Standing Out, Standing Together

Miceli, Melinda S.

doi:10.4324/9780203623503

Cited by 19 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Further, this association was as strong for heterosexual youth. In addition to serving as allies, some heterosexual youth join GSAs because they, too, are marginalized based on other aspects of identity (Griffin et al, 2004; Miceli, 2005; Russell et al, 2009). Similarly, heterosexual youth in general benefit from peer support and socializing during adolescence, which often occurs in extracurricular settings (Feldman & Matjasko, 2005; Fredricks & Eccles, 2005).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We expected the association between advocacy and agency because many advocacy efforts in GSAs require youth to engage in roles that promote agency (e.g., taking on leadership, expressing one’s beliefs and taking a stand to change larger social problems; Miceli, 2005; Russell et al, 2009), and youth have reported feeling empowered through their advocacy in GSAs (Russell et al, 2009). We found, however, that this association was only significant for sexual minority youth and not for heterosexual youth.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Promoting Youth Agency Through Dimensions of Gay–Straight Alliance Involvement and Conditions that Maximize Associations

Poteat

Calzo

Yoshikawa

2016

J Youth Adolescence

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Gay-Straight Alliances (GSAs) may promote wellbeing for sexual minority youth (e.g., lesbian, gay, bisexual, or questioning youth) and heterosexual youth. We considered this potential benefit of GSAs in the current study by examining whether three GSA functions – support/socializing, information/resource provision, and advocacy – contributed to sense of agency among GSA members while controlling for two major covariates, family support and the broader school LGBT climate. The sample included 295 youth in 33 Massachusetts GSAs (69% LGBQ, 68% cisgender female, 68% white; Mage = 16.06 years). Based on multilevel models, as hypothesized, youth who received more support/socializing, information/resources, and did more advocacy in their GSA reported greater agency. Support/socializing and advocacy distinctly contributed to agency even while accounting for the contribution of family support and positive LGBT school climate. Further, advocacy was associated with agency for sexual minority youth but not heterosexual youth. Greater organizational structure enhanced the association between support/socializing and agency; it also enhanced the association between advocacy and agency for sexual minority youth. These findings begin to provide empirical support for specific functions of GSAs that could promote wellbeing and suggest conditions under which their effects may be enhanced.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Promoting Youth Agency Through Dimensions of Gay–Straight Alliance Involvement and Conditions that Maximize Associations

Poteat

Calzo

Yoshikawa

2016

J Youth Adolescence

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Advocacy activities (e.g., Day of Silence, Ally Week, or classroom presentations) are ways for GSAs to foster bridging social capital. GSA advocacy often reflects efforts to enhance visibility and thus challenge heterosexist norms or assumptions that systematically make non-heterosexual identities, issues, or concerns invisible, as well as efforts to challenge systemic inequality such as discriminatory school policies or widespread homophobic harassment (Mayberry, 2006; Mayo, 2004; Miceli, 2005; Russell et al, 2009). …”

Section: Gsas As Settings For Socializing and Advocacymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, for settings that work with stigmatized populations such as LGBT youth, a hostile external context may matter and may bring about youth activism (Fine & Jaffee-Walter, 2007). Therefore, school-level hostility to LGBT youth could be a key factor that shapes the activities and experiences of GSAs and similar groups that engage in activism to challenge systems of inequality (e.g., through deliberate awareness-raising efforts to challenge heterosexism and invisibility or by directly countering acts of discrimination; Mayberry, 2006; Miceli, 2005). …”

Section: Variability Across Gsas In Overall Socializing and Advocacymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Historically, GSAs formed as an extension of community-based youth programs with the purpose of protecting and supporting students who faced violence and discrimination (Uribe, 1994). Advocacy efforts in the form of awareness-raising and challenging institutional discrimination have since been integrated (Miceli, 2005; Russell et al, 2009). The functions of GSAs and their approaches are consistent with youth program and positive youth development models (Eccles & Gootman, 2002; Damon, 2004).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Gay‐Straight Alliances Vary on Dimensions of Youth Socializing and Advocacy: Factors Accounting for Individual and Setting‐Level Differences

Poteat

Scheer

Marx

et al. 2015

American J of Comm Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Gay-Straight Alliances (GSAs) are school-based youth settings that could promote health. Yet, GSAs have been treated as homogenous without attention to variability in how they operate or to how youth are involved in different capacities. Using a systems perspective, we considered two primary dimensions along which GSAs function to promote health: providing socializing and advocacy opportunities. Among 448 students in 48 GSAs who attended six regional conferences in Massachusetts (59.8% LGBQ; 69.9% White; 70.1% cisgender female), we found substantial variation among GSAs and youth in levels of socializing and advocacy. GSAs were more distinct from one another on advocacy than socializing. Using multilevel modeling, we identified group and individual factors accounting for this variability. In the socializing model, youth and GSAs that did more socializing activities did more advocacy. In the advocacy model, youth who were more actively engaged in the GSA as well as GSAs whose youth collectively perceived greater school hostility and reported greater social justice efficacy did more advocacy. Findings suggest potential reasons why GSAs vary in how they function in ways ranging from internal provisions of support, to visibility raising, to collective social change. The findings are further relevant for settings supporting youth from other marginalized backgrounds and that include advocacy in their mission.

show abstract

School Experiences and Educational Opportunities for LGBTQ Students

Pearson

Wilkinson

2018

Handbooks of Sociology and Social Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Standing Out, Standing Together

Cited by 19 publications

References 0 publications

Promoting Youth Agency Through Dimensions of Gay–Straight Alliance Involvement and Conditions that Maximize Associations

Promoting Youth Agency Through Dimensions of Gay–Straight Alliance Involvement and Conditions that Maximize Associations

Gay‐Straight Alliances Vary on Dimensions of Youth Socializing and Advocacy: Factors Accounting for Individual and Setting‐Level Differences

School Experiences and Educational Opportunities for LGBTQ Students

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About