THEORY INTO PRACTICE / Spring 2004

Sexual Identities and Schooling

Randal Donelson Theresa Rogers

Negotiating a Research Protocol for Studying School-Based Gay and Lesbian Issues The nature of public schooling, particularly at the early and middle childhood levels, makes designing critical qualitative studies around gay and lesbian issues in the school context problematic at best. This article provides a retrospective dialogue between an associate professor and her then Ph.D. candidate advisee that reflects on the tension created as they negotiated through the pitfalls and problems inherent in developing a workable proposal for a gay/lesbian school-based study. The authors use a point/counterpoint format that addresses such issues as study design, researcher ethics, and other relevant concerns for those interested in conducting school-based studies around gay/lesbian issues.

B

and our social institutions are becoming more pluralistic. In keeping with this trend, universities are beginning to explore social science research that examines how various marginalized groups exist within the organizational structure of the public school. Led by such theorists as Freire, Macedo, McLaren, hooks, and Giroux, educational researchers have OTH OUR GENERAL CULTURE

Randal Donelson is visiting assistant professor of Language, Literacy, and Culture at The Ohio State University; Theresa Rogers is associate professor of Language and Literacy Education at The University of British Columbia.

conducted studies on the particular needs and voices of people who have been disenfranchised due to race and ethnicity, gender, social and economic circumstances, and various handicaps. This work speaks of the urgency to transform schools, through theory and practice, into places of social justice for all people (Lather & Ellsworth, 1996). In recent years the needs, experiences, and voices of people with gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered (GLBT) orientations have also begun to be acknowledged as legitimate issues for research. However, what distinguishes the growing body of GLBT educational research from that conducted around the needs of other marginalized groups is the relatively small number of gay/lesbian studies that are conducted within the school setting. A considerable number of articles have been written that support the use of gay and lesbian-themed literature for use with adolescents and young adults (Bauer, 1994; Jenkins, 1993); other educators have published collections and analyses of case histories of both gay and lesbian adolescents and teachers (Evans, 2002; Harbeck, 1992; Jennings, 1994; O’Conor, 1994). Still other theorists have analyzed the organizational structures in schools that support heterosexuality as normal and anything else as deviant—a belief that has been called “heteronormativity” (Capper, 1999; Griffin, 1996; Sumara & Davis, 1999). Such efforts have contributed to a growing body of literature on heterosexism and homophobia

THEORY INTO PRACTICE, Volume 43, Number 2, Spring 2004 128 Copyright © 2004 College of Education, The Ohio State University

Donelson and Rogers Negotiating a Research Protocol

in public schooling. But to critically examine such questions as, What is the process by which heteronormativity gets circulated through speech and related behaviors (discourses) in the classroom environment? or What is the degree to which there is resistance to homophobia in the school setting?, school-based studies must be designed and conducted in the same way as studies to answer similar questions around the issues of race (Cohen, 1993; Gilmore, 1985), gender (Erchick, 2002), and class (Robinson, 1994). As we discovered, developing protocols for this kind of work raises complex issues. In this article we share our experiences as a gay doctoral student (Randal) and as a straight associate professor/adviser (Theresa) as we worked through the process of conceptualizing and designing a study of gay/lesbian issues and public schooling. Our format is retrospective in that we are reflecting on memories that are several years old, and dialogic in that we alternate our voices throughout in an effort to provide a sense of the individual perspectives, feelings, tensions, and reactions inherent in our particular roles as student/researcher and professor/adviser. Researching silence: Randal Several years ago, in my role as a university supervisor of teacher preparation students, I was observing a language arts block in a fourth-grade classroom where the student teacher was performing a read-aloud of Julie of the Wolves (CraigheadGeorge, 1972) to the students. The children were generally engaged with the text and eventually the teacher-intern stopped in her reading to ask a character development question: “What do you think Julie and her girlfriend will do in this situation?” It should be noted that this Newbery award-winning novel for adolescents is a survival story about an Eskimo girl who eventually must choose between two worlds. Central to the story is the girl’s friendship with another girl who lives in San Francisco. It is not a story about sexual orientation or lesbianism. One of the boys tittered and repeated the word girlfriend. “She’s a lesbian,” he said. The class of 23 boys and girls erupted with laughter. I had been in lots of classrooms, so I wasn’t really surprised by this. It is the taboo, the forbidden, that most often intrigues children, and the kind of rupture of

the silencing around the topic of sexuality, particularly sexuality constructed as deviant, frequently occurs in classrooms (Capper, 1999). It was the intern’s reaction in that moment that stood out for me; she waited for the laughter to die down and then resumed her reading of the text. She neither rephrased her original question nor confronted the distraction brought on by the boy’s comment by discussing the connotation of the word girlfriend, or talking about what a lesbian is and why the class found the reference so funny. This response, or nonresponse, from a preservice intern wasn’t particularly surprising. Most beginning student teachers are simply trying to navigate their way through each day as they learn how to perform in the role of a classroom teacher. But what I realized was that the kind of moment I had just witnessed likely happens each day in thousands of classrooms, even with experienced teachers (Kosciw, 2001). And I suspected many of those same teachers would not allow similar remarks/reactions around the issues of race, ethnicity, and gender to go uncontested without a class discussion. As I thought about this, I had to acknowledge that I had more often than not chosen to ignore homophobic and heterosexist remarks in my own classroom, lest my defensiveness suggest or reveal my sexual orientation. The progress of the preservice intern was not my focus; like many doctoral students who have attained All-But-Dissertation status, I was preoccupied with designing a dissertation study. My path had not been all that unique, though at the time I thought nobody else could have struggled through the conceptualization process to the extent that I had. During my doctoral studies, the recursive process of reading-writing-thinking had enabled me to move from an initial interest in the ethnography of silence as a dimension of classroom speech communities (Saville-Troike, 1982) to silencing of marginalized discourses in general (Weis & Fine, 1993) to a narrower focus on silencing of discourses around homosexuality in the school context (Friend, 1993; Harbeck, 1992; Jennings, 1994). I knew from my reading and from my own experiences the extent to which heterosexism and homophobia dominate classroom culture at all levels; but the question of how to study this was monopolizing nearly all my thoughts that day.

129

THEORY INTO PRACTICE / Spring 2004

Sexual Identities and Schooling

The incident in that classroom provided an eye-opening experience for me in terms of how I might design a study on the silencing of discourses around the subject of homosexuality in the school context. As I drove home, it seemed clear that I needed to capture as data the type of interaction I had just witnessed—not only the child’s interpretation and his peers’ reaction, but, more importantly, the intern’s nonreaction. Wasn’t this one of the primary ways that heteronormative discourses get circulated and perpetuated in the social setting of the public school? I was convinced my adviser would see the merits of this as a research question. After all, she had supported my interest in doing a study around the silencing of gay and lesbian issues in classroom speech communities from the start. I made an appointment to meet with her and in the interim, I jotted down copious notes to respond to the questions I knew she would have: What would my design be? What kind of data would I collect? How would I analyze it? I was certain I had the responses to those questions. I was less certain about the issue of site access. After what I had just witnessed, I believed the site for my study should be a primary classroom, because perceptions and prejudices are shaped, in part, by interactions in social settings early on. If I wanted to do work that would result in social justice, wouldn’t it be more effective to ask questions about the kind of interaction that helps to form attitudes about homosexuality at the very earliest levels of public schooling, rather than wait until after those attitudes have already been formed? The use of an elementary classroom as a site of a study of gay and lesbian issues would, I realized, contest the popular notion that many subjects should not be discussed in school due to their inappropriateness for young children. But I agreed with much of Silin’s (1995) work that argues against the exclusion of social issues from primary classrooms simply because of adherence to the notion of a developmentally appropriate curriculum. Silin maintains that such pedagogical practice was built on a psychological rather than an educational paradigm, and has enabled curricula that allow teachers to view themselves as “noncoercive, unprejudiced practitioners committed to keeping politics out of the schools” (p. 95). As Leck (1995)

130

points out, many of today’s curricular decisions are made less with a concern for providing for the right of the individual child to learn than to satisfy the demands of “right wing religious groups and the parochialism of parents, [resulting in] neutralized information and so-called basic skills [as] the focus of schooling, even as the individual’s quest for meaning and identity are rendered extracurricular” (p. 190). Yet I was also cognizant of the erroneous tendency to map pedophilia onto homosexuality, and that such a perception often results in gay men and lesbian educators over-policing their own interaction with children, particularly at the earliest levels (King, 1997). I had to consider that such a prevailing myth might make problematic my gaining site access at a primary level. I also knew that my adviser would likely raise the issue of site access with me. I felt that the best approach would be to state that I wanted to examine how normative discourses get circulated in the classroom speech community, rather than frame my research question on the specific silencing of discourses around homosexuality. Only I would be aware that the data I collected would be limited to those utterances and interactions that specifically referred to sexual orientation. I felt prepared for my meeting with my adviser. I would design a naturalistic study (Bogdan & Biklen, 1992) in a primary classroom, spending several weeks collecting field notes that would likely contain many contextual moments such as the one I had witnessed in the intern’s fourth-grade classroom. I would collect specific references to homosexuality or gays and lesbians as well as the reactions of the students and teacher in those contextual moments. My analysis could seek to determine how normative discourses are perpetuated at the same time that negative attitudes around homosexuality are reinforced. Silencing research: Theresa I supported Randy’s idea of doing a study of classroom discourse with a focus on silencing, especially around gay and lesbian issues, clearly an underresearched topic of study. But when he approached me with the idea of couching the issue of gay and lesbian issues in a larger discourse study without revealing the focus of the research to the

Donelson and Rogers Negotiating a Research Protocol

participants, I began to think about issues he would face as he attempted to get access to a school site and human subjects review approval from the university office of research. Right away there were at least two related issues looming in the possibility of undertaking a study of gay and lesbian issues, discourse, and classrooms. One is the general confusion and anxiety in our culture about homosexuality, and the other is the role of public schools as sites for combating heterosexism and homophobia. As I write this in the autumn of 2003 in Canada, there are numerous media reports of the Ontario court decision to legalize same-sex marriages (see Vancouver Sun, June 14, 2003)—a ruling that elucidates the polarization of the issue. While many disagree, others think nothing of this legislation, and in fact support it as a necessary evolution of human rights guaranteed by the Canadian Constitution. In the United States there is more divisiveness on the issue. Notwithstanding the 2003 Massachusetts Supreme Court decision asserting that same-sex marriage is a right protected by the state’s constitution, many see same-sex marriage as unconstitutional or worse—perhaps a step away from societal chaos in its undermining of the traditional institutions of male/female marriages and family. I raise this as a backdrop to the second issue: public schools as sites of progressive social justice. The schools, especially elementary schools, often become the battle site when the public is divided on an issue (e.g., the history of racial integration). For instance, another battle the local media has taken up is the attempt to ban three books (Belinda’s Bouquet, One Dad, Two Dads, and Asha’s Mums) related to same-sex relationships in a nearby school district, even though the courts have supported their use in the classroom. As Randy points out above, there are reasons for starting with young children in the fight against homophobia and its attendant cruelties. But there may be a conflict between the values one holds at home or places of worship and the larger community values of a democratic and just society. Continuing to insist on protecting individual or family beliefs is often done at the expense of promoting larger societal values of social justice. So it seemed little has changed since Randy and I mulled over our dilemma. One question goes

to the heart of the dilemma we faced: Would it be acceptable to not fully disclose to the participants the specific focus of the discourse analysis Randy proposed for a greater good? Indeed, if we do not address homophobia head on, is this itself a form of lying? As de Castell and Bryson (1997), point out, “Participation in contemporary educational discourse—research, scholarship and practice—seems increasingly to involve a kind of lying game. Is this because (as Ghandi said), ‘To participate in injustice is a form of lying’?” (p. 237). As I wrestled with this larger ethical question, I also considered the university’s attempt to protect human subjects participating in research, in this case students and teachers in classrooms. One look at The Ohio State University’s application (www.orrp.ohio-state.edu) illustrates the problem. The issues the researcher is asked to respond to in preparing a protocol include a consideration of the actual and potential risks of the study: whether disclosure of the participants’ responses may be damaging to their financial standing, employability, or reputation; whether participants may encounter psychological, social and/or physical risk; and whether participants may be asked to disclose information that they might consider to be personal or sensitive. It is a sad fact of our society that gay and lesbian teachers, for instance, often do not voluntarily disclose their sexual identity for fear of reprisal. We also know that many children are bullied for being or suspected of being “gay” or “fags” or “dykes” or “lezzies.” And adults, in and out of schools, remain silent (Kosciw, 2001). I talked this all over with Randy and, admittedly, I was not ready to encourage his proposed study, nor was I ready to give up on the idea of doing research on heteronormativity in schools. It presented to me an ethical dilemma: Would this be a necessary deception and risk for the participants for a larger eventual goal of working toward making schools sites of social justice? Would I have agreed more readily if my identity were not that of a straight, female academic? My various identity positions seemed to intersect in ways that worked against my supporting the study Randy proposed. My concern as his advisor that he would not get the study approved no doubt allowed me to rationalize my own heterosexist response to avoid the

131

THEORY INTO PRACTICE / Spring 2004

Sexual Identities and Schooling

difficult decision to take the risk. I recommended that he talk to Patti Lather, another researcher who specializes in qualitative research methodology. I thought she might be able to provide insight in terms of research design so Randy’s proposed study might be completed. Silencing the researcher/breaking silence: Randal While my enthusiasm was somewhat dampened after our meeting, I had placed my trust in Theresa as my adviser and realized her concerns were based on considerable first-hand knowledge of all the pitfalls and problems inherent in developing a proposal for a workable study. I could see the tension she felt in expressing what she saw as an access issue if I developed a proposal that identified the collection of data related to discourse around homosexuality in a primary classroom, or ethical issues if I did not fully disclose my specific research interest. Theresa expressed a concern that she might somehow be operating as a co-conspirator in the silencing of gay/lesbian issues in the school context by not endorsing the design of the study as I had presented it, but added that in her role as adviser she was primarily responsible for providing counsel that would enable me to successfully complete a defensible dissertation. I took her advice to make an appointment to talk with Patti Lather, a widely recognized leader in the field of qualitative feminist research in education. I hoped she might point to a means by which I could still conduct the classroom-based study I envisioned. Patti was immediately accessible and listened sympathetically as I explained my plan for a proposal as well as my adviser’s concerns. She concurred with Theresa on the unlikelihood of gaining access to conduct a study of gay/lesbian issues in a primary school classroom and on the unethical nature of not fully disclosing what I was studying as a means of circumventing a refusal of site access based solely on the subject matter. She also raised yet another concern: Had I considered my marketability in academia? Doing a job talk in which I presented as a research agenda gay/lesbian issues, she noted, could preclude my even being put on the short list for job openings in many institutions, much less result in my being offered

132

positions. Weren’t there other discourses that get silenced in the school context, she asked. I replied that there were many—racism, sexism, poverty, and issues of social class. “It would perhaps be better,” she cautioned, “to do the study around one of those. You are possibly too close to this issue anyway. You can always come back and do the study you are proposing after you have obtained tenure.” I suppose it was because I suspected she was correct that I felt so defeated. That afternoon all the silencing around my sexual orientation I had ever experienced within the educational system— primary, secondary, and higher—converged. I thought of the times I had been called “queer” and “sissy” as a child and adolescent growing up in the American public school system, and how I had been subject to all the heteronormative assumptions the culture of schooling makes about young people. And I especially recalled all the times as a public school teacher I had employed a range of strategies in an effort to conceal my sexual orientation from my students and colleagues. I relived all the frustration, powerlessness, and silencing I had felt in all those situations that day. Occurring in tandem with this sense of silencing, however, was a sense of anger and resistance. McLaren (1989) refers to this as a “resolve [on the part of the oppressed] . . . not to be dissimulated in the face of oppression” (p. 188). Much of the reading I had already done had identified resistance to silencing among women (Lewis, 1993; Robinson, 1994), African Americans (Gilmore, 1985; Ladson-Billings, 1996), and Native Americans (Dumont, 1972; Lomawaima, 1995). In that moment I understood this phenomenon from the point of view of a gay man. It isn’t likely that either Theresa, acting as my adviser, or Patti, representing the leader in the field of educational research, had consciously intended that their reactions first frustrate then empower me, but that is what happened. I realized that just as I had felt and continued to feel silenced as a gay educator, so too were thousands of other gay and lesbian public school teachers. I could design a study in which I would use narrative to collect as data the experiences of some of those men and women. Because I could interview them anywhere outside the school setting, site access wasn’t likely to be an issue. I contacted Theresa right

Donelson and Rogers Negotiating a Research Protocol

away; she agreed and felt I would not have any difficulty gaining human subject approval. While the study I eventually completed (Donelson, 2000) wasn’t the naturalistic study I originally envisioned, it did resemble the objective I had in its effort to use the experiences of gay/ lesbian educators to theorize about the structured silencing of and among gay and lesbian educators within the public school setting. As a methodology, the use of narrative retellings of the lived experiences of the gay and lesbian educators proved to be effective in answering my research question. The analysis of my data suggested that public schools at all levels are heterosexist and homophobic, and that gay and lesbian teachers employ a range of strategies to conceal their sexual orientation and identity from students as well as colleagues. Most interesting, however, was that the data also strongly suggested that gay and lesbian teachers, like many oppressed groups, are never completely silenced. Whether imposed by external sources or self-imposed, resistance appears to be at least as powerful a force in determining how the individual reacts at any given time or place as are efforts by normative discourses to impose silence of their identities as gay men and lesbians. But to continue to study how heterosexist discourses operate to silence homosexuality in the school context, I remain convinced that it will be necessary to go into classrooms, at primary, middle, and secondary levels. While insights gleaned from interviewing gay and lesbian educators help to clarify how they process the tension resulting from the oppression/resistance they experience, a school-based study would likely only make clearer how heterosexist discourses circulate through classrooms each day. Reflections: Theresa I had no concerns that Randy could not produce a defensible dissertation but that he would not get to that point with all the potential roadblocks to doing the initial study he proposed. The dissertation he defended (Donelson, 2000) is an eloquent, complex study of gay and lesbian teachers’ shifting acquiescence and resistance to the heteronormative discourses of schools. But, as he argues, we still need studies of how those discourses live and thrive and the complicit silences that feed them.

I have been asking myself what, if anything, I would do differently if confronted with this dilemma again. I was recently talking about this issue with Dennis Sumara, a professor of curriculum studies at a large Canadian university, and I briefly related the story told here. He recognized the problem and said he had wanted to do a similar study for his dissertation and his advisor recommended that he not do so before he received his Ph.D. He added that the paper for his job talk at three major universities was entitled “Counterfeiting” and dealt with the specific consequences of camouflaging sexual identity in public schools. He was offered all three positions. However, following the Ph.D. he received a large national grant to do the on-site study he wanted to do for his dissertation, but was refused permission by the university ethics board on the grounds that full disclosure of the specifics of the research would need to be made 1 (D. Sumara, personal communication). I wonder how many similar stories are out there and how we will change the larger narrative of silence. Reflections: Randal While I have never set aside my desire to conduct the kind of school-based study on gay/ lesbian issues I originally proposed, I realize more than ever the complexity inherent in attempting to bring this to fruition. Years after my own experience in proposing such a study there still is no consensus among people in university settings about how to conduct such studies or even if they should be conducted, especially by student researchers. When invited to contribute to this article, particularly in terms of whether her advice would be different to a student researcher today, Patti offered the following perspective: I appreciate the invitation to write myself into this text in terms of how I would counsel Randal today. Given my queasiness about the tendencies of critical researchers to set themselves up, as, in Foucauldian terms, “the master of truth and justice,” my response would be the same. Unless one is clearly studying up (researching those who have more power), I see more dangers than possibilities in deceptive research designs. The task is to work with people, something Randal figured out in studying gay and lesbian teachers. He also, of course, did not follow my advice in terms of doing a study on another topic.

133

THEORY INTO PRACTICE / Spring 2004

Sexual Identities and Schooling I read of Randal’s feeling of being so defeated after my advice that he should think otherwise about his topic as I was finishing up a letter of recommendation for one of my advisees. In it I note this student’s many activities around sexuality issues. In short, for me, the key seems to be not that a student identifies as gay/lesbian but whether his or her scholarly focus is broader in terms of teacher education to maximize their chances of being, in my father’s words, “a Ph.D. with a job.” This is not the story Randal wanted to hear and the narrative he tells now, several years later, creates its own binaries and silences. I wondered, for example, what happened to the support he received from other graduate students. What idealizations were in play in the construction of his disappointment? Where is his learning in terms of both “insider” research and the strictures of the academic job market? What this says about the times, about teacher education particularly, why other minoritized positions can write to their own experience without so much prejudice—these are issues in need of address/ redress as we name and make visible the complexity and messiness involved. (P. Lather, personal communication)

Still other qualitative researchers are less sure that student researchers should veer away from classroom-based studies on gay/lesbian issues. Indeed, much of the conversation during the oral defense of my completed dissertation centered on this issue. Committee members all supported the need to conduct studies to interrogate how homophobia and heterosexism affect the daily lives of teachers and students. There was less agreement about how to address the problems of site access and human subject approval from university research offices. One committee member felt that in some cases deception for the purposes of gaining site entry as well as human subject approval is both acceptable and necessary, noting that such gestapo tactics are permissible in situations in which the power dynamic is as unequal as it is in this instance. The feasibility of doing school-based gay/lesbian studies is no less complex than it was when I first proposed my original design. However, if we believe that practice should be informed by theory, any efforts to develop theory that will result in classrooms as more democratic and just places for gay and lesbian students and teachers must be informed by data that reveals how homophobia and heterosexism operate in today’s schools.

134

Conclusion Our story unfolds as a narrative of effective and collaborative institutional resistance in academia to even acknowledging the facts of heterosexism in our schools, much less to study them. Acknowledging heterosexism, and challenging it, might mean allowing the larger issues of schooling and social justice to trump the discomfort of individuals who seek to ignore it and therefore perpetuate it. We note that many of the articles in this issue of Theory Into Practice are indeed based largely on research conducted on the edges of K12 schooling: in community centers, after school programs, teacher education programs, and staff meetings. Until we fully enter into the discursive center of classrooms where teachers and students make choices about openly confronting the tittering and name-calling will we begin to “bring politics into the schools” (Silin, 1995) and to break down the institutional resistance to change.

Note The authors would like to thank Dennis Sumara and Patti Lather for their contributions to this article. 1. He also noted that despite the fact that he did not plan to study GLBT experiences in his dissertation research, he did end up working with a teacher in his reading group who identified as lesbian. He spent considerable time in her classroom and wrote about that in his dissertation entitled “The Literary Imagination and the Curriculum,” later published as “Private Readings in Public: Schooling the Literary Imagination.”

References Bauer, M.D. (1981). Am I blue? Coming out from the silence. New York: Harper Collins. Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. (1992). Qualitative research for education. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Craighead, G.J. (1972). Julie of the wolves. New York: HarperCollins. Capper, C.A. (1999). Homosexualities, organizations, and administration: Possibilities for in(queer)y. Educational Researcher, 28(2), 4-11. Cohen, J. (1993). Constructing race at an urban high school: In their minds, their mouths, their hearts. In L Weis & M Fine (Eds.), Beyond silenced voices: Class, race, and gender in United States schools (pp. 289-308). Albany, NY: SUNY Press. de Castell, S., & Bryson, M. (1997). Don’t ask; don’t tell: “Sniffing out queers” in education. In W. Pinar (Ed.), Curriculum: Toward new identities (pp. 233-252). New York: Garland Press/Routledge.

Donelson and Rogers Negotiating a Research Protocol

Donelson, R.L. (2000). A field of contest: The collision of heterosexist normative discourse with the resistance of gay and lesbian educators in the school context. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University, Columbus. Dumont, R. (1972). Learning English and how to be silent: Studies in Sioux and Cherokee classrooms. In C.B. Cazden, V. Johns, & D. Hymes (Eds.), Functions of language in the classroom (pp. 344369). New York: Teachers College Press. Erchick, D. (2002). “The Square Thing” as a context for understanding, reasoning and ways of knowing mathematics. School Science and Mathematics, 102(1), 25-32. Evans, K. (2002). Negotiating the self: Identity, sexuality, and emotion in learning to teach. New York: RoutledgeFalmer. Friend, R.A. (1993). Choices, not closets: Heterosexism and homophobia in schools. In L. Weis & M. Fine (Eds.), Beyond silenced voices: Class, race, and gender in United States schools (pp. 209-237). Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Gilmore, P. (1985). Silence and sulking: Emotional displays in classrooms. In M. Saville-Troike & D. Tannen (Eds.), Perspectives on silence (pp. 139164). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Griffin, P. (1996). A research agenda on gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender administrators: What can we learn from the research on women administrators, administrators of color, and homosexual teachers and youth? (Cassette Recording No. RA6-3562). American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, New York. Harbeck, K. (1992). Coming out of the classroom closet. New York: Harrington Park Press. Jenkins, C.A. (1993). Young adult novels with gay/lesbian characters and themes 1969-92: A historical reading of content, gender, and narrative distance. Journal of Youth Services in Libraries, 7(1), 43-55. Jennings, K. (1994). One teacher in 10: Gay and lesbian educators tell their stories. Los Angeles: Alyson Publications. King, J. (1997). Keeping it quiet: Gay teachers in the primary grades. In J. Tobin (Ed.), Making a place for pleasure in early childhood education (pp. 235250). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Kosciw, J.G. (2001). The 2001 national school climate survey: The school related experiences of our

nations lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth. New York: Office of Public Policy of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network. Ladson-Billings, G. (1996). Silences as weapons: Challenges of a black professor teaching White students. Theory Into Practice, 35(2), 79-85. Lather, P., & Ellsworth, E. (1996). This Issue. Theory Into Practice, 35(2), 70-71. Leck, G.M. (1995). The politics of adolescent sexual identity and queer responses. In G. Unks (Ed.), The gay teen: Educational practice and theory for lesbian, gay, bisexual adolescents (pp. 189-200). New York: Routledge. Lewis, M.G. (1993). Without a word: Teaching beyond women’s silence. New York: Routledge. Lomawaima, K.T. (1995). Domesticity in the federal Indian schools: The power of authority over mind and body. In J. Terry & J. Urla (Eds.), Deviant bodies: Critical perspectives on difference in science and popular culture (pp. 197-218). Bloomington: University of Indiana Press. McLaren, P. (1989). Moral panic, schooling and gay identity: Critical pedagogy and the politics of resistance. In G. Unks (Ed.), The gay teen: Educational practice for lesbian, gay, and bisexual adolescents (pp. 105-123). New York: Routledge. O’Conor, A. (1994). Who gets called queer in school? Lesbians, gay, bisexual teenagers, homophobia and high school. The High School Journal, 77(1&2), 7-12. Robinson, L. (1994). “The great unexamined”: Silence, speech, and class. In E. Hedges & S. Fisher-Fishkin (Eds.), Listening to silences: New essays in feminist criticism (pp. 287-294). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Saville-Troike, M. (1982). The ethnography of communication. Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell Publisher Limited. Silin, J. (1995). Sex, death, and the education of children: Our passion for ignorance in the age of AIDS. New York: Teachers College Press. Sumara, D., & Davis, B. (1999). Interrupting heteronormativity: Toward a queer curriculum theory. Curriculum Inquiry, 29(2), 191-208. Weis, L., & Fine, M. (1993). Introduction. In L. Weis & M. Fine (Eds.), Beyond silenced voices: Race, class, and gender in United States schools (pp. 16). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

135

Negotiating a Research Protocol for Studying School ...

ty; Theresa Rogers is associate professor of Language ..... listened sympathetically as I explained my plan .... ing and name-calling will we begin to “bring poli-.

69KB Sizes 0 Downloads 159 Views

Recommend Documents

Research Article A simple and efficient protocol for ... - Semantic Scholar
entire diversity in DNA sequence that exists. Recent developments of marker technology have made great progress towards faster, cheaper, and reliable. There.

Energy-Efficient Protocol for Cooperative Networks - Research at Google
Apr 15, 2011 - resources and, consequently, protocols designed for sensor networks ... One recent technology that ... discovered, information about the energy required for transmis- ..... Next, the definition in (6) is generalized for use in (7) as.

Research Article DNA Extraction Protocol for Plants ... -
The amplified product was checked in 1.5% agarose gel electrophoresis and ..... “Mini-scale genomic DNA extraction from cotton,” Plant. Molecular Biology ...

Protocol Research for Underwater Acoustic Sensor ...
data collection, pollution monitoring, offshore exploration and tactical ... is a need to deploy underwater networks that will enable real time monitoring of selected .... One possible solution is to attach each uw-sensor node to a surface buoy, ...

A Time Decoupling Approach for Studying Forum Dynamics
J. Chan. Department of Computer Science and Software Engineering, The University of Melbourne,. Australia. B. Hogan ... that can inform the structural design of forum websites. Accordingly, the temporal .... to studying evolving online social media i

A Time Decoupling Approach for Studying Forum Dynamics
E-mail: [email protected]. J. Chan, C. Hayes. Digital Enterprise Research Institute, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland. J. Chan. Department of Computer Science and Software Engineering, The University of Melbourne,. Australia. B.

A Survey on Routing Protocol Routing Protocol Routing ... - IJRIT
The infrastructure less and the dynamic nature .... faster convergence, it employs a unique method of maintaining information regarding the shortest distance to.

Research Article A simple and efficient protocol for high quality of DNA ...
high quality DNA with average purity of 1.8 and yield 200 g per gm stem tissue that appropriate for molecular ... Small sample of the subject's DNA which is.

A Survey on Routing Protocol Routing Protocol Routing ... - IJRIT
CGSR Cluster head Gateway Switch Routing protocol [9] is a multichannel operation ..... protocols of mobile ad-hoc networks”, International Journal of Computer ...

van Wyngaard, 2017, Conceptual considerations for studying ...
local churches onto these denominational maps. Page 3 of 7. van Wyngaard, 2017, Conceptual considerations for studying churches.pdf. van Wyngaard, 2017, Conceptual considerations for studying churches.pdf. Open. Extract. Open with. Sign In. Main menu

studying ecclesiastes
Aug 16, 2009 - Although Ecclesiastes is an Old Testament book, it gets its name from its LXX name, a. Greek word that means ... discussion is stated in verse 3 – “What does man gain by all the toil at which he toils under the sun? .... The same e

A MAC protocol for reliable communication in low ... - Semantic Scholar
Apr 8, 2016 - sonalized medication [9]. ..... We use the reserved bits 7–9 of the frame control field for spec- ..... notebook are connected by a USB cable. Fig.

A Weakly Coupled Adaptive Gossip Protocol for ...
autonomous policy-based management system for ALAN. The preliminary .... Fireflies flash at a predetermined point in a periodic oscillation that can be ...

A Protocol for Building Secure and Reliable Covert ...
promised systems through which two end applications can secretly exchange ... channel prevents a network intrusion detector from de- tecting the existence of a ...