Leadership Training for LGBTQ College Students: Looking for Opportunity in Online and Virtual Spaces

LEADERSHIP TRAINING FOR LGBTQ COLLEGE STUDENTS

Leadership Training for LGBTQ College Students:Looking for Opportunity in Online and Virtual Spaces

A thesis submitted

by

James A. Ver Steeg

to the

WARNER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION, UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER

in partial fulfillment ofthe requirement for the

degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCESin

Higher Education

with a Concentration in Higher Education Administration

This thesis has been accepted for the faculty ofWARNER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION

by:

_________________________________________________Dr. Logan R. Hazen

Master’s Paper Advisor

1


Abstract

Leadership identity theories have been well studied.

From early work that viewed the traits and behaviors of

leaders through a functionalist lens, they have evolved to a

more contemporary view of leadership as a social

construction that more accurately defines relationships and

context (Kezar, Carducci, & Contreras-McGavin, 2006).

Intersecting the identities of many past, present, and

future leaders are the equally as well studied identities of

sexual orientation and gender expression. Much like their

leadership counterparts, Queer sexual identity theories are

moving through an evolution from an essentialist

understanding of biological determinism to a socially

constructed conceptualization that considers multiple

influences (Lipkin, 1999). This paper examined the many

intersections between leadership and Queer identities

(D’Augelli, 1994; Renn & Bilodeau, 2005) and suggests that

the marginalization facing many LGBTQ college student

leaders could be addressed and possibly overcome with online

learning environments, social media, and digital networking.

Keywords: leadership, LGBTQ, Queer, social construction,

lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, identity, online,

training, social networks, Facebook, virtual education,

personal learning environments

2


And that night, I walked among the sad and frustrated at City Hall in San

Francisco, and later that night as they lit candles on Castro Street and stood in

silence, reaching out for some symbolic thing that would give them hope. These

were strong people, whose faces I knew from the shop, the streets, meetings and

people who I never saw before but I knew. They were strong, but even they

needed hope.

-Harvey Milk, 1978

Dedicated to the many lives that have been lead in search of

leadership and lasting hope.

3


Table of Contents

Abstract ................................................2

Dedication ..............................................3

Table of Contents .......................................4

Chapter 1 Introduction ..................................5

Definition of Terms ..................................6

Chapter 2 Literature Review..............................7

Social Construction in Leadership Identity Development

......................................................7

History of Collegiate Extracurricular Activities ....10

Extracurricular Activities and Equal Rights .........14

Social Construction in Queer Identity Development ...16

Leadership Intersections ............................19

Technology as a Platform for Social Construction ....22

Chapter 3 Online Leadership Training Proposal...........26

Chapter 4 Opportunities for Further Research ...........29

References .............................................30

4


Chapter 1

The purpose of this paper is to examine the viability

of online and virtual leadership social constructivist-based

training for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and

questioning (LGBTQ) college students. To help support and

create an ongoing dialog that is both affirming of

marginalized identities and in support of existing theory,

the terms LGBTQ and Queer will be used interchangeably. As

Queer theory continues to evolve, there is a growing

understanding of the socially constructed lens through which

we view sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender

expression (Meyer, 2010; Renn, 2010). Similarly, our

understanding of leadership has evolved from the search for

ideal character traits and an authoritarian top-down model

of leaders and followers to a more team-centered and

socially constructed understanding of what constitutes

effective leadership (Kezar, Carducci, & Contreras-McGavin,

2006). To help provide a language around these

understandings of leadership, sexual orientation, gender

5


identity, and gender expression, a definition of terms can

be found in the following section of this chapter.

Through a literature review that includes the history

of collegiate extracurricular activities, challenges facing

LGBTQ students, and the current state of social media and

online learning, this paper examines the unique challenges

facing sexually marginalized students and proposes an online

alternative for developing Queer leadership identities.

Moving away from strictly positivist approaches to

leadership identity development, which characterize specific

traits of successful leaders in a world measured by

objective truths (Kezar et al., 2006), and departing from

essentialist views of Queer identity that ignore the social

components of sexual orientation, gender identity, and

expression (Lipkin, 1999), the literature offers a clearer

understanding of personal and professional development that

is influenced and rendered relevant through social

interaction and contextual relationships.

It is through the lens of social constructivism that

this paper explores how social media platforms and online

6


networking platforms continue to be popular vehicles for

student interaction, which help create new and emerging

vehicles for the social construction of both leadership and

Queer identity development.

Definition of Terms

For the sake of clarity and common understanding, some of

the terms found in this paper are defined below. It is

important to note that while these are not the only

definitions of the terms, they do represent important

meanings as presented in this paper. Important terms

include:

Social construct: A concept emerged from sociology

and psychology to describe concepts and terms that

exist because a society or culture has collectively

decided to agree they exist. Some examples include

money, citizenship, race, and gender (Meyer, 2010, p.

145).

Leadership: A relational and ethical process of people

together attempting to accomplish positive change

(Komives, Lucas, & McMahon, 2013, p. 14).

7


LGBTQ/Queer: As the terms lesbian, gay, bisexual,

transgender, and questioning are often prescriptive

and essentialist in nature, the LGBTQ acronym may be

limiting in the emerging understandings of sexual and

gender identities. The term Queer is derived from

Queer theory (Lipkin, 1999, p. 14) will often be used

as synonymous with LGBTQ, as it represents a more

inclusive term that celebrates and affirms a broader

scope of the many lives that exist outside

heteronormative definitions (Meyer, 2010, p. 143).

Heteronormativity: A system of beliefs, behaviors,

and expectations that everyone either is, or should

be, heterosexual (Meyer, 2010, p. 143).

Hegemonic masculinity: The form of masculinity that

occupies a dominant and privileged position in a given

pattern of gender relations (Meyer, 2010, p. 143).

8


Chapter 2

Literature Review

If leadership identity and Queer identity are both

socially constructed, it seems natural that the specific

intersections of those identities can be explored within the

parameters of the same broad paradigm. This chapter explores

what Kezar et al. (2006) consider social constructivist

approaches to leadership and the “belief that reality is

developed through one’s interpretation of the world and a

denial of essences or universal qualities” (p. 19). It then

examines the history of collegiate extracurricular

activities in an effort to identity to social influences

that created the collegiate ideal and a more contemporary

understanding of leader development in college. Next, this

literature review focuses on the social construction of

LGBTQ or Queer identities and draws parallels to the denial

of essentialism found in social constructivist leadership

theory. Finally, this review explores the current state of

online educational platforms and student use of social

networking sites to present an emerging understanding of the

9


myriad of ways college students are using technology to

socially construct their developing identities and enhance

their extracurricular activities.

Social Construction in Leadership Identity Development

Kezar et al. (2006) note that over time there has been

a sea change in how academic research considers the notions

of leadership and the more contextual, less fundamental ways

higher education has come to understand it. “Moving away

from static, highly structured, and value-neutral leadership

frameworks [they note] contemporary scholars have embraced

dynamic, globalized, and process-oriented perspectives of

leadership that emphasize cross-cultural understanding,

collaboration, and social responsibility for others” (Kezar

et al., 2006, p. 2). A distinct departure from what they

refer to as the positivist paradigm, where the belief rests

that individual leadership traits such as courage, will

power, and charisma can be developed and applied to

replicate successful results, the authors go on to posit

that in the contemporary model of social constructivism, it

is actually the interaction between leaders and followers

10


that determines the success of any endeavor to introduce

meaningful change (Kezar et al., 2006).

Change is a key element in the definition of leadership

put forth by Komives et al. (2013). They considered leaders

to be “anyone who engages with others to accomplish change”

(Komives et al., 2013, p. 22); they are careful to point out

that their definition does not mean change for the sake of

change; rather, it is process that helps realize a better

world, situation, or circumstance for all those involved.

While certainly not all leadership works benevolently for

the greater good, the ideas and assertions presented in this

paper embrace the definition put forth by Komives et al.

(2013) as it presents a model for leadership that affirms

LGBTQ identities and promotes a worldview that considers

leadership a catalyst and inspiration for meaningful social

change.

Komives et al. (2013) championed a relational model of

leadership, which promotes a notion that inclusivity and the

embrace of a range of diverse perspectives is an essential

component to creating lasting and meaningful change. A

11


socially constructed relational model, they argued,

“embraces the belief that the group, team, organization,

community, nation, and world will be made better when all

participants are heard, made visible, and valued for their

contributions” (Komives et al., 2013, p. 197). The

relational model, they point out, is part of a

“postindustrial paradigm” (Komives et al., 2013, p. 82) that

helps meet the needs of a rapidly changing world. Fading are

the purely managerial and hierarchical forms of leadership,

and in their place a new model of leader and follower

interaction is emerging, where people matter more than they

are marginalized, and environments serve the common good by

celebrating differences and empowering the voices once

confined to the fringes of acceptable society. Komives et

al. (2013) asserted that the relationship between leaders

and followers is changing into a more dynamic and complex

reality where interactive relationships matter more than

prescription.

A social constructivist approach to understanding

leadership looks beyond the interactions between leaders and

12


followers and into the contextual arena where those

interactions take place. Social norms, rules of behavior,

and culturally significant beliefs, traditions, and symbols

all contribute to the perceptions of leaders and the values

they represent (Kezar et al., 2006). Tierney (1989) wrote,

“To speak of organizations is to speak of interpretations

and symbols. An organization void of symbolism is an

organization bereft of human activity. . . . Symbolism is

intertwined with participants’ expectation and understanding

of leadership” (p. 381). Symbols are not simply objects that

represent general ideas, but rather exist in a variety of

forms including metaphorical, physical, communicative, and

structural. Symbolism is everywhere, Tierney (1989) argued,

and it is the ways those symbols are used and how they are

interpreted that set the social and cultural stage for

essential dynamics between leaders, followers, and the

context in which they operate.

The challenge for LGBTQ college students, even those

who have developed healthy and self-aware identities,

presents itself when they do not see themselves reflected in

13


the positive symbolism of a predominantly heteronormative

environment (Meyer, 2010). For many, leadership is unlikely

and important stages of development are truncated or

abandoned in the face of social pressure fueled by values

and norms not inclusive of Queer identities (Lipkin, 1999).

History of Collegiate Extracurricular Activities

To understand challenges facing contemporary college

students, a historical review of collegiate extracurricular

activities, most of which were designed to train leaders and

reproduce social norms, helps provide perspective on the

many ways American perceptions of leadership continue to

embrace the heteronormative ideal. Almost from the

beginning, American higher education included

extracurricular activities that provided students with

important social opportunities, enhanced their education,

and offered an entryway into the echelon of society that

embraced and fostered the symbols of personal and

professional success (Thelin, 2011). However, activities

such as debate clubs and academic societies that were hailed

as the forbearers of instructional innovations quickly gave

14


way to university athletics and social groups that captured

the imagination of America and helped create an iconic

collegiate ideal (Thelin, 2011). The successful college

student, before women were widely accepted on the same

campuses as men, was young, strong, athletic, and a natural-

born leader (Rudolph, 1990).

The extracurricular activities that came to shape, and

often define, collegiate life can be traced back as early as

1753, when debate clubs and literary societies began

appearing on college campuses (Rudolph, 1990). First

appearing at Yale, then making their way to Harvard and

Princeton, these student-organized clubs provided both an

alternative to the era’s rigid religious instruction, as

well as early leadership opportunities for the students who

ran them. The college curriculum’s primary attention to

piety and religion “undercut any possibility of a pervading

intellectual purpose” (Rudolph, 1990, p. 140) and had little

focus on preparing graduates for successful lives and

careers. Inspired, in part, by the French Revolution,

students took it upon themselves to study material outside

15


the confines of theocracy, and in their debate clubs

discovered a world of rationality, practicality, and reason

not found in the dean’s chambers or lecture halls (Lucas,

2006). Rather than studying scripture and preparing for

entry into heaven, the young men were concerned with the

practical matters of success in this world (Thelin, 2011).

The intellectual enlightenment did not last and at the

turn of the century, colleges found themselves a central

part of an American religious revival (Rudolph, 1990). At

Yale, the birthplace of the student-led exploration of

intellect and reason, there was now an organization known as

the Moral Society, which required its members to live by the

tenets of the Bible (Rudolph, 1990). With contemporary

notions of diversity and inclusion still many decades away,

it is safe to assume open homosexuality was either unheard

of or universally condemned. Similarly, an organization

known as the Theological Society was founded at Dartmouth

that admonished all acts of vice by its members (Lucas,

2006). The swing back to religious piety on the part of many

collegiate extracurricular groups provided little in terms

16


of practical career preparation and helped set the stage for

the next student revolution.

Historians often divide eras of American higher

education into two main parts: the years leading up to 1850

and the years that follow. Brubacher and Rudy (1997) wrote

of this thematic divide; “During the first of these college

eras, religious influences were important, a strict system

of moralistic discipline prevailed. . . . In the second

period, ebullient student energies found new outlets in

intercollegiate athletics and the varied activities of

Greek-letter fraternities” (p. 39). As late as 1860, Yale

held that if any student admitted to or encouraged a

“disbelief in the divine” (Lucas, 2006, p. 130) and anything

less than adherence to the strictest moral codes of the

Bible, they would risk being expelled.

As American colleges and universities gradually moved

from religious instruction to secular education, student

interest in extracurricular activities became much more

social in nature and less grounded in academics and debate

(Rudolph, 1990). Most historians point to 1840 as the year

17


Greek-letter fraternities were in most of the colleges of

New York and New England (Rudolph, 1990); however, more

important than the exact year was the impact they had on

student life, their lasting implications for the future of

extracurricular activities, and the cementing of the

collegiate ideal as virulent, heterosexual, and athletic

White males. More than a growing disinterest in intellectual

pursuits, the social function of the fraternities and the

loyalty they demanded from their members helped contribute

to the decline of student academic societies (Torbenson,

2009).

Fraternities and sororities also contributed to the

sense that American higher education in the early 1900s was

marked less by academic achievement and more by social

success (Thelin, 2011). Reacting to the relative monotony

students found in the classrooms of the time, they

established and discovered a new world of privilege, social

networking, and entertainment. “In essence, the fraternity

movement was institutionalizing new prestige values, the

attributes of a successful man of the world, this world, at

18


the expense of various signs of Christian grace - humility,

equality, and morality” (Rudolph, 1990, p. 148). However,

one cannot help but wonder which students were continually

left out even as American collegiate life switched from the

strict control of religious instruction to the exclusive

secular societies and clubs that embraced the hegemonic

masculine ideals of the 1920s and ’30s. A prime example of

Queer ostracization came when Harvard’s Secret Court

conducted interrogative interviews of 30 students and

expelled eight who they deemed guilty of homosexual

activity. That event resulted in two suicides and several

destroyed careers (Wright, 2005).

However, for most students on campus, the party

continued unabated as American pop culture became

“fascinated with undergraduate collegiate life” (Thelin,

2011, p. 168). Eventually, challenges to the image of the

virile, White, hegemonically masculine college student began

in earnest in the 1930s, when increased access for women

ushered in a migration toward coeducational institutions. In

1944, the Serviceman’s Readjustment Act, better known as the

19


GI Bill, provided a federally supported initiative that

brought unprecedented access and diversity to America’s

college campuses (Thelin, 2003).

The years between 1968 and 1972 brought notable student

unrest, as the Vietnam War and the Civil Rights Movement

began to shape and affect the college experience (Thelin,

2003). A new era of student protests, political organizing,

and counter-culture extracurricular activities was born.

While iconic images remain of the hippie movement that

identified a generation, some historians argue that anti-war

student activism had a long history on college campuses,

dating back to the Civil War (McGill-Peterson, 1972). As for

student organization reaching what is considered the modern

summit of political protests, other research showed that

activism and efforts toward diversity were not as widespread

as often believed. The largest student activist organization

at the time, the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) had

300 chapters in the 1960s, which represented just 15% of

college campuses (Van Dyke, 1998). On college campuses where

student activism has ben found around one issue, there was

20


likely to be activism around several related issues (Van

Dyke, 1998). This appeared to be true with the gay rights

movement, where the fight for visibility provided meaningful

student leadership opportunities for Queer students and

their allies (Beemyn, 2003). Once again, extracurricular

activities on college campuses extended into American life.

Extracurricular Activities and Equal Rights

The beginning of America’s gay rights movement is often

marked by the Stonewall riots of 1969; however, by the time

those riots took place, student organizers at Columbia and

Cornell had been leading equality efforts on their campuses

and forming the nation’s first LGBTQ student groups (Beemyn,

2003). The first student gay rights organization was the

Student Homophile League (SHL) created and led by Robert

Martin at Columbia University in 1965 (Beemyn, 2003). Since

there were almost no legal protections for Queer student

leaders at the time, Martin used the pseudonym Stephen

Donaldson to protect himself from negative repercussions

that could have stemmed from organizing a group of LGBTQ

students and their supporters (Beemyn, 2003). In 1967, when

21


Columbia University officially chartered the SHL, the New

York Times ran a front-page article that sparked considerable

debate and suggested the university was supporting of a

student group that seemed to flagrantly flout New York

State’s sodomy laws (Beemyn, 2003). Society was not ready to

accept the validity of an LGBTQ student organization. Sodomy

laws across the United States would stay on the books for 36

more years, until a landmark decision by the Supreme Court

ruled them unconstitutional.

In 1967, another Queer student leader named Jearld

Moldenhauer approached Martin about creating a chapter of

SHL on Cornell’s campus (Beemyn, 2003). Met with

considerable challenges to find students who were willing to

openly identify as gay or lesbian, by 1968, Moldenhauer

eventually enlisted the support of gay students and their

allies to become members of the first chartered chapter of

the SHL (Beemyn, 2003). The Cornell chapter would become

more militant and confrontational in their activities and

change their name to the Gay Liberation Front (GLF), a move

22


that modeled both the Black Liberation Front and the Women’s

Liberation front on Cornell’s campus (Beemyn, 2003).

Before long, legal challenges would turn Queer student

leaders into courtroom defendants. Two of the first landmark

court cases to provide a legal foundation for the rights of

LGBTQ student organizations came in 1972 in the cases of

Healy v. James and Wood v. Davison (Rullman, 1991). Both cases

cited the First Amendment rights of freedom of association

to justify the presence and official support of LGBTQ

student groups on campus. Similar to the challenges against

Columbia’s SHL, two colleges in New Hampshire and Virginia

attempted to use sodomy laws to exclude LGBTQ groups from

their campuses (Rullman, 1991). As late as 1987, Georgetown

University was still waging a legal battle based on their

refusal to recognize or welcome a group known as the Gay

Rights Coalition. The District of Columbia Court of Appeals

eventually decided that providing equal access to college

services and facilities was a necessary, but still measured,

responsibility of the university (Rullman, 1991).

23


In today’s age of the Internet and online social

networking, a new reality is emerging where the next era in

collegiate extracurricular activities might not be on campus

facilities at all, but rather in a virtual space that offers

even greater availability and access (Mehra, Merkel, &

Bishop, 2004). While the hard-fought victories of Queer

student groups on campus remain a relevant and visible

testament to the pursuit of equality, and colleges across

the country have longstanding and active LGBTQ groups, the

era of social media and online networking makes a local

physical presence slightly less critical. Still in its

relative infancy, social media for educational purposes

remains limited; however, student use of those online

platforms for extracurricular activities shows patterns of

greater acceptance (Roblyer, McDaniel, Webb, Herman, &

Witty, 2010).

Social Construction in Queer Identity Development

Are Queer college students getting the leadership

development they need to establish successful careers? Are

there opportunities to create respectful, inclusive, and

24


affirming online and virtual spaces that foster healthy

sexual and gender identity development while building

leadership skills necessary to succeed in today’s more

competitive world?

This section first explores the main theories of sexual

and gender identity development and the many ways,

particularly through a social constructivist approach, that

leadership development intersects with sexual and gender

identity. Using a social justice leadership lens, which

Theoharis (2007) defined as “these principles [that] make

issues of race, class, gender, disability, sexual

orientation, and other historically and currently

marginalized conditions in the United States central to

their advocacy, leadership, practice, and vision” (p. 223),

this section and the one that follows considers social media

and networking spaces that disrupt traditionally

heterosexist and heteronormative models of leadership

training.

Cass (1979) created a framework for understanding a

more fully formed gay identity. Cass’s model of identity

25


formation characterizes a process through which sexual

identity development occurs through six distinct but related

stages: identity confusion, identity comparison, identity

tolerance, identity acceptance, identity pride, and identity

synthesis (Cass, 1979, pp. 222-235). While the Cass model is

still considered a seminal piece in sexual identity

development, critics point to the relative absence or

subordination of social, environmental, and contextual

factors that likely contribute to identity development (Renn

& Bilodeau, 2005; Stevens, 2004).

In response to the limits of identity stage theory,

Lipkin (1999) argued that a human development perspective,

which can be seen as a both a counter to and an extension of

the Cass model, relies less on heteronormative filters for

understanding sexual and gender identity and “recognizes

that people come to their orientations via their singular

constitutions and unique life experiences” (p. 115).

Furthering the argument that personal characteristics and

lived experiences shape identity, D’Augelli (1994)

articulated a more socially constructed perspective on

26


sexual identity development, where environmental influences

and a person’s social and interpersonal interactions shape

his or her many intersections of identity. “Becoming

lesbian, gay, bisexual requires two processes. On one hand,

it involves a conscious distancing from heterosexist

essentialism–the person must become ‘ex-heterosexual’. . . .

She or he must also create a new identity oriented around

homosocial and homosexual dimensions” (D’Augelli, 1994, p.

313).

For college students experiencing new dimensions of

leadership and sexual identity development, it may be

important to consider both the Cass (1979) stage model and

D’Augelli’s (1994) development tasks and how they engage

with what Stevens (2004) labeled critical incidents or

events that affect and drive Queer youth identity

development. Those incidents, which can be both detrimental

and empowering to LGBTQ students, help establish complex

relationships between an individual and his or her

environment and affect everything from interpersonal

abilities to leadership development (Coleman, 1982).

27


Positive incidents, Stevens (2004) posited, such as finding

accepting and environments bring increased comfort and

better integration of a student’s Queer identity with other

developmental processes; negative incidents have the

opposite effect.

While many Queer young adults consider college an

opportunity to explore and develop their emerging identities

(Rhoads, 1997), not every campus community is welcoming and

affirming of such diversity. Students moving through

dimensions of LGBTQ sexual identity development, in fact,

have a more negative impression of their college

environments than their heterosexual peers (Rankin, 2006).

It also seems that student outcomes for Queer students are

closely tied to the perception they have of being part of an

inclusive and non-discriminatory place (Brown, Clarke,

Gortmaker, & Robinson-Keilig, 2004). The question is, can

virtual environments and online communities provide that

affirmation when students do not experience it on their

brick and mortar campuses?

28


The question should not be a rhetorical one. A number

of studies suggest that Queer students encounter high rates

of verbal harassment and even physical assault on many

college campuses (Rankin, 2006). Along with their senses of

ostracization and marginalization, LGBTQ students must also

navigate all the same academic pressures and extracurricular

environments as their heterosexual counterparts, but with

the added distraction needing to assess every situation for

potential homophobia or heterosexism (Stevens, 2004).

For Queer college students the act of identity

disclosure or coming out is necessary to navigate through

D’Augelli’s (1994) tasks of developing a lesbian-gay-

bisexual identity and entering a lesbian-gay-bisexual

community, but it brings risk as well as reward (Renn &

Bilodeau, 2007). The notion of empowerment through a

continual and dynamic identity disclosure process appears to

help move Queer college students along through key

developmental milestones, including self-acceptance and

becoming members of a community (Renn & Bilodeau, 2007).

Those two notions, accepting your sexual or gender identity

29


and finding a supportive and inclusive environment could be

the foundation of any strong leader. A healthy sense of

empowerment is also necessary to move a student from merely

accepting his or her compartmentalized LGBTQ identity to

celebrating, embracing, and integrating their sexual selves

as just one dimension of their identity whole (Stevens,

2004).

Leadership Intersections

Other more institutional or public forms of empowerment

are also associated with individuals who have embraced their

Queer identities and become visible and vocal activists for

change. In his review of the transformation of Penn State’s

stance toward gay and lesbian students, D’Augelli (1989)

discussed empowerment as it relates to LGBTQ students taking

control of the campus discourse around topics of gender

expression and sexual identity. “I use empowerment in this

discussion to describe processes that produce awareness of

the oppressive structures that disenfranchise lesbians and

gay men on campus” (D’Augelli, 1989, p. 126). In that

regard, empowerment can be seen as the first step in the

30


leadership process defined by Komives et al. as “A

relational and ethical process of people together attempting

to accomplish positive change” (2013, p. 14).

While not limited to Queer or LGBTQ student groups, the

crossroads between personal and institutional empowerment on

college campuses often seem to lie within the intersections

of identity-specific leadership activities and the

development of leadership skills that can be applied in more

general settings (Renn & Bilodeau, 2005a). In her case for

teaching leadership skills, Meyer (2010) asserted, “In order

to prepare students to be active and engaged citizens in a

pluralistic, democratic society, schools can offer models of

how to solve conflicts, learn across differences, and gain

strength from diverse perspectives and ideas” (p. 115).

While Meyer (2010) was specifically referring to Queer

students and their desire to both establish and locate

affirming environments, those qualities could be the mark of

any good leader regardless of sexual orientation, gender

identity, or gender expression.

31


According to Renn and Bilodeau (2005b) opportunities

for leadership in student clubs engage all six of

D’Augelli’s (1994) interactive, and more socially

constructed, processes for developing an integrated and

empowered Queer identity; at the same time establishing

important foundations on which LGBTQ young adults can

develop into effective and successful leaders. The study

compared each phase of the D’Augelli model and applied them

to real experiences of LGBTQ student leaders. Geared

primarily toward new student affairs professionals, the

authors warn about a “gap in preparation” (Renn & Bilodeau,

2005b, p. 67) for practitioners who might not be adequately

prepared to address the unique leadership and developmental

needs of Queer students (Renn & Bilodeau, 2005a). Looking

even more carefully at the intersections of Queer identity

development and leadership development, Renn and Bilodeau

argued in another study that identity-based groups “take on

a special importance to students from groups historically

marginalized in higher education” (2005a, p. 344). In

developing a leadership identity process, they point to a

32


social change model of leadership, again consistent with the

definition of leadership put forth by Komives et al.

Renn and Bilodeau (2005a) identified six stages of

leadership identity, which they define as, “an awareness

that [one] can make a difference and can work effectively

with others to accomplish change” (p. 346). The stages

include awareness that leadership is happening around you;

exploration or engagement including intentional involvement

with the group; leader identified, where leadership is seen

as positional roles held by others; leadership

differentiated, where individuals recognize leadership is

not always positional; generativity that shows commitment to

a personal passion; and internalization or synthesis, which

involves continued self-development and lifelong learning

(Renn & Bilodeau, 2005a). In each circumstance, it was the

combined influence of sexual identity development and an

increased sense of personal and community responsibility

that led the student activists to increasing levels of

leadership development (Renn & Bilodeau, 2005a).

33


In theory, as well as in practice, the importance of

developing student leaders to be vocal and visible activists

working together for change is shown to be critically

important to their sexual and social development (Renn &

Bilodeau, 2005a), as well as their commitment to move the

worlds they experience toward a more affirming and accepting

place (Meyer, 2010). Unfortunately, the realities of campus

life facing Queer students reflect a world where LGBTQ

identities are not always celebrated or affirmed. One study

indicates that more than one-third of LGBTQ undergraduate

students have experienced harassment on campus, while 20%

have feared for their physical safety (Rankin, 2005).

However, as the era of social media and online

networking continues to unfold, a student’s presence on

campus to foster both community and leadership development

opportunities may become less important. While the use of

Facebook to foster student engagement with course-related

materials has been disappointing (Dyson, Vickers, Turtle,

Cowan & Tassone, 2015), and others simply use social media

as a distraction from academics (Lint, 2013), student use of

34


social media for extracurricular activities shows a pattern

of wider acceptance (Roblyer et al., 2010).

While the use of Facebook, specifically, does not have

a direct correlation to better learning and student

engagement, there is strong evidence that students who use

social media engage with one another more frequently and

enjoy increased participation and even leadership roles in

organized events (Junco, 2012). Ultimately, the next

evolution of student groups and leadership opportunities on

campus might not be on campus at all, but rather in virtual

spaces and online networking. To better understand some of

those emerging opportunities, it is important to look at the

current state of online teaching and learning, as those

technologies in conjunction with social media will

fundamentally shape any meaningful online learning or

leadership training.

Technology as a Platform for Social Construction

Advances in technology for online teaching and learning

(OTL) have lead to significant developments in the field,

including the creation of one of the most visible platforms,

35


massive open online courses (MOOCs) (Pappano, 2012).

However, while initial enrollment in MOOCs is typically very

high, the meager success and student retention associated

with these online offerings have not lived up to their hype

(Rivard, 2013). One of the most public examples of MOOC

underperformance at a collegiate level comes from San José

State University in California, where in July 2013, it was

announced that their partnership with MOOC provider and

creator Udacity would be put on hold (Rivard, 2013). With

just 51% of the students enrolled in their OTL courses, San

José State had little alternative than to re-examine their

foray into virtual learning spaces (Rivard, 2013).

Even though reinventing traditional classroom education

into online alternatives faces considerable challenges,

technology is clearly changing the playing field and there

are elements of the student experience in OTL platforms that

offer real promise for leadership development and

extracurricular pursuits. As Tenner (2012) wrote of some of

the early failures of online education, “This doesn’t mean

rejecting web-based technology in education, any more than

36


we renounce washing machines” (para. 5). Indeed, advances in

design technology have allowed online learning to grow from

basic text-only formats to virtual platforms that engage

powerful social networking tools (Keengwe & Schnellert,

2012). Those advances mean our socially constructed

realities are also new territories and fields to grow.

Komives et al. (2013) wrote, “Our technology is changing,

our demographics are changing, the concept of a neighborhood

has changed . . . how we learn is changing, and how we

relate to each other through social media has changed the

formation of relationships” (p. 55).

Forming relationships online often develops through

useful interactivity, and it is a critical element in OTL

platforms, particularly for leadership development training,

which consistently relies on meaningful social engagement

and relevant feedback from peers. While many OTL software

packages pay considerable attention to how students interact

with the instructor and the content, a growing number are

now providing an increased focus on how students engage with

each other (Contact North, 2013). In this regard, a social

37


constructivist approach benefits from improved social

networking technologies and helps provide more experiential

and problem-solving components into a digital learning

environment (Brophy & Craven, 2007). Citing a style that

helps “encourage students to interpret, analyze, and predict

information” (Peerani, 2013, p. 32), the social

constructivist approach seems best suited for job training,

leadership development, and practical applications that ask

students to scaffold much of what they already know with

new, cooperatively learned information. Popular on many

social media platforms, discussion boards and feedback

forums provide important platforms for students to interact

with each other, the instructor, and the content (Peerani,

2013).

Creating collaborative online learning communities is

paramount when considering online leadership development for

Queer students, particularly those who have been subjected

to negative experiences in the classroom (Crowley, 2010).

While a sense of community and interactive collaboration are

important to most learners, Mehra et al. (2004) argued that

38


it becomes a critical necessity for students who have been

denied a sense of belonging in the classroom or on campus,

and who actively seek out opportunities to connect, learn,

and express themselves. Lint (2013) pointed out that while

student retention and persistence in online learning can be

challenging, with 20-50% of online students dropping out of

their learning, students who are socially and academically

integrated tend to stay enrolled and persist until

graduation. Of course, too much social interaction can be

detrimental to student success. One solution, Lint

suggested, is “for academic institutions to reinforce social

media platforms into being an educational positive

interaction” (2013, p. 9). Utilizing social media platforms

as a way to enhance OTL and improve student success and

retention offers a compelling argument for thinking of

online environments as more than digital answers to

traditional brick and mortar classrooms (Lint, 2013).

Instead, bringing the most pedagogically sound instructional

methods together with profound emphasis on social media and

the intersection between socially constructed sexual and

39


leadership identities may point the way to online

alternatives for marginalized students (Mehra et al., 2004).

Part online classroom, part virtual social gathering, a new

future of extracurricular leadership training could be on

the horizon for learners who have either felt shut out or

unwelcome in traditional student club settings.

40


Chapter 3

Leadentity: An Online Leadership Training Proposal

Fostering participation and interaction in online

spaces, particularly from a social constructivist

perspective, is an important first element to student

success (Keengwe & Schnellert, 2012). The primacy of

creating a collaborative community becomes even more

apparent when designing learning and leadership development

opportunities for LGBTQ students who have been marginalized

and denied a sense of belonging, and who would most benefit

from meaningful opportunities to connect, learn, and express

themselves (Mehra et al., 2004). Recent studies have

suggested that interaction between Queer students in social

networking and virtual online settings may provide a safer

environment where they can build a sense of community and

share experiences related to identity development (Crowley,

2010). While the Internet offers a host of opportunities for

Queer students to meet and connect, not all of them can be

considered safe or affirming and few, if any, overtly

connect the intersecting identities between leadership and

41


sexual orientation. Built on the premise that

extracurricular activities strengthen and enhance college

experiences, a new website called Leadentity (2015) could

provide a digital bridge between the history of student

activism and activities traditionally found on college

campuses and introduce those elements, along with valuable

leadership training, to the experiences of today’s online

students.

Currently in development and beta testing, Leadentity

(2015) is a website that offers a platform to overtly

connects leadership training with sexual and gender identity

development. With attention placed on building spaces that

promote interactive learning, virtual social engagement, and

personal and professional networking, Leadentity is guided

by an understanding that leadership, sexual, and gender

identities are socially constructed. Its interactive online

platform provides as its main educational offering live

online workshops that could be staffed by volunteer

educators and professionals, made available through free and

user-friendly videoconferencing services such as Google

42


Hangouts and YouTube live streaming. Those easy-access and

multimedia platforms connect learners with experienced LGBTQ

allies and professionals who are skilled and experienced in

leadership training, and who can speak to leadership and

identity development as they pertain to a healthy,

empowered, and socially connected Queer self-image.

The content for the Leadentity website, which is named

for its combination of leadership and identity, is currently

informed by the Rochester Center for Community Leadership at

the University of Rochester (2014), which identified several

key areas for training. From those key areas, Leadentity

focuses on six main topics to approach in relational terms

with team members, including prioritizing your time,

motivating team members, effective event planning, conflict

management, setting goals, and building a leadership image.

Instructional development for each topic would be created

and managed by professionals in education and leadership

training, with specific attention to meeting the needs of

Queer students who have been shut out of other

extracurricular opportunities for leadership development or

43


who do not have safe and affirming resources where they work

or go to school (Leadentity, 2014).

To help foster dialog and embrace the socially

constructed nature of leadership, sexual identity, and

gender expression, two additional services, a secure live

chat room and an ongoing discussion forum, would be provided

on the site. As Lint (2013) pointed out, education-positive

social networking opportunities would likely foster better

student engagement and retention. To that end, participants

would be encouraged to follow Leadentity.org on Twitter and

become active participants and commentators on its Facebook

page. User engagement on those more established social media

sites would help drive off-site conversations regarding

leadership training and help provide a sense of an online

community of learners. To help ensure safe and affirming

online spaces, each volunteer or educational professional

would need to complete Safe Space or Safe Zone training,

with similar instruction offered as a core course for

participating students. That guidance may be critically

important when working with discussion boards and other

44


interactive forums where harassment or cyber bullying could

take place (Cooper & Blumenfeld, 2012).

In addition to the interactive workshops and networking

opportunities, Leadentity.org would offer a job posting

board as well as special Google Hangouts or other

videoconferences with job placement counselors. Helpful tips

and professional advice in those sessions could include

everything from writing effective résumés to the appropriate

dress for a job interview. Leadentity.org would also include

a resources page for any user looking for more information

on a variety of leadership, sexual orientation, or gender

identity, and gender expression topics. Although an online

or virtual setting designed to provide guidance with

leadership and identity development is not a substitute for

a welcoming, inclusive, and affirming college campus,

Leadentity’s potential for pooling resources, attracting an

international network of educators and learners, and

developing a real sense of community could make a it a

viable and compelling opportunity for Queer students who

want to grow into effective and ethical leaders.

45


Chapter 5

Opportunities for Further Research

While leadership, sexual orientation, gender, and

gender expression identity have been studied and continue to

evolve as critical disciplines, the intersections of

leadership and Queer identity, particularly for target

populations such as college students, has only emerged as

field of study within the past five to 10 years. For that

reason, the Leadentity.org project would present unique

insight not only into leadership training for college

students who identify as LGBTQ or Queer, but it would also

inform the study of online teaching and learning and the

connected influence of social media and social network

technologies. Quantitative studies could look at data around

the number of students participating in the training, the

statistics of persistence and attrition, and the cumulative

data of website data and user analytics.

Qualitative or mixed method studies could be powerful

and useful indicators of the experiences of the students and

Leadentity.org website users. Did the students feel

46


empowered or indifferent? Did an online environment create

an inclusive community or was there still a sense of

marginalization and isolation? Ultimately, the answers, data

points, empirical statistics, and experiential value of

online extracurricular training could inform the field of

online teaching and learning in direct and meaningful ways.

47


References

Beemyn, B. (2003). The silence is broken: A history of the

first lesbian, gay, and bisexual college student

groups. Journal of the History of Sexuality, 12(2), 205-223.

Brown, R. D., Clarke, B., Gortmaker, V., & Robinson-Keilig,

R. (2004). Assessing the campus climate for gay,

lesbian, bisexual, and transgender (GLBT) students

using a multiple perspectives approach. Journal of College

Student Development, 45(1), 8-26.

Brophy, P., & Craven, J. (2007). Web accessibility. Library

Trends, 55(4), 950-972.

Brubacher, J. S., & Rudy, W. (1997). Higher education in transition:

A history of American colleges and universities. New Brunswick, NJ:

Transaction.

Cass, V. C. (1979). Homosexual identity formation: A

theoretical model. Journal of Homosexuality, 4(3), 219-235.

Coleman, E. (1982). Developmental stages of the coming out

process. Journal of Homosexuality, 7(2-3), 31-43.

Contact North. (2013). Five fundamental challenges for online learning

in Ontario. Retrieved December 9, 2013, from Ontario

48


Online Learning Portal for Faculty & Instructors

http://www.contactnorth.ca/trends-directions/five-

fundamental-challenges-online

Cooper, R. M., & Blumenfeld, W. J. (2012). Responses to

cyberbullying: A descriptive analysis of the frequency

and impact of LGBT and allied youth. Journal of LGBT Youth,

9(2), 153-177.

Crowley, M. S. (2010). Chapter ten: Defining themselves:

LGBQS youth online. In C. C. Bertram, M. S. Crowley, &

S. Massey (Eds.), Beyond progress and marginalization: LGBTQ

youth in educational contexts (pp. 250-278). New York, NY:

Peter Lang.

D’Augelli, A. R. (1989). Lesbians and gay men on campus:

Visibility, empowerment, and educational leadership.

Peabody Journal of Education, 66(3), 124-142.

D’Augelli, A. R. (1994). Identity development and sexual

orientation: Toward a model of lesbian, gay, and

bisexual development. In E. J. Trickett, R. J. Watts, &

D. Birman (Eds.), Human diversity: Perspectives on people in

context. (pp. 312-333). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

49


Dyson, B., Vickers, K., Turtle, J., Cowan, S., & Tassone, A.

(2015). Evaluating the use of Facebook to increase

student engagement and understanding in lecture-based

classes. Higher Education, 69(2), 303-313.

Junco, R. (2012). The relationship between frequency of

Facebook use, participation in Facebook activities, and

student engagement. Computers & Education, 58(1), 162-171.

Keengwe, J., & Schnellert, G. (2012). Fostering interaction

to enhance learning in online learning environments.

International Journal of Information and Communication Technology

Education, 8(3), 28-35.

Kezar, A. J., Carducci, R., & Contreras-McGavin, M. (2006).

Rethinking the “L” word in higher education: The revolution of research on

leadership (ASHE higher education report). Hoboken, NJ:

Wiley.

Komives, S. R., Lucas, N., & McMahon, T. R. (2013). Exploring

leadership: For college students who want to make a difference. San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

50


Leadentity. (2014). Leadentity: Where leadership and identity meet.

Retrieved April 13, 2015, from

http://www.leadentity.org

Lint, A. H. (2013). Academic persistence of online students

in higher education impacted by student progress

factors and social media. Online Journal of Distance Learning

Administration, 16(4).

Lipkin, A. (1999). Understanding homosexuality, changing schools: A text

for teachers, counselors, and administrators. Boulder, CO:

Westview.

Lucas, C. J. (2006). American higher education: A history. New York,

NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

McGill-Peterson, P. (1972). Student organizations and the

antiwar movement in America, 1900-1960. American Studies,

13(1) 131-147.

Mehra, B., Merkel, C., & Bishop, A. P. (2004). The Internet

for empowerment of minority and marginalized users.

New Media & Society, 6(6), 781-802.

51


Meyer, E. J. (2010). Gender and sexual diversity in schools: An

introduction (Vol. 10). New York, NY: Springer.

doi:10.1007/978-90-481-8559-7

Pappano, L. (2012, November 4). The year of the MOOC. The

New York Times. Retrieved from

http://www.nytimes.come/2012/11/04/education/edlife/mas

sive-open-online-courses-are-multiplying-at-a-rapid-

pace.html?pagewanted+all&_r=0

Peerani, N. (2013). Barriers to distance learning: The

educator’s viewpoint. Distance Learning, 10(2), 29-33.

Rankin, S. R. (2005). Campus climates for sexual minorities.

In R. Sanlo (Ed.), Gender identity and sexual orientation:

Research, policy, and personal (New Directions for Student

Services No. 111, pp. 17-23). San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.

Rankin, S. R. (2006). LGBTQA students on campus: Is higher

education making the grade? Journal of Gay & Lesbian Issues in

Education, 3(2-3), 111-117.

52


Renn, K. A., (2010). LGBT and queer research in higher

education: The state and status of the field. Educational

Researcher, 39(2), 132-141.

Renn, K. A., & Bilodeau, B. L. (2005a). Leadership identity

development among lesbian, gay, bisexual, and

transgender student leaders. Journal of Student Affairs Research

and Practice, 42(3), 342-367.

Renn, K. A., & Bilodeau, B. L. (2005b). Queer student

leaders: An exploratory case study of identity

development and LBGT student involvement at a

midwestern research university. Journal of Gay & Lesbian

Issues in Education, 2(4), 49-71.

Renn, K. A., & Bilodeau, B. L. (2007). LGBT student leaders

and queer activists: Identities of lesbian, gay,

bisexual, transgender, and queer identified college

student leaders and activists. Journal of College Development,

48(3), 311-330.

Rhoads, R. A. (1997). Implications of the growing visibility

of gay and bisexual male students on campus. NASPA

Journal, 34(4), 275-286.

53


Rivard, R. (2013, July 18). Udacity project on pause. Inside

Higher Ed. Retrieved from

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/07/18/citing-

disappointing-student-outcomes-san-jose-state-pauses-

work-udacity

Roblyer, M. D., McDaniel, M., Webb, M., Herman, J., & Witty,

J. V. (2010). Findings on Facebook in higher education:

A comparison of college faculty and student uses and

perceptions of social networking sites. The Internet and

Higher Education, 13(3), 134-140.

Rudolph, F. (1990). The American college and university: A history.

Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press.

Rullman, L. J. (1991). A legal history: University

recognition of homosexual organizations. ACU-I Bulletin,

59(2), 4-9.

Stevens, R. A. (2004). Understanding gay identity

development within the college environment. Journal of

College Student Development, 45(2), 185-206.

54


Tierney, W. G. (1989). Symbolism and presidential

perceptions of leadership. Review of Higher Education, 12(2),

153-166.

Tenner, E., (2012, December 18). Who are MOOCs most likely

to help? The Atlantic. Retrieved from

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/12/w

ho-are-moocs-most-likely-to-help/266337/

Thelin, J. R. (2003). Historical overview of American higher

education. In S. R. Komives & D. B. Woodard (Eds.),

Student services: A handbook for the profession (pp. 3-22). San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Thelin, J. R. (2011). A history of American higher education.

Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Theoharis, G. (2007). Social justice educational leaders and

resistance: Toward a theory of social justice

leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly 43(2), 221-

258.

Torbenson, C. L. (2009). From the beginning: A history of

college fraternities and sororities. In C. L. Torbenson

& G. S. Parks (Eds.), Brothers and sisters: Diversity in college

55


fraternities and sororities (pp. 15-46). Cranbury, NJ:

Associated University Presses.

University of Rochester. (2014). Rochester Center for Community

Leadership: Leadership tips. Retrieved December 5, 2014, from

http://www.rochester.edu.college/rccl/assets/pdf/Leader

shipTips.pdf

Van Dyke, N. (1998). Hotbeds of activism: Locations of

student protest. Social Problems, 45(2), 205-220.

Wright, W. (2005). Harvard’s secret court: The savage 1920 purge of

campus homosexuals. New York, NY: St. Martin’s.

56

Leadership Training for LGBTQ College Students: Looking for Opportunity in Online and Virtual Spaces

Documents

Transcript of Leadership Training for LGBTQ College Students: Looking for Opportunity in Online and Virtual Spaces