Abstract:SUMMARY In-depth interviews were conducted with ten lesbian and bisexual women university students to learn about their experiences living in college residence halls. Many of the women reported experiencing a hostile environment as a result of direct and indirect harassment and lack of support from roommates, resident assistants, and other residents. Participants also reported supportive factors that helped to make the environment more comfortable. In particular, these students appreciated residence life staff… Show more
“…These participants' accounts are similar to the findings of Evans and Broido (2002) who found that LGBT students differed in their experience of residence environments, even though homophobia was not necessarily expressed openly. Our participants appeared to experience homophobia and heterosexism in nuanced and indirect ways in residences, but tended to view residence environments as positive if negative acts were minimal and/or not overtly expressed.…”
Section: (Ii) University Residencessupporting
confidence: 81%
“…Evans and Broido 2002;Messinger 2002) on overseas campuses has identified mechanisms that contribute to a welcoming LGBT environment. University diversity management could therefore investigate the relevance of these mechanisms for the campus of study.…”
Section: Conclusion and Recommendationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…University diversity management could therefore investigate the relevance of these mechanisms for the campus of study. For example, environments where LGBT issues and challenges were integrated in the curriculum were experienced as the most supportive by LGBT students (Evans and Broido 2002). Furthermore, Evans and Broido (2002) identified mechanisms that specifically assist towards more positive resident environments.…”
Section: Conclusion and Recommendationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, environments where LGBT issues and challenges were integrated in the curriculum were experienced as the most supportive by LGBT students (Evans and Broido 2002). Furthermore, Evans and Broido (2002) identified mechanisms that specifically assist towards more positive resident environments. These include residence staff members actively challenging homophobic behavior, programmes to sensitise residents about LGBT issues, and visible gestures and symbols of support in residences and living spaces.…”
Rules and expectations for appropriate public couple behaviour on university campuses are predominantly heteronormative and marginalise people with other sexual orientations. Such environments pose specific challenges to same-sex couples with regards to everyday open living and enjoyment of their romantic relationships. Our study sought to explore the experiences of same-sex student couples in negotiating public campus life at a South African university. We interviewed six couples and used thematic analysis to analyse the data. We found that the participating couples experienced the campus as an evolving and ambiguous environment with both safe and unsafe public spaces. As a result, couples consistently and consciously monitored their social environments and regulated their public couple behaviour to avoid negative experiences. We conclude the article with suggestions as to how university management can assist in cultivating a more supporting campus environment for same-sex couples.
“…These participants' accounts are similar to the findings of Evans and Broido (2002) who found that LGBT students differed in their experience of residence environments, even though homophobia was not necessarily expressed openly. Our participants appeared to experience homophobia and heterosexism in nuanced and indirect ways in residences, but tended to view residence environments as positive if negative acts were minimal and/or not overtly expressed.…”
Section: (Ii) University Residencessupporting
confidence: 81%
“…Evans and Broido 2002;Messinger 2002) on overseas campuses has identified mechanisms that contribute to a welcoming LGBT environment. University diversity management could therefore investigate the relevance of these mechanisms for the campus of study.…”
Section: Conclusion and Recommendationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…University diversity management could therefore investigate the relevance of these mechanisms for the campus of study. For example, environments where LGBT issues and challenges were integrated in the curriculum were experienced as the most supportive by LGBT students (Evans and Broido 2002). Furthermore, Evans and Broido (2002) identified mechanisms that specifically assist towards more positive resident environments.…”
Section: Conclusion and Recommendationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, environments where LGBT issues and challenges were integrated in the curriculum were experienced as the most supportive by LGBT students (Evans and Broido 2002). Furthermore, Evans and Broido (2002) identified mechanisms that specifically assist towards more positive resident environments. These include residence staff members actively challenging homophobic behavior, programmes to sensitise residents about LGBT issues, and visible gestures and symbols of support in residences and living spaces.…”
Rules and expectations for appropriate public couple behaviour on university campuses are predominantly heteronormative and marginalise people with other sexual orientations. Such environments pose specific challenges to same-sex couples with regards to everyday open living and enjoyment of their romantic relationships. Our study sought to explore the experiences of same-sex student couples in negotiating public campus life at a South African university. We interviewed six couples and used thematic analysis to analyse the data. We found that the participating couples experienced the campus as an evolving and ambiguous environment with both safe and unsafe public spaces. As a result, couples consistently and consciously monitored their social environments and regulated their public couple behaviour to avoid negative experiences. We conclude the article with suggestions as to how university management can assist in cultivating a more supporting campus environment for same-sex couples.
“…While the study is limited by the very small sample size, many students heard homophobic remarks in their halls, and they reported that coming out to their roommates was particularly stressful, leading to varied and unpredictable responses ranging from support to verbal or physical threats. Evans & Broido (2002) published a follow-up study, interviewing the 10 lesbian and bisexual women participants from their previous sample to study ways in which student halls could ofbe made more welcoming. They found that not all students saw the climate of the same halls in the same way.…”
Section: Gender-segregated Spaces: Housing and Restroomsmentioning
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.