 1232 bytes, checksum: bb87e2fb4674c76d0d2e9ed07fbb9c86 (MD5) ZissenDonaldJ2014.pdf: 695638 bytes, checksum: fb6c1f95b2cb5e83f4a502795e38df55 (MD5)
  • description.provenance : Approved for entry into archive by Laura Wilson(laura.wilson@oregonstate.edu) on 2014-06-24T23:14:45Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 2 license_rdf: 1232 bytes, checksum: bb87e2fb4674c76d0d2e9ed07fbb9c86 (MD5) ZissenDonaldJ2014.pdf: 695638 bytes, checksum: fb6c1f95b2cb5e83f4a502795e38df55 (MD5)
  • description.provenance : Rejected by Julie Kurtz(julie.kurtz@oregonstate.edu), reason: Rejecting per the student's request. ~Julie on 2014-05-14T21:05:16Z (GMT)
  • description.provenance : Submitted by DJ Zissen (zissend@onid.orst.edu) on 2014-05-08T19:03:00Z No. of bitstreams: 2 license_rdf: 1232 bytes, checksum: bb87e2fb4674c76d0d2e9ed07fbb9c86 (MD5) ZissenDonaldJ2014.pdf: 694193 bytes, checksum: adaca6ee198ee41b22b1ee0db4995829 (MD5)
  • description.provenance : Approved for entry into archive by Julie Kurtz(julie.kurtz@oregonstate.edu) on 2014-06-20T20:34:14Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 2 license_rdf: 1232 bytes, checksum: bb87e2fb4674c76d0d2e9ed07fbb9c86 (MD5) ZissenDonaldJ2014.pdf: 695638 bytes, checksum: fb6c1f95b2cb5e83f4a502795e38df55 (MD5)
  • description.provenance : Made available in DSpace on 2014-06-24T23:14:45Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 2 license_rdf: 1232 bytes, checksum: bb87e2fb4674c76d0d2e9ed07fbb9c86 (MD5) ZissenDonaldJ2014.pdf: 695638 bytes, checksum: fb6c1f95b2cb5e83f4a502795e38df55 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2014-04-25

Relationships

Parents:

This work has no parents.

Last modified

Downloadable Content

Download PDF

Items