How LGBT College Students Perceive and Engage

Journal of Homosexuality

ISSN: 0091-8369 (Print) 1540-3602 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjhm20

How LGBT College Students Perceive and Engage the Campus Religious and Spiritual Climate Alyssa N. Rockenbach PhD, Marc A. Lo & Matthew J. Mayhew PhD To cite this article: Alyssa N. Rockenbach PhD, Marc A. Lo & Matthew J. Mayhew PhD (2016): How LGBT College Students Perceive and Engage the Campus Religious and Spiritual Climate, Journal of Homosexuality, DOI: 10.1080/00918369.2016.1191239 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2016.1191239

Accepted author version posted online: 23 May 2016. Published online: 23 May 2016. Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 115

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wjhm20 Download by: [Nationwide Childrens Hospital]

Date: 31 October 2016, At: 12:06

JOURNAL OF HOMOSEXUALITY http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2016.1191239

How LGBT College Students Perceive and Engage the Campus Religious and Spiritual Climate Alyssa N. Rockenbach, PhDa, Marc A. Lob, and Matthew J. Mayhew, PhDc a Department of Educational Leadership, Policy, and Higher Development, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina, USA; bDepartment of Administration, Leadership and Technology, New York University, New York, New York, USA; cDepartment of Educational Studies, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA

ABSTRACT

KEYWORDS

The purpose of this study was to compare how students of diverse sexual orientations and gender identities perceive the campus religious and spiritual climate and engage in interfaith and spiritual activities during college. Using data from a national study of 13,776 students at 52 institutions that took part in the Campus Religious and Spiritual Climate Survey, results indicate significant variations in perceptions and engagement by sexual orientation and gender identity. In addition, worldview identity shapes the relationships between sexual orientation and gender identity and perceptions of and engagement on campus.

Campus climate; college students; higher education; LGBT identity; religion; spirituality

According to the 2010 State of Higher Education report detailing the experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and trans*1(LGBT) people on campus, a chilly campus climate continues to disrupt the safety and wellbeing of LGBT students, faculty, and staff at colleges and universities across the country (Rankin, Weber, Blumenfeld, & Frazer, 2010). The report’s authors present compelling evidence that, when compared with their heterosexual allies, LGBT individuals face significantly higher levels of harassment and discrimination—a reality that is even more pronounced for people who claim gender identities outside of the masculine/feminine binary (i.e., transfeminine, transmasculine, and gender non-conforming people). The report also alludes to the encounters with intersecting forms of oppression reported by those with more than one minoritized identity, namely LGBT people of color, who may experience homophobia, transphobia, and racism (Rankin et al., 2010). Rather than viewing their environment through singular identity lenses, students tend to experience campus life from the vantage point of multiple identities that uniquely interface in complex ways. How do LGBT students make meaning of the campus climate for religious, spiritual, and ideological diversity? As religious and spiritual frameworks have CONTACT Alyssa N. Rockenbach [email protected] Department of Educational Leadership, Policy, and Higher Development, North Carolina State University, 300N Poe Hall, Box 7801, Raleigh, NC 27695-7801, USA. © 2016 Taylor & Francis

2

A. N. ROCKENBACH ET AL.

played an important role in recent public discourse around LGBT rights and equality—and as students, faculty, and administrators increasingly participate in this conversation—now is an appropriate moment to examine empirically how LGBT students situate themselves within religious and spiritual spaces on campus. With the campus environment serving as a critical context for the formation of late to post-adolescent identity (see Evans, Forney, Guido, Patton, & Renn, 2010; Stevens, 2004), the perceptions of the religious and spiritual climate from the perspective of LGBT students—for whom religious identity may be a point of tension—may further understanding of how environments are perceived to support the expression and exploration of identity intersections. To this end, the present study considers the notion of intersectionality, or how two or more social group memberships interact to create unique experiences that transcend the original social identity categories (Crenshaw, 1989; McCall, 2005). Taken in concert with a campus ecology framework (see Renn, 2012b), this study specifically examines how students with LGBT identities perceive and engage the religious and spiritual dimensions of campus climate, and how students’ worldviews intersect with gender identity and sexual orientation in shaping perceptions and experiences. In reviewing the relevant literature and theory and describing our methods and results, we distinguish between sexual orientation (e.g., gay, lesbian, bisexual, heterosexual) and gender identity (e.g., trans*, cisgender2). When referencing the community as a whole, we use the acronym LGBT. Otherwise, we use LGB when referring to students’ sexual orientation and trans* or identities outside the gender binary when referring to gender identity. Review of literature and theory Because this study explores differences in perceptions of and engagement with the religious and spiritual climate between lesbian, gay, bisexual, and trans* students and their heterosexual and cisgender peers, we begin with an overview and critique of LGBT identity development theory and follow with an overview of identity intersectionality; ecological frameworks as they pertain to identities within educational environments; and recent scholarship that considers the intersections of LGBT identities with religion, spirituality, and worldview among college-going students. LGBT identity development

Foundational to understanding identities and their interactions is to acknowledge how they are formed. LGBT identity construction often entails distinguishing the self from social and institutional norms. Cass (1979, 1996) pioneered the lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) development theoretical space. This early, linear model, although not particular to the college student population, illustrates the

JOURNAL OF HOMOSEXUALITY

3

evolution of homosexual identity from unawareness to identity integration. Expanding on Cass’s work, D’Augelli (1994) framed the development of LGB identity among college-going students as relational and consisting of both intrapersonal dynamics and interpersonal elements (e.g., relationships with parents/guardians, heterosexual peers, romantic partners, members of the LGBT community). McCarn and Fassinger (1996) synthesized and further developed these two theories. They view LGB identity development as the dual processes of internal definition and social/societal experiences. Relevant to this study, hallmarks of the latter stages of “group identity” include recognizing that sexual minorities are an oppressed group and affiliating socially in a manner that acknowledges oppression while constructively integrating the self within queer communities (McCarn & Fassinger, 1996). Lev (2004), meanwhile, framed trans* identity development as a heavily individualized emergent process, dependent on a series of decisions in regard to self-labeling, expression, and personal modification. In sum, much of the identity theory literature base concludes that context and community are inherently meaningful as LGBT people construct their identities. These principles of community and context undergird our study’s focus on campus climate. Identity intersectionality

Common models of LGBT identity development have their share of limitations, which come to light when viewed through critical lenses. Despite the evolution of LGBT identity development theories to include relational and group spaces (see D’Augelli, 1994; McCarn & Fassinger, 1996), these theories often neglect explicit discussion of the interaction between LGBT identities and other social group memberships (Renn, 2007, 2010). Credited with raising the profile of the intersectionality construct, Crenshaw (1989) argued that to understand the full complexity of a person’s relationship to society, identities cannot be considered in isolation. Instead, intersectionality, or the sum of the integrated experiences of identities, acknowledges the compounding effects of multiple power structures as they relate to the composite of identities. Evidence underscoring the strength of this approach in regard to sexual orientation, race, religion/worldview, class, or gender is ample, and it demonstrates how the cultural norms and social structures within each identity group affect the development, salience, and expression of another (Abes, Jones, & McEwen, 2007; Jones, 2009; Jones & McEwen, 2000; Parks, Hughes, & Matthews, 2004; Patton, 2011; Peña-Talamantes, 2013; Renn, 2003; Sanchez & Carter, 2005; Schwartz, Donovan, & Guido-DiBrito, 2009; Shek & McEwen, 2012; Stewart, 2002). Although specific individuals may vary in their capacity to make meaning of these intersections, context is the ever-present catalyst (Abes et al., 2007). The Model of Multiple Dimensions of Identity (see Abes & Jones, 2004; Abes

4


et al., 2007; Jones & McEwen, 2000) posits that all identities interact and revolve around a core sense of self. The depth of these interactions is contingent on the saliency of each identity as affected by interpersonal relationships, the broader society, and immediate events. As Wilcox (2002, 2003, 2009) has extensively observed among queer women, there is a deeply complex relationship between LGBT identity and worldview identity. These identities are formed in concert as individuals work to create a unified identity that accommodates mores and values across identity spaces that might conflict. Ecological frameworks

For LGBT college students specifically, it is unsurprising that the extant literature demonstrates the influence of the college environment on the development of sexual orientation and gender identity in connection to race, religion, and class given the number of campus-based experiences that might make these identities salient (Abes, 2012; Love, 1997, 1998; Renn, 2007; Stewart, 2009). Because this influence of college experiences on LGBT identity development may be found in multiple institutional structures (see Stevens, 2004), some deeper understanding of the role of campus ecology on identity development is necessary. As Renn (2003, 2012a) observed, when accounting for personal attributes (in this case, sexual orientation and religion/spirituality) and situating them in an ecology with high levels of interaction across and within difference, the potential for inter- and intrapersonal learning and development manifests. Scholars who acknowledge intersectional ecology elucidate the extent to which being marginalized in different ways and across different contexts affects an individual’s perception of connection to the broader society (Delgado & Stefancic, 2001; Renn, 2012a). The ecological framework synthesized by Renn (2012b) draws on the work of Urie Bronfenbrenner (1979, 1993). Summarizing his theory’s application to identity, she noted that developmental ecology, in relation to social group spaces, incorporates four elements: person, process, context, and time. The person includes the “heritage, demographics, talents, and habits of mind” as well as personality characteristics that are connected to development (Renn, 2012b, p. 263). Process, meanwhile, entails interactions with other people and the surrounding environment. Addressing context, Renn (2012b) identified the various layers as building on each other. The layers include immediate microsystems that together form a larger mesosystem filled with social stimuli; an exosystem that impacts development but is not tied to the individual; and the macrosystem of sociohistorical elements that influence experience. A final element, time, includes significant personal and societal events that affect the salience of a given experience (Renn, 2012b). For


5

example, the layers and history of heterosexism in some religious and cultural spaces, including those within higher education contexts, present a challenge for reconciling and integrating queer identities with other social identities (Abes & Jones, 2004). Spiritual development in college

Because this study relies significantly on the ecology of the campus environment—specifically, the campus religious and spiritual climate—faith development theories that address individual, relational, and communal growth that are distinct from more cognitive forms of faith development (see Fowler, 1981) serve as guiding frameworks. Parks’s (2000) notion of spiritual development across the lifespan consists of forms of knowing, dependence, and community. As knowledge evolves with life experience, forms of knowing shift from being authority-bound, to having that authority weakened via tests and evidence, to committing to a personal definition of truth, and, ultimately, to recognizing and appreciating the diverse perspectives of others. Forms of dependence are predicated on the idea that spiritual development occurs through social engagement and relationships. Thus dependence on authority shifts toward inner dependence and eventually toward interdependence marked by a healthy balance of dependence on self and others (Parks, 2000). The dynamics of knowing and dependence take place in community. Forms of community evolve from those that are homogeneous toward those that are diffuse and pluralistic. According to Parks (2000), mentoring communities are ideal for college students because they introduce difference and challenge, while providing a supportive environment for testing new forms of knowing. As previously discussed, models of LGBT identity development demonstrate how individuals experience dissonance with and ultimately challenge heteronormative master narratives, and also how patterns of social engagement shift (see Cass, 1979; D’Augelli, 1994; McCarn & Fassinger, 1996). Parks’s (2000) notions of spiritual or faith development underscore the significance of community as students undergo transitions in knowing and relating. In bringing these theoretical perspectives together, we must also consider the role of spirituality, religion, and worldview in intrapersonal and interpersonal identity spaces concerning gender identity and sexual orientation. LGBT students and campus religious and spiritual experiences

In one study exploring the interaction of sexual and religious identities within the college environment, Love, Bock, Jannarone, and Richardson (2005) described the two spaces as not necessarily opposed, but as occasionally dichotomous while working toward reconciliation. By developing a

6


relationship with God or a higher power apart from a religious institution, LGBT students are often able to experience a greater self-efficacy; sense of spirituality, self, and strength; and, ultimately, identity integration. Students unable to reconcile both aspects of their identity tend to live with the greatest sense of internalized conflict and may either compartmentalize or suppress their sexual orientation. They can also outright reject faith or perpetually exist in a state of search for some form of spirituality (Love et al., 2005). Another study of the psychology of LGB identities and spirituality substantiated that affirming religious and spiritual experiences leads to an integration of LGB and religious/spiritual selves and improved mental health (Lease, Horne, & Noffsinger-Frazier, 2005). Reinsmith-Jones (2013) further observed that for trans* individuals, the process of physically transforming one’s self leads to a spiritual rebirth. By bringing one’s physical and personal gender identities into alignment, a redefinition of spirituality and subsequent ability to find meaning and purpose in the world occurs (Reinsmith-Jones, 2013). Adapting Renn’s (2012b) exploration of identity ecology, we also acknowledge different aspects of campus and religious culture that create multiple possibilities for identity interaction. While a member of a college religious community might seek and find safe spaces for supporting non-heterosexual identities, concerns about an affiliated faith’s moral and political discourse for fostering such acceptance also exist and present barriers for the cultivation of inclusive spaces (Love, 1998). Love et al. (2005) posited that this moral conflict presents the most significant challenge for the reconciliation between the spiritual and sexual selves for college students. These barriers further magnify the effects of “homophobia, heterosexism, the discomfort with issues related to sexuality, the invisibility of sexual minorities, and the stigma associated with homosexuality” (Love, 1998, p. 314). However, these barriers exist in conflict with some of the espoused values of holistic development and education often articulated by both faith and affiliated college environments (Love, 1997). Given the significance of intersectionality in LGBT students’ lives and the nuanced tensions in multiple identity spaces on campus, the intent of this study is to examine the following questions as they relate to differences between LGBT college students and their heterosexual peers: ●

●

How do LGBT-identified students perceive the campus religious and spiritual climate relative to heterosexual students and students identifying within the gender binary? To what extent do sexual orientation and gender identity interact with worldview identity in shaping perceptions of and engagement on campus?


7

Method The data for this study were drawn from the Campus Religious and Spiritual Climate Survey (CRSCS) administered annually to college students attending 52 diverse institutions across three academic years (2011–2012, 2012–2013, and 2013–2014). The CRSCS measures the structural, psychological, and behavioral dimensions of the campus climate for religious, spiritual, and worldview diversity and was informed by the model Hurtado, Milem, Clayton-Pederson, and Allen (1998) established, which depicts the interrelated elements of the campus climate for racial/ethnic diversity. While campus climate studies have focused primarily on racial/ethnic dynamics, Rankin (2003) adapted Hurtado’s framework into a transformational model for maximizing LGBT equity on campus. Likewise, our study draws on the model to assess the campus climate for religious and spiritual diversity. Because the survey was constructed to illuminate multiple dimensions of the campus ecology (see Renn, 2003, 2012a, 2012b) and addresses intersections and potential tensions between religious, spiritual, and LGBT identity domains (see Love et al., 2005), the CRSCS is a viable data source to inform our understanding of LGBT students’ perceptions and engagement relative to their peers. The CRSCS was created in 2008 following a qualitative study conducted in four unique institutional settings (Bryant, Wickliffe, Mayhew, & Bartell Behringer, 2009). Subsequently, the survey was piloted prior to the first fullscale administration of the survey that took place in 2011–2012. In each of the three survey administration periods, participating campuses provided a random sample of their undergraduate population. Over three academic years, a total of 13,776 students provided usable data. Thirty-seven percent of respondents were enrolled at Protestant institutions, 24% at public institutions, 21% at Catholic institutions, and 19% at private nonsectarian institutions. Turning to demographic characteristics of student respondents, over one half (66%) of the sample is female, just over one third (33%) is male, and 1% claim “another gender identity.” As displayed in Table 1, just over 10% of the sample identifies as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or “another sexual orientation.” White students make up about three quarters of the respondent sample (77%), followed by multiracial (8%), Asian/Asian American (6%), Latino/a (4%), and African American/Black (4%) students, respectively. Another 2% of respondents identify with “another race/ethnicity.” The CRSCS asks respondents to indicate their worldview from a list of 24 options (including “another worldview”). Importantly, “worldview” as we have framed it in this study is not limited to religious faith. Rather, we ask students to consider “worldview” to mean their guiding life philosophy, which may be based on a particular religious tradition, a spiritual orientation, a nonreligious perspective, or some combination of these. For this analysis, groups were aggregated into four categories. Students in the worldview majority category (56%) identify as

8


Table 1. Sexual orientation. Identity Lesbian Gay Bisexual Another sexual orientation Heterosexual Total

Frequency 139 230 562 371 11434 12736

Percent 1.1 1.8 4.4 2.9 89.8 100.0

Protestant, Orthodox, or Roman Catholic Christians. Worldview minority students (12%) belong to a faith tradition that is a numerical minority in the United States, including the Baha’i faith, Buddhism, Confucianism, Daoism, Hinduism, Islam, Jainism, Judaism, LDS/Mormonism, Native American traditions, Paganism, Sikhism, Unitarian Universalism, and Zoroastrianism. In addition, students identifying as “spiritual” are included in the worldview minority group. The nonreligious category (26%) includes students who identify as agnostic, atheist, nonreligious, “none,” or secular humanist. Some students selected “another worldview,” and these individuals are included in a fourth category (6%). Given our efforts to consider interactions between LGBT and worldview identities, aggregated categories were necessary to avoid entering too many interaction terms into the models and increasing the potential for Type I errors. The sample is quite diverse with respect to religion/worldview and mirrors other national studies of college students’ spirituality (see Astin, Astin, & Lindholm, 2011). Measures and analysis

Eleven multivariate regression models were generated to examine the relationship between sexual orientation and gender identity and perceptions of and engagement with campus. The dependent measures included 11 scales (see Table 2) reflecting students’ impressions of the structural, psychological, and behavioral dimensions of the campus religious and spiritual climate. The structural dimension was represented by one scale, structural worldview diversity (α = 0.87; 7 items), while the psychological dimension was assessed via four scales, including space for support and spiritual expression (α = 0.86; 6 items), divisive psychological climate (α = 0.80; 6 items), insensitivity on campus (α = 0.92; 13 items), and coercion on campus (α = 0.84; 4 items). Finally, the behavioral dimension consisted of six scales, including provocative experiences with worldview diversity (α = 0.85; 7 items), negative interworldview engagement (α = 0.84; 4 items), general religious/spiritual engagement (α = 0.73; 5 items), interfaith engagement (α = 0.75; 10 items), informal engagement with diverse peers (α = 0.88; 6 items), and curricular or faculty-led religious/spiritual engagement (α = 0.72; 7 items). The continuous variables were standardized with a mean of 0 and a standard deviation of 1. As such, unstandardized


9

Table 2. Scales and items. Structural Worldview Diversity (α = 0.87) There are students, faculty, and staff on this campus who represent diverse worldviews. People who share my worldview are well represented in number on this campus. The religious organizations on this campus are diverse in terms of the faith traditions they represent. This campus is religiously diverse. Students on this campus represent many different religious backgrounds and worldviews. I am satisfied with the religious and worldview diversity on this campus. This institution’s mission is inclusive of diverse religious and nonreligious viewpoints. Space for Support and Spiritual Expression (α = 0.86) This campus is a safe place for the expression of my worldview. This campus accommodates my needs with regard to celebrating religious holidays and other important religious observances. Faculty and staff on my campus accommodate my needs with regard to celebrating religious holidays and other important religious observances. There is a place (e.g., office, organization) on this campus where I can seek help with spiritual or religious struggles and questions. There is a place on this campus where I can express my personal worldview. My classes are safe places for the expression of my personal worldview. Divisive Psychological Climate (α = 0.80) People of different worldviews on this campus seem separated into groups that rarely interact with one another. There is a great deal of conflict among people of different worldviews on this campus. People with different worldviews quarrel with one another on this campus. Religious and worldview differences create a sense of divisiveness on this campus. This college or university seems to favor certain worldviews above others. Others on campus hold stereotypes about my worldview. Insensitivity on Campus (α = 0.92) On this campus, how often have you heard/read insensitive comments about your worldview? From friends or peers From faculty From campus staff or administrators From campus ministry staff or religious speakers During classroom discussions During college/university-sponsored events During events on campus that were not officially sponsored by the college/university During informal social activities with other students In the student newspaper From student religious groups While you have been enrolled at your college or university, how often have you: Been mistreated on campus because of your worldview Felt that someone on campus used his/her religious worldview to justify treating you in a discriminatory manner on the basis of your sex Felt that someone on campus used his/her religious worldview to justify treating you in a discriminatory manner on the basis of your sexual orientation or gender identity Coercion on Campus (α = 0.84) I feel pressured by others on campus to change my worldview. I feel pressured to listen to others’ worldview perspectives when I don’t want to hear about them. I feel pressured to keep my religious or non-religious worldview to myself. I feel pressured to separate my academic experience from my personal religious or non-religious worldview. Provocative Experiences with Worldview Diversity (α = 0.85) Had class discussions that challenged you to rethink your assumptions about another worldview Felt challenged to rethink your assumptions about another worldview after someone explained her/his worldview to you

(Continued )

10


Table 2. (Continued). Had a discussion with someone of another worldview that had a positive influence on your perceptions of that worldview Heard critical comments from others about your worldview that made you question your worldview Had a discussion with someone that made you feel like you did not know enough about your own worldview Had a discussion with someone from your own worldview with whom you disagreed Had uncomfortable conversations that moved you to examine your own prejudices Negative Interworldview Engagement (α = 0.84) Felt silenced from sharing your own experiences with prejudice and discrimination Had guarded, cautious interactions Had tense, somewhat hostile interactions Had hurtful, unresolved interactions General Religious/Spiritual Activities (α = 0.73) Attended a campus program designed to encourage students to discuss issues of life meaning and purpose Utilized a multi-faith space/chapel on campus Participated in campus-sponsored spiritual development or exploration, such as sharing spiritual journeys Participated in a student organization that is affiliated with your religion or worldview (e.g., InterVarsity, Hillel, Secular Student Alliance) Attended religious services on campus Interfaith Activities (α = 0.75) Attended a formal debate on campus between people with different worldviews Attended a multi-faith celebration on campus Attended an interfaith prayer vigil/memorial Participated in an on-campus interfaith dialogue Participated in an on-campus interfaith activity Participated in a campus interfaith group Participated in/attended a service for a worldview that is not your own Shared spiritual practice with people of other worldviews, such as participating in a joint prayer service Participated in interfaith action, such as having an impact on critical issues like hunger or poverty Worked together with students from other worldviews on a service project Informal Engagement with Diverse Peers (α = 0.88) Discussed religious or spiritual topics with other students outside of class Had conversations with students from diverse worldviews about the values we have in common Dined with someone of a different worldview Studied with someone of a different worldview Worked on an academic project with someone of a different worldview Socialized with someone of a different worldview Curricular or Faculty-Led Religious and Spiritual Engagement (α = 0.72) Enrolled in a religion course on campus designed to enhance your knowledge of different religious traditions Read a religious, sacred text for a course requirement Discussed religious diversity in at least one of your courses Had faculty who teach classes in your academic major discuss their own worldviews with you in conversations outside of class Visited a religious space off-campus as part of a class Shared your personal worldview in class, unsolicited Been asked to discuss your personal worldview in class


11

regression coefficients effectively became standardized coefficients and can be interpreted as effect sizes (Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003). Missing values for continuous variables were assessed and imputed via the EM (expectationmaximization) method in SPSS. All variables were missing fewer than 6.2% of cases. Our intent was to examine LGB student perspectives in relation to heterosexual students and perspectives of students claiming a gender identity outside of the binary relative to male and female students, net of other student characteristics (i.e., race/ethnicity, year in college, academic major, religion/ worldview) and institutional type/affiliation. Given the sociohistorical context of marginalization within many (admittedly Western) worldview spaces, it was logical to form this comparison with the intent of further elucidating specific ways in which campus religious and spiritual climate is deemed more or less hospitable for LGBT students. We hope that further understanding such dynamics will encourage greater inclusivity of faith-based resources on college campuses. As Stage (2007) noted, research and theory are often mediated by social power relations, and the interpretation of data tends to reproduce the mainstream narrative while ignoring historically oppressed voices. Critical quantitative researchers strive to “question the models, measures, and analytic practices of quantitative research in order to offer competing models, measures, and analytic practices that better describe the experiences of those who have not been adequately represented” (Stage, 2007, p. 10). Given our criticalist stance, we compared privileged statuses with those that generally lack gender and heterosexual privilege. To do so, we constructed two measures to enable such comparisons. The LGB variable classified students who identified as lesbian, gay, bisexual, and “other” sexual orientation as 1 and heterosexual students as 0. The gender identity variable classified those indicating “other” gender identity (outside the male/female binary) as 1 and female- and male-identified students as 0. All other categorical variables, including race/ethnicity (African American/ Black, Asian/Asian American, Latino/a, White, multiracial, “other” race/ ethnicity, and missing race/ethnicity), academic major (arts, humanities, or religion; social sciences or education; health professions; science, engineering, or math; business; and “other” major), worldview (worldview majority, worldview minority, nonreligious, and “other” worldview), and institution type (public, Protestant, Roman Catholic, and private nonsectarian) were effect coded. Effect codes compare an indicator (e.g., Buddhist identity) to the overall group mean of all students (specifically, the unweighted mean of the group means) rather than to an arbitrary reference group. In this way, no group is treated as normative or standard, a procedure that fits well with our quantitative criticalist approach (see Stage, 2007). LGB identity and gender identity were not effect coded because of our stated goal to examine whether

12


perceptions and experiences vary by degree of gender and heterosexual privilege. To enable these contrasts, we compared groups to one another rather than to the average, but we also avoid positioning any particular group as the normative “reference” group, which is consistent with the logic of effect coding. Two sets of interaction variables were constructed to examine conditional effects of LGB identity and gender identity on perceptions and experiences by worldview (e.g., gender identity * worldview majority; LGB identity * nonreligious). Descriptive data for all variables (including means and standard deviations) are provided in Table 3. Five blocks of variables were entered sequentially into each regression model: (1) student characteristics; (2) worldview; (3) institutional type/affiliation; (4) gender identity and sexual orientation; and (5) interaction variables (gender identity * worldview and LGB identity * worldview). Significant Table 3. Descriptive statistics. Variable African American/Black Asian/Asian American Latino/a White Multiracial Other Race/Ethnicity Missing Race/Ethnicity Year in College Major: Arts, Humanities, or Religion Major: Social Sciences or Education Major: Health Professions Major: Science, Engineering, or Math Major: Business Major: Other Worldview Majority Worldview Minority Nonreligious Other Worldview Public Institution Protestant Institution Catholic Institution Nonsectarian Institution Other Gender Identity Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual Identity Structural Worldview Diversity Space for Support and Spiritual Expression Divisive Psychological Climate Insensitivity on Campus Coercion on Campus Provocative Experiences with Worldview Diversity Negative Interworldview Engagement General Religious/Spiritual Activities Interfaith Engagement Informal Engagement with Diverse Peers Curricular or Faculty-Led Religious and Spiritual Engagement

N Minimum Maximum Mean SD 13776 0.00 1.00 0.04 0.19 13776 0.00 1.00 0.06 0.23 13776 0.00 1.00 0.04 0.20 13776 0.00 1.00 0.76 0.43 13776 0.00 1.00 0.08 0.27 13776 0.00 1.00 0.02 0.13 13776 0.00 1.00 0.01 0.11 13650 1.00 5.00 2.72 1.19 13776 0.00 1.00 0.20 0.40 13776 0.00 1.00 0.26 0.44 13776 0.00 1.00 0.10 0.30 13776 0.00 1.00 0.24 0.43 13776 0.00 1.00 0.11 0.31 13776 0.00 1.00 0.09 0.28 13776 0.00 1.00 0.56 0.50 13776 0.00 1.00 0.12 0.32 13776 0.00 1.00 0.26 0.44 13776 0.00 1.00 0.06 0.24 13776 0.00 1.00 0.24 0.42 13776 0.00 1.00 0.37 0.48 13776 0.00 1.00 0.21 0.41 13776 0.00 1.00 0.19 0.39 13776 0.00 1.00 0.01 0.08 13776 0.00 1.00 0.09 0.29 13776 −2.81 1.77 0.00 0.99 13776 −3.23 1.53 0.00 0.99 13776 −1.46 3.28 0.00 0.99 13776 −1.49 4.70 0.00 0.99 13560 −0.97 2.98 0.00 1.00 13776 −2.03 3.03 0.00 0.99 13776 −1.38 3.79 0.00 1.00 13776 −1.24 3.14 0.00 1.00 13776 −1.46 4.11 0.00 0.99 13776 −2.61 1.61 0.00 0.99 13776 −1.40 3.74 0.00 1.00


13

effects for gender identity, LGB identity, and all interaction variables were the focal point of the analysis following controls for all other student and institutional characteristics. Because individual student perceptions and experiences were central to the study’s purpose, multilevel models were not constructed, but the effects of institution type were taken into account. We evaluated the significance of regression coefficients at three alpha levels (p < .05; p < .01; p < .001) in an effort to balance Type I and Type II errors. The Bonferroni correction (α/11 models) results in a more conservative alpha of p < .005, which may be most appropriate to avoid Type I errors. However, we are also sensitive to the fact that the small sample of LGBT students in the study may lead to Type II errors when a more stringent alpha level is applied. Limitations

There are several limitations of this study. First, due to small sample sizes for some student identities (particularly lesbian students, gay students, and students identifying outside the gender binary), the ability to compare these subpopulations to each other or to investigate intersections with other identity spaces (namely, race) is limited. Similarly, two identity groupings are problematic as they are potentially linguistically inaccessible. “Another gender identity” does not provide the specificity that students may need to articulate their non-binary gender identity, which may span any number of labels. Furthermore, trans* students may also identify with one of the binary identity categories, so some of their experiences may have been analyzed with those of cisgender students. Related issues emerge when we consider the option to select “another sexual orientation.” The terminology of gay, lesbian, and bisexual may not be culturally relevant for nonWhite, non-Western populations, for all generations of college students, or for worldviews where there have historically been places of honor for LGBTidentified people. These populations may have subsequently been forced into an identity space that does not reflect their lived experience. In sum, the delicate nuances of personal identity may limit the scope and applicability of these findings, and future surveys would do well to expand the gender identity and sexual orientation options available for selection. Results The regression results (see Tables 4 and 5) demonstrate that, accounting for race/ethnicity, year in college, academic major, religion/worldview, and institution type/affiliation, LGB students perceive their campus as less religiously diverse (b = -0.200, p < .001) and less supportive of their spiritual expression (b = -0.122, p < .001) relative to heterosexual students. Moreover, compared to their heterosexual peers, LGB students describe their campuses as more divisive

* p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001.

Variable African American/Black Asian/Asian American Latino/a White Multiracial Other Race/Ethnicity Missing Race/Ethnicity Year in College Major: Arts, Humanities, or Religion Major: Social Sciences or Education Major: Health Professions Major: Science, Engineering, or Math Major: Business Major: Other Worldview Majority Worldview Minority Nonreligious Other Worldview Public Institution Protestant Institution Catholic Institution Nonsectarian Institution Other Gender Identity Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual Identity Other Gender Identity*Worldview Majority Other Gender Identity*Worldview Minority Other Gender Identity*Nonreligious Other Gender Identity*Other Worldview LGB*Worldview Majority LGB*Worldview Minority LGB*Nonreligious LGB*Other Worldview R2

B 0.131 0.093 0.287 −0.024 −0.029 −0.067 −0.390 −0.069 −0.080 −0.072 0.025 0.080 0.062 −0.015 0.247 −0.092 −0.177 0.022 0.175 −0.156 −0.122 0.103 −0.466 −0.200 −0.211 0.305 0.162 −0.256 0.009 −0.122 0.127 −0.014

SE 0.042 0.037 0.041 0.023 0.033 0.056 0.100 0.007 0.018 0.016 0.023 0.016 0.022 0.024 0.015 0.022 0.018 0.027 0.015 0.013 0.016 0.016 0.119 0.036 0.223 0.185 0.158 0.249 0.052 0.059 0.047 0.083 0.083 * **

*** *** *** *** *** ***

*** *** ***

*** **

*** *** *** ***

Sig ** * ***

Structural Worldview Diversity B 0.076 0.036 0.158 0.146 −0.009 −0.138 −0.268 −0.072 0.001 0.000 0.001 −0.008 −0.027 0.034 0.266 −0.113 −0.119 −0.033 −0.049 −0.014 0.104 −0.041 −0.497 −0.122 −0.507 0.299 0.089 0.120 0.006 −0.081 0.089 −0.014

SE 0.042 0.037 0.041 0.023 0.033 0.057 0.101 0.007 0.018 0.016 0.024 0.017 0.023 0.025 0.015 0.023 0.018 0.028 0.015 0.013 0.016 0.017 0.121 0.036 0.226 0.188 0.160 0.253 0.053 0.060 0.048 0.084 0.062 *** * *** *** *

**

*** *** ***

* ** ***

*** ***

Sig

Space for Support and Spiritual Expression

Table 4. Models predicting structural and psychological dimensions of campus climate.

B −0.013 0.095 −0.140 −0.055 −0.019 0.031 0.101 0.038 0.086 0.032 −0.020 −0.041 −0.007 −0.050 0.008 0.008 −0.014 −0.001 0.036 −0.007 −0.017 −0.012 0.240 0.222 0.134 −0.200 0.290 −0.223 0.020 0.075 −0.063 −0.032

SE 0.043 0.038 0.042 0.024 0.034 0.059 0.104 0.007 0.018 0.016 0.024 0.017 0.023 0.025 0.015 0.023 0.018 0.028 0.016 0.014 0.017 0.017 0.125 0.037 0.232 0.193 0.164 0.260 0.054 0.062 0.049 0.086 0.013 ***

*

*

*

*** ***

* ** *

Sig

Divisive Psychological Climate B −0.057 0.101 −0.146 −0.034 0.058 0.124 −0.046 0.048 0.068 0.036 0.014 −0.047 −0.032 −0.038 0.076 0.018 −0.069 −0.025 0.055 0.003 −0.029 −0.029 0.522 0.243 0.429 −0.680 0.024 0.227 −0.002 0.057 −0.029 −0.026

SE 0.043 0.038 0.042 0.024 0.034 0.058 0.104 0.007 0.018 0.016 0.024 0.017 0.023 0.025 0.015 0.023 0.018 0.028 0.016 0.014 0.016 0.017 0.124 0.037 0.231 0.192 0.163 0.258 0.054 0.061 0.049 0.085 0.020 ***

*** ***

***

***

***

**

*** *** *

*

** ***

Sig

Insensitivity on Campus B −0.182 −0.110 −0.233 0.052 0.107 0.167 0.199 0.032 0.111 0.028 −0.089 0.032 −0.065 −0.017 −0.048 −0.048 0.098 −0.002 0.070 0.003 −0.074 0.001 0.449 0.164 0.029 −0.321 −0.027 0.320 0.017 0.121 −0.118 −0.019

SE 0.044 0.039 0.043 0.024 0.035 0.059 0.105 0.007 0.018 0.017 0.025 0.017 0.024 0.026 0.015 0.024 0.018 0.029 0.016 0.014 0.017 0.017 0.125 0.037 0.233 0.193 0.165 0.260 0.055 0.062 0.049 0.086 0.029

Coercion on Campus

*

*** ***

***

***

** * ***

**

***

*** ***

Sig *** ** *** * ** **

14 A. N. ROCKENBACH ET AL.

* p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001.

Variable African American/Black Asian/Asian American Latino/a White Multiracial Other Race/Ethnicity Missing Race/Ethnicity Year in College Major: Arts, Humanities, or Religion Major: Social Sciences or Education Major: Health Professions Major: Science, Engineering, or Math Major: Business Major: Other Worldview Majority Worldview Minority Nonreligious Other Worldview Public Institution Protestant Institution Catholic Institution Nonsectarian Institution Other Gender Identity Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual Identity Other Gender Identity*Worldview Majority Other Gender Identity*Worldview Minority Other Gender Identity*Nonreligious Other Gender Identity*Other Worldview LGB*Worldview Majority LGB*Worldview Minority LGB*Nonreligious LGB*Other Worldview R2

B −0.083 0.066 −0.082 0.051 0.021 0.100 −0.073 0.069 0.227 0.145 −0.156 −0.062 −0.175 0.021 0.106 0.089 −0.102 −0.094 −0.188 0.107 −0.016 0.097 −0.087 0.162 −0.274 0.085 0.090 0.100 0.149 −0.056 −0.056 −0.038

SE 0.042 0.037 0.041 0.023 0.033 0.057 0.102 0.007 0.018 0.016 0.024 0.017 0.023 0.025 0.015 0.023 0.018 0.028 0.015 0.013 0.016 0.017 0.122 0.036 0.227 0.189 0.160 0.254 0.053 0.060 0.048 0.084 0.061 **

***

***

*** *** *** *** *** ***

*** *** *** *** *** ***

* *

Sig

Provocative Encounters with Worldview Diversity B −0.066 0.023 −0.224 −0.042 0.079 0.194 0.035 0.052 0.107 0.066 −0.071 −0.031 −0.043 −0.028 −0.046 0.030 0.044 −0.027 −0.009 0.019 −0.048 0.038 0.412 0.320 0.348 −0.147 0.039 −0.239 0.023 0.015 −0.090 0.052

SE 0.043 0.038 0.042 0.024 0.034 0.059 0.104 0.007 0.018 0.016 0.024 0.017 0.023 0.025 0.015 0.023 0.018 0.028 0.016 0.014 0.017 0.017 0.124 0.037 0.231 0.193 0.164 0.259 0.054 0.062 0.049 0.086 0.030 ** * *** ***

*

**

*** *** *** **

* ***

***

Sig

Negative Interworldview Engagement

Table 5. Models predicting behavioral dimensions of campus climate.

B −0.078 0.144 −0.228 0.007 −0.045 0.130 0.070 −0.005 0.122 0.044 0.003 0.009 −0.140 −0.039 0.376 0.045 −0.480 0.059 −0.188 0.083 0.046 0.058 0.240 0.021 −0.027 −0.321 −0.054 0.402 −0.017 −0.009 0.072 −0.046

SE 0.041 0.036 0.040 0.022 0.032 0.055 0.097 0.007 0.017 0.015 0.023 0.016 0.022 0.024 0.014 0.022 0.017 0.027 0.015 0.013 0.015 0.016 0.116 0.035 0.217 0.181 0.154 0.243 0.051 0.058 0.046 0.080 0.145 *** * *** * *** *** ** *** *

***

*** **

*

*** ***

Sig

General Religious/ Spiritual Engagement B −0.020 0.126 −0.169 −0.017 −0.013 0.165 −0.073 0.078 0.108 0.084 −0.009 −0.010 −0.176 0.004 0.098 0.176 −0.268 −0.006 −0.214 0.121 0.072 0.020 0.448 0.159 0.204 −0.400 −0.171 0.368 0.042 −0.013 −0.018 −0.012

SE 0.042 0.037 0.041 0.023 0.033 0.057 0.102 0.007 0.018 0.016 0.024 0.017 0.023 0.025 0.015 0.023 0.018 0.028 0.015 0.013 0.016 0.017 0.121 0.036 0.226 0.188 0.160 0.253 0.053 0.060 0.048 0.084 0.068

Interfaith Engagement

*

*** ***

*** *** ***

*** *** ***

***

*** *** ***

**

*** ***

Sig

B −0.154 0.037 −0.180 −0.043 0.059 0.185 0.096 0.012 0.150 0.045 −0.150 0.119 −0.190 0.026 −0.158 0.146 0.047 −0.036 −0.034 −0.016 −0.138 0.187 0.047 0.126 0.072 0.077 −0.038 −0.111 −0.012 0.117 −0.044 −0.061

SE 0.042 0.037 0.041 0.023 0.033 0.057 0.101 0.007 0.018 0.016 0.024 0.017 0.023 0.025 0.015 0.023 0.018 0.028 0.015 0.013 0.016 0.017 0.121 0.036 0.226 0.188 0.160 0.253 0.053 0.060 0.048 0.084 0.066 ***

*** ***

*

*** *** **

*** ** *** *** ***

**

***

Sig ***

Informal Engagement with Diverse Peers B 0.035 0.122 −0.179 −0.011 −0.004 0.125 −0.089 0.116 0.245 0.104 −0.115 −0.177 −0.109 0.053 0.036 0.092 −0.151 0.023 −0.469 0.220 0.385 −0.137 0.328 0.065 −0.068 −0.264 −0.248 0.581 0.029 0.003 0.021 −0.053

SE 0.040 0.035 0.039 0.022 0.032 0.054 0.096 0.007 0.017 0.015 0.023 0.016 0.021 0.023 0.014 0.022 0.017 0.026 0.015 0.013 0.015 0.016 0.115 0.034 0.214 0.178 0.151 0.240 0.050 0.057 0.045 0.079 0.172

*

*** *** *** *** **

*** *** *** *** *** *** * * *** ***

*

*** ***

Sig

Curricular or FacultyLed Religious and Spiritual Engagement

JOURNAL OF HOMOSEXUALITY 15

16


(b = 0.222, p < .001), insensitive (b = 0.243, p < .001), and coercive (b = 0.164, p < .001). With the exception of involvement in general religious and spiritual activities and curricular or faculty-led religious/spiritual engagement (no significant differences), LGB students tend be more engaged in a variety of formal and informal exchanges across religious/worldview difference while in college, including provocative encounters with worldview diversity (b = 0.162, p < .001), interfaith activities (b = 0.159, p < .001), and informal engagement with diverse peers (b = 0.126, p < .001). Although many of these experiences may prove beneficial for personal development because they are challenging yet constructive, the fact that LGB students report more negative interworldview interactions (b = 0.320, p < .001)—hostile, hurtful, and unresolved exchanges with individuals of other worldviews—is concerning. Similar to LGB students, students indicating a gender identity outside the binary perceive their campus as less religiously diverse (b = -0.466, p < .001) and as providing less space for spiritual support and expression (b = -0.497, p < .001). Moreover, students with gender identities outside of the binary report substantially higher levels of religious insensitivity (b = 0.522, p < .001) and coercion (b = 0.449, p < .001) on campus than female- and male-identified students. Students with gender identities outside the binary are also more inclined than male- and female-identified students to experience both positive and negative forms of engagement, including general religious/spiritual engagement (b = 0.240, p < .05), interfaith engagement (b = 0.448, p < .001), curricular or faculty-led religious/spiritual engagement (b = 0.328, p < .01), and negative interworldview engagement (b = 0.412, p < .001). In some instances, the significance level did not reach our most conservative alpha of p < .001; however, this may have to do with the small number of students identifying outside the gender binary. Across the 11 regression models, eight interaction effects reached statistical significance, although only one effect was significant at our most stringent alpha level of p < .001 (other gender identity * worldview minority). LGB students with minority religious identities are less inclined than heterosexual students with minority religious identities to perceive their campus as religiously diverse (b = -0.122, p < .05). However, compared to nonreligious heterosexual students, nonreligious LGB students perceive their campus as more religiously diverse (b = 0.127, p < .01). Students with gender identities outside of the gender binary who identify with a Christian tradition (worldview majority) perceive less space for support and spiritual expression on campus than do male- and female-identified Christian students (b = -0.507, p < .05). Worldview minority students with gender identities outside of the binary report less insensitivity on campus than do worldview minority students identifying as male and female (b = -0.680, p < .001), and nonreligious LGB students perceive less coercion on campus than do nonreligious heterosexual students (b = -0.118, p < .05). Turning to engagement on


17

campus, LGB students from minority faith traditions report more provocative encounters with worldview diversity than their heterosexual worldview minority counterparts (b = 0.149, p < .01). Worldview minority students with gender identities outside the binary engage in interfaith activities to a lesser degree than worldview minority students identifying as male or female (b = -0.400, p < .05). Finally, students who claim “other” both in terms of gender and worldview identities are more inclined toward curricular religious and spiritual engagement than are male- and female-identified students with “other” worldviews (b = 0.581, p < .05). Discussion Religion has played an important role in movements for and against LGBT rights and appears to have an influence on the campus climate for LGBT people as well. The analysis sheds light on how LGBT students experience the religious and spiritual campus climate and provides evidence that they do not perceive their campuses as favorably as do heterosexual students. At the same time, LGBT students are more engaged in formal and informal interfaith experiences, which may be advantageous for personal and spiritual development. Given the historical tensions between sexuality, morality, and religion, the first finding is unsurprising. In spaces where non-heterosexual sexuality is often marginalized by religiously ascribed morals (see Rueben, 1996), one should expect LGBT students to view campus religious and spiritual spaces as less diverse, supportive, and tolerant. The subsequent finding regarding more interfaith engagement among LGBT students also makes sense. As noted in the literature (see Love et al., 2005), LGBT students of faith must often negotiate faith and sexuality. Exploration of different faith spaces to find a new religious or spiritual home may be the process by which two sometimes conflicting identities are reconciled. An important contribution of the study is the way in which the findings point to an array of intersections between worldview and gender identity and sexual orientation. In some cases, these interaction effects aligned with expectations (i.e., students with multiple minoritized identities perceive campus more negatively), but the pattern was not always consistent. How identities come together in shaping experiences appears to be an intricate process, and it may be that overlapping identities create or discourage exposure to certain aspects of campus climate and various forms of engagement. Thus a nonreligious LGB student may be more disconnected from religious spaces on campus than a nonreligious heterosexual student—and have fewer concerns about religious coercion. On the other hand, a gender non-conforming Christian (worldview majority) student may be especially concerned—more so than cisgender Christian students—that space for spiritual support and expression on campus is lacking when faced with challenges in reconciling faith and gender identity. Importantly, only one of the

18


interaction effects reached our most stringent alpha level of p < .001 (other gender identity * worldview minority). Consequently, we consider many of these effects as tentative indicators of intersectional influences on students’ perceptions of and experiences with campus climate. In the end, our study highlights the immense variety of experience that results as students negotiate the intersections of worldview, gender identity, and sexual orientation and points to the need for further research to corroborate these findings. As LGBT students negotiate heteronormative campus climates, they may seek out spaces of interconnection, perhaps unrelated, at least in the nominal sense, to sexual identity. Unlike offices designated for LGBT students, students of color, or women, interfaith spaces (those spaces where students of different worldviews may engage in informal conversation or shared, constructive projects) may provide more safety for expression for any identity or intersectional identities, because participation in interfaith programs and activities does not necessarily cue association with any particular identity or identity intersection. In short, if structured correctly, interfaith spaces are perhaps the most receptive for students to question, embrace, and internalize their multiple identities (see D’Augelli, 1994; Lev, 2004; McCarn & Fassinger, 1996; Parks, 2000). Such an explanation finds theoretical support by both developmental theorists as well as scholars interested in student-environment fit (see Bronfenbrenner, 1979). The “inter” of interfaith may attract the “inter” of intersecting identities. As many educators on campus open the conversation around the intersections of religion and sexual orientation, care should be taken to support and protect students who may be vulnerable to discrimination from peers or others. Such discrimination includes stereotypes of people of specific worldviews and their attitudes toward LGBT-identified people, in addition to antiLGBT bias. Promising strategies to promote safety for LGBT people on campus (e.g., ally trainings) should include a focus on how religious/spiritual perspectives shape attitudes and behaviors toward LGBT people. Educators of the same trainings and other programming may wish to incorporate narratives of LGBT people of faith and their allies within various religious communities to show the dialogue across identity spaces that might otherwise seem disparate. In addition, spiritual and interfaith programming on campus should be crafted to address identity intersections given that the students participating present unique identity mosaics. In the interest of moving this line of research forward, we recommend more robust LGBT samples to allow for within-group comparisons and exploration of intersectionality with other student identities (e.g., race/gender). Moreover, qualitative investigations may be implemented to explore some of our conclusions regarding why LGBT students are more inclined toward interfaith engagement. How do such experiences potentially help LGBT students to navigate and integrate their spiritual and sexual/gender identities? As


19

programming around identity intersections take shape on campuses, robust assessment efforts will also be needed to showcase the exemplary initiatives most conducive to promoting a positive religious and spiritual climate for LGBT students and their allies. Related, qualitative studies that examine the process by which campus-based faith communities become more inclusive and supportive of their LGBT membership will prove instructive for research and practice in the future. Notes 1. The use of the term trans* signals inclusion of both transgender and transsexual experiences. 2. Cisgender is the term that applies to individuals whose experiences with gender align with the sex they were assigned at birth.

References Abes, E. S. (2012). Constructivist and intersectional interpretations of a lesbian college student’s multiple social identities. The Journal of Higher Education, 83(2), 186–216. Abes, E. S., & Jones, S. R. (2004). Meaning-making capacity and the dynamics of lesbian college students’ multiple dimensions of identity. Journal of College Student Development, 45, 612–632. doi:10.1353/csd.2004.0065 Abes, E. S., Jones, S. R., & McEwen, M. K. (2007). Reconceptualizing the model of multiple dimensions of identity: The role of meaning-making capacity in the construction of multiple identities. Journal of College Student Development, 48, 1–22. doi:10.1353/ csd.2007.0000 Astin, A. W., Astin, H. S., & Lindholm, J. A. (2011). Cultivating the spirit: How college can enhance students’ inner lives. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1993). The ecology of cognitive development: Research models and figurative findings. In R. H. Wozniak & K. W. Fischer (Eds.), Development in context: Acting and thinking in specific environments (pp. 3–44). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Bryant, A. N., Wickliffe, K., Mayhew, M. J., & Bartell Behringer, L. (2009). Developing an assessment of college students’ spiritual experiences: The collegiate religious and spiritual climate survey. Journal of College and Character, 10(6), 1–10. doi:10.2202/1940-1639.1452 Cass, V. C. (1979). Homosexual identity formation: A theoretical model. Journal of Homosexuality, 4, 219–235. doi:10.1300/J082v04n03_01 Cass, V. C. (1996). Sexual orientation identity formation: A Western phenomenon. In R. P. Cabaj & T. S. Stein (Eds.), Textbook of homosexuality and mental health (pp. 227–251). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press. Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory, and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 140, 139–167.

20


D’Augelli, A. R. (1994). Identity development and sexual orientation: Toward a model of lesbian, gay, and bisexual identity 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. Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (2001). Critical race theory. New York, NY: New York University Press. Evans, N. J., Forney, D. S., Guido, F. M., Patton, L. D., & Renn, K. A. (2010). Student development in college: Theory, research, and practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Fowler, J. W. (1981). Stages of faith: The psychology of human development and the quest for meaning. San Francisco, CA: Harper. Hurtado, S., Milem, J. F., Clayton-Pederson, A. R., & Allen, W. R. (1998). Enhancing campus climates for racial/ethnic diversity: Educational policy and practice. Review of Higher Education, 21, 279–302. doi:10.1353/rhe.1998.0003 Jones, S. R. (2009). Constructing identities at the intersections: An autoethnographic exploration of multiple dimensions of identity. Journal of College Student Development, 50, 287–304. doi:10.1353/csd.0.0070 Jones, S. R., & McEwen, M. K. (2000). A conceptual model of multiple dimensions of identity. Journal of College Student Development, 41, 405–414. Lease, S. H., Horne, S. G., & Noffsinger-Frazier, N. (2005). Affirming faith experiences and psychological health for Caucasian lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 378–388. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.52.3.378 Lev, A. I. (2004). Transgender emergence: Therapeutic guidelines for working with gender variant people and their families. New York, NY: Routledge. Love, P., Bock, M., Jannarone, A., & Richardson, P. (2005). Identity interaction: Exploring the spiritual experiences of lesbian and gay college students. Journal of College Student Development, 46, 193–209. doi:10.1353/csd.2005.0019 Love, P. G. (1997). Contradiction and paradox: Attempting to change the culture of sexual orientation at a small Catholic college. Review of Higher Education, 20, 381–398. doi:10.1353/rhe.1997.0009 Love, P. G. (1998). Cultural barriers facing lesbian, gay, and bisexual students at a Catholic college. Journal of Higher Education, 69, 298–323. doi:10.2307/2649190 McCall, L. (2005). The complexity of intersectionality. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 30, 1771–1800. doi:10.1086/426800 McCarn, S. R., & Fassinger, R. E. (1996). Revisioning sexual minority identity formation: A new model of lesbian identity and its implications for counseling and research. Counseling Psychologist, 24, 508–534. doi:10.1177/0011000096243011 Parks, C. A., Hughes, T. L., & Matthews, A. K. (2004). Race/ethnicity and sexual orientation: Intersecting identities. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 10, 241–254. doi:10.1037/1099-9809.10.3.241 Parks, S. D. (2000). Big questions, worthy dreams: Mentoring young adults in their search for meaning, purpose, and faith. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Patton, L. D. (2011). Perspectives on identity, disclosure, and the campus environment Among African American gay and bisexual men at one historically Black college. Journal of College Student Development, 52, 77–100. doi:10.1353/csd.2011.0001 Peña-Talamantes, A. E. (2013). Empowering the self, creating worlds: Lesbian and gay Latina/ o college students’ identity negotiation in figured worlds. Journal of College Student Development, 54, 267–282. doi:10.1353/csd.2013.0039 Rankin, S., Weber, G., Blumenfeld, W., & Frazer, S. (2010). 2010 State of higher education for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people. Charlotte, NC: Campus Pride. Rankin, S. R. (2003). Campus climate for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people: A national perspective. New York, NY: National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute.


21

Reinsmith-Jones, K. (2013). Transsexualism as a model of spiritual transformation: Implications. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 9, 65–99. doi:10.1080/1550428X.2013.748509 Renn, K. A. (2003). Understanding the identities of mixed-race college students through a developmental ecology lens. Journal of College Student Development, 44, 383–403. doi:10.1353/ csd.2003.0032 Renn, K. A. (2007). LGBT student leaders and queer activists: Identities of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer identified college student leaders and activists. Journal of College Student Development, 48, 311–330. doi:10.1353/csd.2007.0029 Renn, K. A. (2010). LGBT and queer research in higher education: The state and status of the field. Educational Researcher, 39, 132–141. doi:10.3102/0013189X10362579 Renn, K. A. (2012a). Creating and re-creating race: The emergence of racial identity as a critical element in psychological, sociological, and ecological perspectives on human development. In C. L. Wijeyesinghe & B. W. Jackson III (Eds.), New perspectives on identity development: Integrating emerging frameworks (Vol. 2, pp. 33–50). New York, NY: New York University Press. Renn, K. A. (2012b). Understanding intersecting processes: Complex ecologies of diversity, identity, teaching, and learning. In J. E. Groccia & L. Cruz (Eds.), To improve the academy: Resources for faculty, instructional, and organizational development (Vol. 31, pp. 261–275). San Francisco, CAbk_AQCmts17b: Jossey-Bass. Reuben, J. (1996). The making of the modern university: Intellectual transformation and the marginalization of morality. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Sanchez, D., & Carter, R. T. (2005). Exploring the relationship between racial identity and religious orientation among African American college students. Journal of College Student Development, 46, 280–295. doi:10.1353/csd.2005.0031 Schwartz, J. L., Donovan, J., & Guido-DiBrito, F. (2009). Stories of social class: Self-identified Mexican male college students crack the silence. Journal of College Student Development, 50, 50–66. doi:10.1353/csd.0.0051 Shek, Y. L., & McEwen, M. K. (2012). The relationships of racial identity and gender role conflict to self-esteem of Asian American undergraduate men. Journal of College Student Development, 53, 703–718. doi:10.1353/csd.2012.0065 Stage, F. K. (2007). Answering critical questions using quantitative data. In F. K. Stage (Ed.), New directions for institutional research: Using quantitative data to answer critical questions (Vol. 133, pp. 5–16). San Francisco, CA: Jossey/Bass. Stevens, R. A., Jr. (2004). Understanding gay identity development within the college environment. Journal of College Student Development, 45, 185–206. doi:10.1353/csd.2004.0028 Stewart, D. L. (2002). The role of faith in the development of an integrated identity: A qualitative study of Black students at a White college. Journal of College Student Development, 43, 579–596. Stewart, D. L. (2009). Perceptions of multiple identities among black college students. Journal of College Student Development, 50, 253–270. doi:10.1353/csd.0.0075 Wilcox, M. M. (2002). When Sheila’s a lesbian: Religious individualism among lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Christians. Sociology of Religion, 63, 497–513. doi:10.2307/3712304 Wilcox, M. M. (2003). Coming out in Christianity: Religion, identity, and community. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Wilcox, M. M. (2009). Queer women and religious individualism. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.