2020
DOI: 10.1080/10538720.2020.1728460
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Religion and bullying: Perspectives from sexual and gender minority youth (SGMY) in Michigan

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 18 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Our stratified sampling frame using structural stigma strata allowed us to systematically acquire data from participants who attended or worked in schools from varying U.S. contexts is a strength of our study because it purposefully samples participants from a wide variety of social contexts, more so that prior qualitative literature that has focused on smaller geographical locations (Grossman et al, 2009; Newman et al, 2017; Marshall et al, 2015; Ken, 2017; Mayo, 2013; Valenti & Campbell, 2009; Steck & Perry, 2017; Reisner et al, 2020; McCormick & Krieger, 2020; Higa et al, 2014). Furthermore, our carefully constructed sampling quotas allowed us to oversample particularly vulnerable and underrepresented groups, such as youth of color, gender minority youth, and staff in rural locales.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Our stratified sampling frame using structural stigma strata allowed us to systematically acquire data from participants who attended or worked in schools from varying U.S. contexts is a strength of our study because it purposefully samples participants from a wide variety of social contexts, more so that prior qualitative literature that has focused on smaller geographical locations (Grossman et al, 2009; Newman et al, 2017; Marshall et al, 2015; Ken, 2017; Mayo, 2013; Valenti & Campbell, 2009; Steck & Perry, 2017; Reisner et al, 2020; McCormick & Krieger, 2020; Higa et al, 2014). Furthermore, our carefully constructed sampling quotas allowed us to oversample particularly vulnerable and underrepresented groups, such as youth of color, gender minority youth, and staff in rural locales.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Despite the important insights gleaned from prior qualitative research on SGMY and school staff, existing studies have several methodological limitations. These limitations include: (1) enrolling only SGMY or only school staff, but not both (de Jong, 2015; Eisenberg et al, 2017; Grossman et al, 2009; Halbrook et al, 2019; Higa et al, 2014; Ken, 2017; Laiti et al, 2021; Marshall et al, 2015; McCormick & Krieger, 2020; Newman et al, 2017; Porta et al, 2017; Preston, 2016; Steck & Perry, 2017; Valenti et al, 2017; Young et al, 2017), thereby constraining the ability to triangulate SGMY and staff perspectives; (2) recruiting and sampling participants from small geographical locations (Grossman et al, 2009; Newman et al, 2017; Marshall et al, 2015; Ken, 2017; Mayo, 2013; Valenti & Campbell, 2009; Steck & Perry, 2017; Reisner et al, 2020; McCormick & Krieger, 2020; Higa et al, 2014); (3) researching sexual minority youth but not gender minority youth (Marshall et al, 2015; Rutter & Leech, 2006); (4) primarily enrolling white SGMY (Marshall et al, 2015; Ken, 2017; Porta et al, 2017; Mayo, 2013; Reisner et al, 2020); (5) recruiting SGMY or school staff solely from GSAs (Mayo, 2013; Valenti & Campbell, 2009); and (6) restricting school staff samples to specific roles (e.g., only counselors) (de Jong, 2015; Halbrook et al, 2019; Preston, 2016; Valenti & Campbell, 2009; Steck & Perry, 2017). As a result, these limitations hamper our ability to identify qualitative themes across sociodemographically diverse groups of SGMY and school staff.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For instance, in the United States with a large population of immigrants and refugees, as compared to native-born youth, immigrant youth are at high risk for experiencing bullying victimisation and report more interpersonal, socioemotional, health and substance use problems (Maynard et al ., 2016; UNESCO, 2019). As compared to students who identified as heterosexual, students who identified as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) or unsure about their sexual orientation are significantly more likely to be bullied due to bullying towards sexual and gender minorities, which may be due to predominant norms of what are acceptable practices of sexuality (Kann et al ., 2016; Lowry et al ., 2020; McCormick and Krieger, 2020). To prevent bullying victimisation, societies should understand how bullying-supportive norms are located and why the public accept and even reinforce these norms.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Most research has either explored the common experiences across all SGMY identities (Craig et al, 2017b ) or small subpopulations (Goffnett & Paceley, 2020 ; McCormick & Krieger, 2020 ) with few studies focusing on the intersections of SGMY identities and experiences. In consultation with community advisors that identified at-risk subpopulations that are underserved in existingprogrammes, this study prioritized SGMY with multiple intersecting vulnerabilities; specifically, SGMY who identified as transgender or gender nonconforming (TGD), experienced homelessness, had engagement with the child welfare system, and were immigrants, refugees, or newcomers to Canada.…”
Section: Priority Populations Of Sgmymentioning
confidence: 99%