Eleanor Formby,
Sheffield Hallam University
e.formby@shu.ac.uk
Presentation outline
 Existing literature themes
 European research
 Conclusions / key messages
 Practice implications
 Remaining evidence gaps
 #FreshersToFinals ...more to come!
Existing literature
 Studies with/about LGBTQ young people dominated by
secondary school and/or ‘bullying’
 Higher education less often explored - more often in USA
 Themes:
- discrimination, prejudice and ‘bullying’
- financial issues
- housing issues
- facilities and service provision
- curriculum and course content
- careers related issues
- geography
Discrimination, prejudice and ‘bullying’
 Ellis (2009: 733):
 23% of students experienced homophobic
harassment/discrimination at least once
 54% of respondents deliberately concealed their sexual or gender
identity
 “LGBT students do not particularly perceive a ‘climate of fear’, but
actively behave in ways that respond to such a climate”
 ECU (Valentine et al, 2009):
 47% of LGB students received HBT comments from students; 9%
from teaching staff
 43% of trans students received HBT comments from students; 19%
from staff
 Over 60% not out to teaching staff
Discrimination, prejudice and ‘bullying’ (2)
 Keenan (2014): language use ‘banter’, but ‘othering’...
(see also Taulke-Johnson, 2010a)
 NUS (2014):
 only 21% of trans students felt completely safe on
campus (37% of LGB students did)
 1 in 5 LGB and 1 in 3 trans respondents experienced at
least one form of bullying or harassment on campus
 levels of reporting low (including of physical assault)
Financial issues
 ECU (Valentine et al, 2009):
 both fear of losing financial support from families (amongst
15% and 35% of LGB and trans students respectively), and
actual loss of financial support (amongst 5% and 7% of LGB and
trans students respectively)
 further 3% of LGB students and 9% of trans students estranged
from parents so do not receive financial (or other) support
 NUS (2011):
 LGB students less likely to receive information on financial
entitlements from family members than heterosexual students
 and less likely to receive financial support or help from families
 LGB students more likely to be in debt, and in higher amounts
Accommodation issues (UK)
 ECU (Valentine et al, 2009):
 homophobic abuse in university accommodation, and
inappropriate responses
 desire for ‘gay-friendly’ housing, and safe / inclusive spaces within
(non-specialist) accommodation
 specific concerns for trans students (see also Beemyn, 2005;
Pomerantz, 2010)
 Taulke-Johnson (2010a: 402) on gay men:
 “intolerant, unwelcoming, hostile and homophobic”
 vandalism used to permanently brand participant’s doors with
anti-gay sentiments
 some voluntarily transferred accommodation, others modified
their behaviour to prevent visible presence of ‘gayness’
Accommodation issues (US)
 Evans and Broido (2002) on lesbian and bisexual women:
direct and indirect harassment and lack of support from
roommates and other residents
 Krum et al (2013): apartment-style housing and selfcontained singles preferred options for transgender and
gender non-conforming people considering living on
campus
 Seelman (2014): trans women are at greater risk than
gender non-conforming people for being denied access to
housing and bathrooms
Facilities and service provision
 NUS (2014):
 trans students reported main difficulties on campus as lack of




gender-neutral toilets and facilities; lack of policies to support
updating name and gender on student register; issues related to
university security services; prevalence of transphobia (see also
Beemyn, 2005)
being repeatedly misnamed and/or misgendered represents serious
barrier to inclusion (see also Formby, 2014a)
campus LGBT societies/groups may have impact on LGBT students’
experiences of HE...
28% of LGB students and 42% of trans students were members of
their LGBT society
45% of LGB and 52% of trans respondents were aware of the society
before applying
...impact on choice-making
 ECU (Valentine et al, 2009):
 identities had been a factor in choice-making for 15%
of LGB and 24% of trans students
 positive images of LGBT people in university brochures,
prospectuses, websites had influenced students’
decisions
 Kane (2013): existence of LGBT student organisation used
as key indicator of ‘safer’ campus - influences student
decision-making about university (see also Epstein et al,
2003)
Curriculum / course content
 Ellis (2009):
 LGBT issues inadequately represented in the curriculum
 minority of respondents felt comfortable raising these issues in class
 NUS (2014):
 ‘I see LGB experiences and history reflected in my curriculum’ - 3.9
(out of 10)
 ‘I see trans experiences and history reflected in my curriculum’ - 2.5
(out of 10)
 ECU (Valentine et al, 2009): statistically significant relationships
between experiences of homophobic/biphobic comments and
disciplines - esp. medicine and dentistry, veterinary science, agriculture
and related, engineering, business and administration studies,
European languages, literature and related, education
Careers related issues
 Nauta et al, 2001: non-heterosexual students experienced less




support and guidance
Schneider and Dimito, 2010: those who had experienced antiLGBT discrimination in the past were most likely to report their
identity influencing academic/career choices - both positively
and negatively
Schmidt et al, 2011: perceived discrimination contributes to
‘vocational indecision’
Scott et al, 2011: transgender students face unique challenges
that many university careers advisors are not equipped to
handle
Tomlinson and Fassinger, 2003: lesbian students’ perceptions
of campus climate are important in predicting their career
development - positive perceptions appear to enhance
vocational advancement
Geography
 Taulke-Johnson (2010b):
 moving towards ‘gay-friendly’ and accepting
 moving away from intolerant and repressive
 Epstein et al (2003): participants wanted to move to universities
with large gay scenes nearby - thought to be more tolerant /
supportive
 Pull and push factors echo broader research on LGBT migration
(Formby, 2012)
 Commercial ‘scenes’ draw people to urban locations and influence
university choice-making (Taulke-Johnson, 2010b; Valentine et al,
2009)
 ECU (Valentine et al, 2009): smaller rural campuses may offer more
‘protection’?
Impact?
 NUS (2014):
 1 in 10 trans students never felt comfortable to speak up in class
 LGBT students who were out to teaching staff tended to feel more confident to
speak up in class (89%) than those who were only out to friends (79%)
 LGB students more likely to consider dropping out than heterosexual students
 56% of LGB students cited ‘not fitting in’ as the main reason for considering
dropping out
 51% of trans respondents had seriously considered dropping out
 LGBT students who had experienced homophobic or transphobic harassment
were 2-3 times more likely to consider leaving
 1 in 7 trans respondents interrupted their studies related to their transition
 ECU (Valentine et al, 2009):
 20% of LGB students had taken time out of their course related to their sexuality,
homophobic discrimination, bullying
 29% of trans students had taken time out due to trans-related issues, transphobic
bullying, harassment
Complexity!
 HOWEVER...
 NUS (2014) LGBT students overall had a positive view of higher




education - safer space than the rest of society?
ECU (Valentine et al, 2009): majority of students said their
institution had enabled them to ‘be themselves’ by coming out
Higher education levels can be erroneously conflated with
‘tolerance’ (Taulke-Johnson, 2010a, b)
“Events which can be read as homophobic... can actually be
framed, experienced and made sense as not” (Taulke-Johnson,
2008: 128; see also Formby, 2013)
Wider society feared? (Formby, 2012)
IGLYO research
 Funded by the international LGBTQ youth and student
organisation - IGLYO (Formby, 2014b)
 Focused on the impact of homophobic and transphobic
bullying or discrimination on continuing in education
and/or pursuing employment - shift away from mental
health and emotional wellbeing
 Self-completion survey (open and closed questions): 187
responses from Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina,
Croatia, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, the
Republic of Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Malta, the
Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Spain, Turkey, and the UK
The participants
 Self-identified young people: age range 15-38; mean average 25
 40% identified as gay (male or female), 18% as lesbian, 11%




bisexual, 7% queer, 3% unsure or questioning, 1% heterosexual, 2%
none of these
44% identified as male, 29% as female, 5% genderqueer, 1% gender
variant, 1% trans, 1% none of these
6% had at some point identified as trans
44% were involved in full time education, 23% in part time
employment, 17% part time education, 16% full time employment,
5% on another course or apprenticeship, 4% ‘NEET’ (not in
education, employment or training)
37% had high school qualifications, 27% undergraduate university
degrees, 25% postgraduate or doctoral degrees
School experiences
 Over half had been ‘outed’ as LGB
 Over three quarters had experienced rumours or gossip about






them
Just under three quarters experienced name calling
Just under half experienced threats or intimidation
Over a quarter experienced physical assault
Influenced peer relationships, and school work...
Around half said they struggled to concentrate, did not feel
motivated, and chose not to participate in class
40% felt they did not acquire skills at school as well as they
should have done, and 37% thought they achieved lower
marks
More complexity!
 HOWEVER...
“I actually think it helped to improve my grades for the
most part as I wanted to get out of school and into
college as fast as possible”
“[It] caused me to retaliate with an ‘I’ll show them’
attitude, causing me to aim higher”
Aspirations and plans for the future
 Majority did not think their education (88%) or career (74%)
aspirations had been restricted
 Over a third (37%) thought their experiences had influenced
their choice of job or career (e.g. what job, which location),
and (29%) choice of studies (e.g. what course, which
institution)
“I think it affected me in a positive way because I chose to
study to become a teacher, because I want to have the
opportunity to talk about homophobia and bullying”
“I feared working in caring roles because I feared what people
would say if they found out I was gay and working with
vulnerable people”
Influences on choice of studies, career
and/or geographical home
“I worry if it will be a safe space for me. I worry about repeat
experiences similar to school. I worry about being able to participate
as fully as I want to”
“Given that university/further education is a completely different
environment the challenge is convincing people that things are
different. Many people think that it will be more of the same... [but]
the truth is there are entire communities within college and most are
accepting of LGBT people”
“Lots of locations are not suitable for young gay people to attend
further or higher education - I have limited myself to one or two
locations based on this”
“Universities are located in bigger cities, which allows LGBTQ
students from small villages and towns to move and live their
sexuality more openly”
Experiences of post-school studying
 For 63% university/higher education had not been affected by








any bullying, discrimination or fears (for 29% it had)
91% had felt left out or isolated at some point
69% had struggled to concentrate, 67% did not always feel
motivated
62% chose not to participate in class questions or discussions
57% thought they had achieved lower marks for their work
55% did not feel they acquired skills as well as they should
have done
49% had missed classes more than once
24% had changed university or institution
6% had ‘dropped out’ of university as a result of their
experiences
...and responses
“University counsellors just seemed to be trained to nod unhelpfully.
No specialist training in gender or sexuality. It was a ridiculous
waste of time”
 Links with other research with LGBT youth that suggests
therapeutic responses are often suggested by educational
institutions, but not always experienced as helpful by young
people (Formby, 2013; Formby, 2014a)
“I generally saw and heard derogatory remarks and situations that
others were in. This motivated me to restart the LGBT society in
my university and try my best to show that different sexualities
and gender norms were OK”
Moving on/in to employment
 19% felt their ability to gain employment had been
affected by prior experiences of bullying or discrimination
 17% felt their CV was not as good as other people’s
 13% said having fewer or lower qualifications had
affected the range or level of jobs they could apply for
“There are things I am too afraid to put on my CV, such
as... my activities with my university’s LGBT society”
Continuum of experiences... From ‘freeing’
 At one end: university could be described as a positive
experience that facilitates greater freedom within a more
welcoming / inclusive environment than school...
“I think higher education is much, much more accessible
and a better place for LGBTQ students. For me as a gay
man I found it very open and encouraging and friendly”
 “The commonest strategy of resilience spoken of by our
research participants was finding safe places and safe
people... Some of the LGBT students spoke of their
‘escape’ to university [in this way]” (Scourfield et al, 2008:
332; See also Taulke-Johnson, 2008)
...To unsafe
 At the other end: not a place of safety or freedom...
“As an LGBTQ person I’ve experienced more depression and less
friendship and I spent huge amounts of time sorting out myself and
my emotions than I would have done otherwise. This made it harder
for me to choose the right course, and may make me drop out of
university”
 “Probably the scariest thing that happened in the first year of uni”
(McDermott et al, 2008: 883)
 Higher education place to escape to, and context/incidents that
people need to escape from
 Differing lived experience: different individuals, different courses,
different universities, different cultures, different locations
 Need for nuanced understanding beyond ‘bullying’ (Formby, 2013)
Conclusions and key messages
 Negative experiences of, or in, higher education can have specific impacts




on young LGBTQ people’s education and employment opportunities
Impacts include loss of confidence, isolation, attendance and/or
participation issues, and lack of motivation or concentration, resulting in
potential academic attainment and achievement disadvantage
Identifying as LGBTQ can impact upon a person’s plans or aspirations for
the future, regarding choice of studies or career, as well as migration
decisions
Migration issues apparent in people’s desires to avoid certain areas for
education and employment, and in people’s desire to move to locations
with more progressive legislative frameworks in which to live their lives
Caution is needed to not portray LGBTQ people as inherent ‘victims’, as
not all experiences were negative, meaning a ‘one size fits all’ approach
from professionals may not be helpful
Practice implications
1. An inclusive campus and curriculum with visible diversity, including LGBTQ
identities and histories, throughout (which may necessitate training and
information for staff)
2. Available advice, information and support (including careers-related) that
is inclusive and useful to LGBTQ students, but which does not assume
‘victimhood’
3. Facilitation and support for student-led peer organisation and activities, for
example via the NUS and institution LGBT society or groups
 “A great majority of LGBT respondents would like to see LGBT perspectives
and authors more systematically included in the curriculum where this is
possible. This would create a greater sense of belonging for LGBT students
and show universities’ commitment to equality and diversity. Furthermore,
a more sensitive attitude from academic staff towards sexual orientation
and gender identity would help LGBT students to feel more included in the
classroom. Heterosexuality should not be assumed, and teachers should
try to diversify more their examples and exercises to take into account
everyone’s perspective” (NUS, 2014: 47)
NUS (2014) recommendations for institutions
 Create clear procedures to address homophobia and transphobia, and establish a point of
contact on campus so students can easily report acts of bullying committed against them or
someone they know
 Include LGBT issues and anti-bullying policies during inductions, particularly in halls of
residence
 Improve access to information and services, specifically health services on campus, and
improve information on sexual health for every sexuality
 Have gender-neutral toilets and facilities to enable everyone use them safely and without fear
of being outed or misgendered
 Facilitate changes of name and gender on student registers and preserve students’
confidentiality in doing so
 Train staff on LGBT issues and include respect for students’ identity in the university code of
conduct to avoid situations where students are misnamed or misgendered
 Include LGBT perspectives and authors in curricula and raise students’ awareness on equality
and diversity issues to prevent ignorant or offensive comments in social or teaching spaces
 Include LGBT provision and positive LGBT content in prospect, introducing your LGBT society
to all students (see also Beemyn, 2003; Beemyn, 2005; Beemyn et al, 2005a, b; Consortium of
Higher Education LGBT Resource Professionals, 2014; Gortmaker and Brown, 2006)
Remaining evidence gaps?
 Marked absence of literature on further education (NUS, 2014)
 Research that looks at the experiences of older LGBTQ students
 NUS (2014) identified need for more research on/in students’ halls
 Some evidence that bisexual students may have particularly poor
experiences - need to investigate further (Klein and Dudley, 2014;
NUS, 2014)
 NUS (2014) pointed to need for further exploration of the impact of
LGBT youth homelessness on education and employment
 More detailed understanding of the impact and experiences of LGBT
groups/societies on campus, and role in university decision-making
 More research in the UK with trans and non-gender binary
identifying students/potential students
The #FreshersToFinals project
 Watch out for...
- fuller literature review
- final report and guidance document produced in
consultation with LGBTQ young people and students
- future events (LGF, Manchester; SHU, Sheffield)