Coming out in the classroom: still an occupational hazard?

Abstract

Abstract:In 2002, Russ, Simonds, and Hunt reported that coming out in the classroom was hazardous to gay instructors in the United States. We replicated their study in the same medium-sized North American university with a sample of 222 college students (71.7% White, 53.2% women, mean age = 19.66) who listened to a talk by a male speaker. Unknown to these students, we experimentally manipulated the sexual orientation of the speaker. In one section of a general education course, the speaker mentioned three times in passing the name of his same-sex partner (gay condition). In another section of the same course, the speaker mentioned three times the name of his other-sex partner (heterosexual condition). Immediately a er the talk, students evaluated the speaker. Analyses using t-tests on teacher credibility ratings showed that students consistently rated the speaker in the heterosexual condition more positively than the speaker in the gay condition, which mirror Russ et al. 's ndings published 15 years earlier. Chisquare analyses on the themes derived from the written comments showed mixed results. Students perceived the gay speaker as having "poor speech" skills, but they also perceived him to be more "honest and open" than the heterosexual speaker. Implications are discussed. Keywords:Teacher Sexual Orientation; Teacher Credibility.Resumo: Em 2002, Russ, Simonds e Hunt relataram que revelar a orientação sexual na sala de aula era perigoso para professores homossexuais nos Estados Unidos. Replicamos este estudo na mesma universidade norte-americana de porte médio com uma amostra de 222 estudantes universitários (71,7% brancos, 53,2% mulheres, idade média = 19,66) que ouviram uma palestra de um professor visitante. Esses alunos não sabiam que manipulamos experimentalmente a orientação sexual deste professor. Em uma seção, o professor mencionou três vezes de passagem o nome de seu parceiro do mesmo sexo (condição gay). Em outra seção do mesmo curso, o mesmo professor mencionou três vezes o nome de seu parceiro de outro sexo (condição heterossexual). Imediatamente após a palestra, os alunos avaliaram o professor visitante. As análises sobre classi cações de credibilidade do professor mostraram que os alunos avaliaram consistentemente o professor na condição heterossexual mais positivamente do que o mesmo professor na condição homossexual, o que re ete os resultados de Russ et al. publicados 15 anos antes. As análises sobre os temas derivados dos comentários escritos mostraram resultados mistos. Os alunos perceberam o professor gay negativamente com um estilo de "fala pobre", mas também perceberam que ele era mais "honesto e aberto" do que o professor heterossexual. As implicações são discutidas. Palavras-chave:Orientação Sexual do Professor; Credibilidade do Professor.In the United States, the workplace continues to become demographically more diverse in terms of race/ethnicity, national origin, religion, disability, sex/gender, and sexual orientation (PALUDI; PALUDI; DESOUZA, 2011). It is important to highlight that...

Is Coming Out in the Community College Classroom an “Occupational Hazard?”

“…In a more recent study, DeSouza and Olson (2018) found similar results: Students in the straight instructor condition provided more favorable character ratings than those in the gay instructor condition, and students rated the gay instructor significantly lower on two of six prompts related to competence. In contrast, Boren and McPherson (2018) found students rated a gay instructor higher, but only for the caring dimension.…”

“…Because competence is a component of teacher credibility (Gili, 2013; Hendrix, 1993; McCroskey et al, 1974; Pornpitakpan, 2004; Teven & Katt, 2016), we sought to establish the lecturer’s subject-matter expertise by having him perform a musical work during the lecture. Promoting the highest possible credibility scores for a lecturer is in keeping with the procedures used by other credibility researchers (Boren & McPherson, 2018; DeSouza & Olson, 2018; Russ et al, 2002).…”

“…Unlike other studies relating to teacher credibility and sexual orientation (Boren & McPherson, 2018; DeSouza & Olson, 2018; Russ et al, 2002), we conducted this study using mixed methods with the hope of gleaning more about students’ perceptions than survey data alone might uncover. Rather than adopt Pragmatism, a common philosophical foundation for mixing (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003; Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2003), we conducted this study from the standpoint of Critical Realism (CR), due to its closer alignment with our own views regarding ontology and epistemology.…”

“…It includes three dimensions: character (trustworthiness), competence (intelligence), and caring (goodwill) (McCroskey, 1972; Teven & Katt, 2016). Credibility has been described as a “super-variable” (Teven & Katt, 2016, p. 184) because of its relationship to many facets of classroom dynamics and teacher-student relationships (McCroskey et al, 1974; Nadler & Nadler, 2001), including what students believe they learn (Gili, 2013; Myers & Martin, 2006; Russ et al, 2002; Teven & McCroskey, 1997), and student evaluations of instructors (Boren & McPherson, 2018; DeSouza & Olson, 2018; Russ et al, 2002; Teven & McCroskey, 1997). Further, students who do not trust an instructor are unlikely to invest in learning (Teven & Katt, 2016); yet, students who perceive an instructor to be highly credible are likely to recommend that faculty member to a friend and register for another course taught by the same instructor (McCroskey et al, 1974; Nadler & Nadler, 2001).…”

Reaching to Transgress: A Critical Self-Study of a Teacher Education Program

“…In this instance, Karin’s sharing about her private life had a positive outcome; however, it is also possible that her credibility with other students may have been compromised. Researchers have discovered, for example, that disclosing a same-sex partner in the higher education classroom may have a negative impact on teacher evaluations (De Souza & Olson, 2018; Russ et al, 2002).…”