During this trip, the superintendent and three of the principals also engaged in semi-structured interviews. I attended a cultural lunch fair as an observer at one of the high schools where the GSA club hosted a table. Additionally, I attended a pep assembly at one school as an observer. Procedures
In order to become as immersed in school culture as possible, I attempted to gain access to a variety of school environments and activities. Classroom observations allowed me to witness how students and teachers interact in a more formal setting. Student interactions outside of class and during extracurricular activities provided examples of student behavior apart from formal adult supervision. School bulletins and GSA Facebook pages also proved beneficial in learning about student activities occurring at each campus. However, in order to gain the most impactful data about LGBTQ students’ experience, semi-structured interviews were employed at multiple times throughout the study.
Interviews. Throughout the course of the study, a total of 31 interviews were conducted. Semi-structured interviews were employed as the primary means of data collection. Merriam (2009) explained that:
The largest part of the [semi-structured] interview is guided by a list of questions or issues to be explored, and neither the exact wording nor the order of the questions is determined ahead of time. This format allows the researcher to respond to the situation at hand, to the emerging worldview of the respondent, and to new ideas on the topic (p.90). Based on the unique experiences of each GSA student, this method of inquiry is warranted.
All seven student participants engaged in at least two semi-structured interviews. Four of the student participants participated in three semi-structured interviews during the course of the study. In total, 16 interviews were conducted with students; 15 interviews occurred in person, and one was conducted via Skype. On two occasions interviews were conducted with two students present, a result of scheduling difficulties and student preference. Interviews lasted between 15 and 90 minutes and occurred either during lunch, after school, or on the weekend. Nine of the in-person interviews were conducted on school campus, either in a private office or the GSA advisor’s classroom. One interview occurred in a private office at a local business, and five interviews took place at Starbucks. Student participants were always given the choice of interview location to ensure comfort in discussing their experiences.
Students were informed of the nature of the study and reminded they could discontinue the interview at any time. Verbal permission was obtained in all interviews to utilize a digital voice recorder. Interview questions were prepared prior to the interviews and remained fairly consistent among student participants. While the interview questions were always developed with an intention to learn as much as possible about LGBTQ students’ experience at school, each set of interview questions had a slightly different main purpose.
The purpose of the first set of interview questions was to learn about the students’ experiences at school, both in general and specifically as an LGBTQ student or ally. Student participants were asked questions such as: What three words come to mind to describe your school? How do you think LGBTQ students are treated the same or differently at your school? What caused you to join your school’s GSA club? Significant effort was made during the first student interviews to establish abundant rapport and increase student comfort. In addition to learning about participant perspective of school climate, student responses often included
personal stories about their identity formation as an LGBTQ individual as well as varying levels of acceptance within their family and peers group. The first set of interviews allowed me to learn about student participants on a personal level as they shared emotionally laden material. For example, many students lamented about the link between their family’s conservative religious beliefs and intolerance of LGBTQ individuals. Most of these interviews occurred during the December 2012 trip; however, one student participated in a “first round interview” in October 2012.
Given the emergent nature of this study, the second set of interview prompts were developed after learning about students’ personal identity development and their perceptions of school climate during the first set of interviews. One of the main intents during this set of interviews was to learn about the initial impact of the social event and safe space sticker interventions. In order to learn about students’ reactions to the social event, open-ended questions (e.g. What did you think of the social event?) were asked. Some student participants did not attend the social event therefore this question was omitted during a few interviews. Prior to the safe space sticker campaign, some student expressed a fear that they would be very
disappointed if most teachers did not display a sticker. Based on these concerns, interview questions explicitly investigated every student’s reaction to the safe space sticker campaign. In an effort to continue gaining examples of LGBTQ student experiences at school, students were also asked to discuss if there had been any memorable situations involving LGBTQ students at their school since the first interview. An attempt was made to ask about both positive and negative experiences in order to gain a more comprehensive understanding of LGBTQ students’ experiences. It became apparent that some student participants were less active in their GSA club during the second interview when compared to their involvement at the beginning of the
study. Therefore, students were also asked about their current level of involvement with their GSA club as well as reasons they were more or less active with their club. Due to successful rapport building, students appeared more open and casual during the second set of interviews. Some even began asking me questions about my experience in high school, and a few stated they enjoyed being part of the study.
The main purpose of the final interview questions was to assess student perception of the lasting impact of the social event and safe space stickers. Students were also asked to reflect on the best and worst part of their entire school year, often in relation to their GSA participation. Finally, students were asked about their impressions of the current study, and they were
encouraged to offer suggestions for a hypothetical future study. The dialogue during this set of interviews was often reflective and insightful. At this point in the study, significant bonds were formed between some of the student participants and myself. We often exchanged high-5’s and they seemed genuinely excited to participate in the interviews. As mentioned above, one of the interviews that was conducted with two students present lasted over 90 minutes. After 30
minutes I was finished asking my interview questions, but the students continued talking with me for an additional hour about their experiences at school. The ability to interview the same
students on multiple occasions allowed the students to respond in a deeper and more meaningful way as the interviews progressed.
In addition to the student interviews, advisors and school administrators also participated in semi-structured interviews. During the 2011-2012 school year, advisors participated in the first set of formal interviews for a separate class project I conducted. Each advisor engaged in at least one semi-structured interview during the 2012-2013 school year. During the course of the study, a fourth advisor was identified at the school with a newly established GSA club.
Although she did not participate in any interviews during the 2011-2012 school year, she participated in semi-structured interviews during the 2012-2013 school year.
Interviews with advisors lasted between 20 and 50 minutes and were conducted during planning periods or after school. All but one interview occurred in the advisors’ classroom; a final interview with one advisor was conducted outside of her classroom on a school bench. She felt this would prevent interruptions as many students visit her classroom during her planning period. Prior to starting each interview, advisors were asked to give verbal permission so I could use a digital recorder. Numerous informal conversations also occurred in person and through email with each of the advisors throughout this study.
Similar to the progression of student interview questions, the purpose of each interview with GSA advisors varied slightly during each data collection trip. The initial interview
questions that were asked of three advisors during March 2012 focused on school experiences for LGBTQ students. Advisors were asked how they believed LGBTQ students were treated at their school by both heterosexual peers as well as school staff. They were also asked to discuss
interventions they thought would be effective at improving LGBTQ students’ school experience. The interviews conducted during the 2012-2013 school year continued to focus on their
perception of LGBTQ students’ experiences; however, questions were also developed to assess the impact of the district-wide social event and safe space sticker campaign. Advisors were in a unique position to discuss interactions among school staff members and level of support
expressed by their colleagues. Based on both student and advisor comments, interview questions were also created to understand how advisors’ felt about their principal’s support for LGBTQ students. Advisors typically responded with a great deal of candor during all of the interviews.
Establishing rapport with three of the advisors during the March 2012 trip provided a foundation for the interviews that followed as part of this study.
Although not planned at the outset of the study, three principals participated in semi- structured interviews in May 2013. These interviews became necessary based on the responses provided by both students and advisors, which suggested principal’s level of support was sometimes lacking. Each interview lasted approximately 30 minutes and was conducted in the principal’s office. Principals were asked about how they believe LGBTQ students are treated at their school as well as their reactions to the current study. They were also asked to provide recommendations for a hypothetical future study. Two of the principals discussed how they were initially very hesitant about the purpose of the study and the possible ramifications. However, one explicitly stated that my ability to establish rapport via email and work directly with the GSA advisors without negative consequences allowed him to feel comfortable responding openly during our interview.
Throughout the study, several informal meetings and emails were exchanged with the superintendent regarding procedural questions (e.g. contacting students, intervention
implementation). In addition, the superintendent participated in a semi-structured interview in May 2013. This interview was conducted in his office and lasted approximately 40 minutes. The main purpose of this interview was to learn about the superintendent’s perception of the current study, as well as any ramifications from school staff or community members. Because of his unique position as a superintendent, interview questions were developed in an effort to investigate district-wide topics. Similar to the principal interviews, he was asked to provide recommendations for a hypothetical future study. Previous informal conversations as well as my
openness and flexibility to district restrictions allowed for the superintendent to respond in a seemingly candid manner.
Observations. Classroom observations were conducted at three of the high schools in October 2012. I was scheduled by either the principal or vice principal at each school to attend a variety of classes. School administrators stressed either in writing, verbally, or both that I was not allowed to interact or talk with any students during these observations. Both academic and artistic classes were observed. I sat silently in the class and took notes either on a laptop or in a paper notebook. Two substitute teachers were observed in addition to 15 full time teachers.
Additional observations were made outside of the classroom such as during passing periods and lunchtime. Throughout the year, four school-wide assemblies were observed at three different schools. This provided unique opportunities to observe messages delivered to the entire student body. Two sporting events were observed that featured inter-district competitions. One GSA club participated in their school’s cultural lunch fair by selling cupcakes and lemonade. I observed this event and focused on the interactions between the student body and the students identified as GSA members.
Participant observations. While attending meetings and activities sponsored by the GSA clubs, I often became a participant observer. In total 10 GSA meetings were attended (2 at North High, 3 at South High, 1 at Central High, 2 at Stadium High). As North High prepared to host the pizza party and ice cream social, I met with a few GSA members and the advisor to help create signs and discuss the focus of the event. During the social event, I actively participated by facilitating introductions and a group discussion. At the beginning of the event, the advisors identified me as the leader and facilitator of the event. At the end of the study, another club
organized a district-wide picnic at a local park. I also attended this event and actively participated in games and discussions.
Document analysis. Beginning in October, I subscribed to the daily bulletins of the three schools with GSA clubs. In February, I also subscribed to the fourth schools’ bulletin due to the newly forming GSA club. Bulletins were read on a near daily basis during the week to stay informed of school activities and events at each of the schools. Special attention was paid to announcements about GSA club meetings and events as well as LGBTQ-affirming or
heteronormative language and activities.
In addition, I was “added” to the Facebook pages of two of the GSA clubs. One of the clubs was fairly active in posting announcements on their Facebook page. This forum was used to post the recruitment video at the beginning of the study as well as to communicate with club members about the social event.
Researcher as Instrument
In qualitative research, “the researcher is the primary instrument for data collection and analysis (Merriam, 2009, p.15). This allows the researcher to determine which data are more relevant to the particular study. During the course of this study, several types of data collection were employed: semi-structured interviews, participant observations, non-participant
observations, and document analysis. Although each element provided beneficial information, semi-structured interview responses were the mostly highly valued source of data. This was honored as the most accurate data because participants provided explicit verbal comment in response to research questions. Utilizing participant quotations verbatim reduced the need for me to provide interpretations.
In addition to data gathered during interviews, observations as a participant observer also served as an important source of data collection. The purpose of participant observations was to supplement as well as corroborate data gained during interviews. Because several students who participated in their school’s GSA were unable to obtain parental consent for this study,
participant observations during GSA meetings allowed me to learn about a wide range of perspectives expressed during meetings. Their comments often provided data not previously discussed in individual interviews (such as several requests to participate in a parade). In addition, as a participant observer, I was able to verify data from individual interviews with a larger group of students. Finally, the role of participant observer was an immensely meaningful method for data collection during the social events. Becoming involved as a participant in icebreakers and emotional discussions provided an immersive experience for data collection.
The final two methods of data collection, non-participant observations and document analysis, served as secondary data sources. Classroom observations provided me with a broader understanding of general school climate. At times, participant comments during interviews were corroborated during observation. For instance, a student was overheard in class making a
disparaging comment about a football team “because they’re gay.” Reading each school’s daily bulletin often provided supplemental information about school activities as well as the
prominence of GSA events at each campus. At one school, bulletin announcements about GSA meetings were frequent and on going, while another school’s bulletin very rarely included information about GSA activities. In a similar manner, Facebook pages of GSA clubs offered ancillary data about student interactions in an online format. Because the researcher acts as the primary instrument of measurement, the sources of data in this study can be differentially valued.
Another effect of the researcher serving as the primary instrument is the ability to categorize the importance of groups of participants’ response. In this study, student and GSA advisors comments were the most highly valued. This is because students and GSA advisors are likely to be immersed in the experiences of LGBTQ students. In contrast, principals and the district superintendent are required to consider the experience of all of the students at their school or district. While this does not negate the perspectives of the administration, their probable distance from LGBTQ student experiences caused their comments to be considered secondary to student participants and GSA advisors.
Unlike quantitative research, which aims to reduce instrument bias, qualitative research typically allows for bias that is inevitable when the researcher serves as the primary instrument of measurement. Throughout this study, my personal experience in this district, as well as my experience as an LGBTQ individual living in a sometimes-hostile society undoubtedly impacted my data collection process on both a conscious and subconscious level. As discussed above, conscious decisions were made regarding the value of student and advisor comments over administrator comments. However, subconscious processing also influenced how I attended to various data. For example, my initial interactions with some of the principals in this study caused me view their comments as less supportive of LGBTQ students. During my first trip in October, one principal appeared unwilling to speak with me or shake my hand. He turned and instructed his assistant principal to meet with me. A second interaction in March after the safe space sticker intervention also caused me to feel unsupported by this principal. During an unintended interaction near teacher mailboxes, I asked him about teacher reaction to the sticker campaign. Again he appeared unwilling to discuss my project as he responded with minimal information and limited eye contact. My personal bias caused me to consider these interactions
as evidence that he was unsupportive of LGBTQ individuals. Conversations and email
exchanges with the other principals also prompted similar feelings of lack of support regarding LGBTQ topics. In addition, students and advisors often commented about uncertainty regarding their principal’s level of support and acceptance. Given these experiences, at times I found it difficult to believe the authenticity of principal comments when they voiced support for LGBTQ students. For instance, although all three principals reported they want to create a safe
environment for LGBTQ students at their school, I noticed none of them had a safe space sticker displayed in their office. As I consciously reflected on this data, I attempted to curb my personal bias by entertaining various reasons for principal behavior as well as valuing those student comments, which occasionally suggested principals were in fact supportive.