Running Head: Comprehensive Ethnography of Conns LGBTQIA+ Center

A Comprehensive Ethnography of Connecticut Colleges LGBTQIA+ Center

Gray McCaffrey

Connecticut College

1
Introduction: Why Ethnography?

Quantitative research is relatively easy to identify and explain- its based on numbers,

statistics, experiments, and logic. A question which proves harder to answer is: what is

qualitative inquiry? Qualitative, also known as interpretive, research is complex, and not

definitive; there is no set way to go about it, though it can result in incredibly valuable

information on the human experience. There are many methods that may be involved in

qualitative inquiry, such as detailed descriptions and insights into the meaning of events,

methods of discovery, comparative methods, and naturalistic methods. The main purposes of

doing such studies can vary between researcher, however a general goal is to aim to better

understand the way that individuals view and understand the world.

In the second chapter of his book, Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing

Amount Five Approaches John W. Creswell offers five philosophical assumptions that qualitative

researchers may be concerned with and translate into their studies. For instance, ontological

assumptions deal with the nature of reality, and suggests that everybody experiences reality

differently. Thus, a researcher concerned with this assumption, according to Creswell, may use

direct quotes in the words of the participants while additionally providing indications of diverse

perspectives. Another assumption mentioned is the epistemological assumption, in which the

researcher is concerned with their relationship to that being researched. A concern like this one

may lead to in-depth collaboration between the researcher and participants, with the researcher

becoming an insider of sorts (Creswell, 2012, p.17). Additionally, Creswell offers several

theoretical paradigms which researchers may use to guide their study methods. For instance,

social constructivism, which relates to the ontological assumption, has a goal of making sense of

participants views of the world. It takes on the belief that situations are subjective, and that there
are multiple realities in every situation. Additionally, Creswell offers a participatory approach,

which is very activism and social justice-focused. The main belief of this lens is that research

should contain plans for action in the communities within which the research takes place.

Though these assumptions can offer lenses through which to conduct qualitative research, each

one is based on interpretation and may vary in meaning from study to study.

Ethnographies are one of many approaches to qualitative inquiry. This method of inquiry

is described in Doing Ethnography Today as both a fieldwork method and an approach to

writing, in which ethnographers participate in the lives of others, observing and documenting

people and events, taking detailed fieldnotes, conducting interviews, and the like (Campbell and

Lassiter, 2015, p.1). Its hard to pinpoint exactly what an ethnography can be, because it may

involve or exclude a variety of details, but the basic goal is almost always the same- to

understand others perspectives in a certain space or culture, and to understand how we move

through the world a little better. Thus, some philosophical assumptions that can guide

ethnography are ontological, epistemological, axiological (examining the roles of values),

rhetorical (examining the language of research), and methodological (examining the process of

research). Researchers may use one or more of these assumptions in their work, as ethnography

is a method thats very open to variation. Because of the humanistic nature, variety of approach

options, and focus on cultural and group spaces, Ive chosen to conduct research in the form of

an ethnography. This method allows for valuable field research and observation of multiple

participants in my chosen space of the LGBTQIA+ center at Connecticut College.

Creswells second edition of Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design describes several

paradigms, theories, and approaches to qualitative inquiry that he considers the most important

and/or prominent in the field. In this ethnography, I take a combination of these approaches,
including social constructivism and participatory, and perspectives such as critical, feminist, and

queer theories. Social constructivism is important to this study because it focuses on the

complexity of individuals and their own views, values, and beliefs, as well as considering

historic meanings and taking into consideration interactions with society. In this study, I believe

its essential to take a multiple realities understanding in order to make sense of the world of

the participants. I also take on a slightly participatory approach, because almost all of the

students who visit the center identify as LGBTQIA+, and are thus a part of a marginalized group.

Additionally, those at the center experience a variety of intersections in their identities- gender,

sexuality, race, class, etc.- so its important for the voices of these students to be heard.

Significance of the Interpretive Perspective

Since the ethnographic perspective values human experience, a variety of methods can be

used to conduct ethnographic research, such as observation, interviews, field work, and

connecting theory to observation. In H.L. Goodalls Writing the New Ethnography (2000), one of

the most important aspects of ethnography and interpretive research is discussed in depth: self-

reflexivity. This concept is one of the most important to such research, as it is the researchers

own voice through which the ethnography is compiled, written, and presented. It is important to

know where the researcher stands in their own study, as their identity may affect their role in the

community being studied, and its also important as a reader to understand why the researcher

chose to study the topic that they did. The researcher, as Goodall writes, is a character in the

narrative which they construct.

In terms of observation, Emerson, Fretz, and Shaw (1995), in the book Writing

Ethnographic Fieldnotes, discuss that capturing the world of the participants is crucial to

ethnographic research and working with an interpretive perspective. First and foremost, Emerson
and colleagues argue that it is most important to not make the mistake of importing outside

categories to describe the research scene; in other words, use the language of the participants,

and describe the scene as a member of the narrative, not as some outside force. Additionally,

they argue, it is important for the researcher to choose the right terms for individual situations in

order to accurately capture the interactions of a space. Going past those ground rules, some

methods that Emerson and colleagues list in order to gain as much valuable data as possible are

to closely observe routines, greetings, members who are involved in interactions, which

members interact with which other members, which members interact at all, and social code or

politeness as defined by the rules of the space.

With a few base methods in mind, such as those pointed out by Goodall, Emerson et al.,

one can conduct fieldwork observations that are meaningful. In this ethnography, Ive kept

Goodall and Emersons books in mind, as well as a variety of other sources Ive been introduced

to in the past semester. In doing so, I think I was able to capture student experience at the

LGBTQIA+ center to the best of my abilities; I observed interaction and social norms, I

conducted field work in the form of interviews, interaction, and discussion; and I was able to

make meaning of my observations by connecting them to other observations, experiments,

literature, and theories.

Themes, Concepts, and Analytic Frames

I chose to study the Connecticut College LGBTQIA+ Center, which I will refer to as the

Center, because I was curious about power dynamics in the space and the presence of the center

as a safe space. I will use several frames as basis for analysis, including feminist theory, queer

theory, and social identity theory. Though I have a history with the Center, Id never done any

formal observation before, so I was completely blind as to possibilities of what my findings may
be. Through my research, Ive discovered three main themes that I will discuss in this

ethnography: The Center as a safe space, the group dynamics of the Center, and criticisms of the

Center. I wanted to study the impact of having an LGBTQIA+ Center on campus, and though in

the future and with more time I could study this more, I think I found significant and intriguing

information about the inner workings of the Center as well as in-group membership. As a queer

nonbinary person, the Center has been a very important resource on campus for me personally,

and thus it was a valuable experience to formally study this space.

Locating the Researcher

Personally, I identify as a nonbinary pansexual person, and go by they/them/their

pronouns. Even before coming to college, I considered myself to be an active member of the

community. I was involved in online support groups, trans clothing exchange websites, and the

GSA club at my high school. Additionally, I made myself aware of queer issues with my friends,

who also mostly identified as queer, and attempted to educate others as much as I could. I felt

(and still feel) very attached to my identity, and consider myself a very proud member of the

LGBTQIA+ community, regardless of the hardships I face in society because of it.

Being nonbinary is not generally accepted in society, since the gender binary of girl/boy

and man/woman is ingrained in us from the time were born and put into pink or blue clothes.

People are taught in elementary school that the pronoun they is never to be used as singular,

which only leaves two options for people- he/him/his or she/her/hers; were taught to use

he/him/his if were ever unsure. The English language does not have an option for a singular,

non-gendered pronoun. Thus, as Ive grown into preferring they/them/theirs pronouns, Ive had

to face a multitude of issues in the face of society- ignorance, confusion, invalidation, and even

anger at my chosen pronouns. Before I identified as nonbinary, I identified as a trans boy, despite
presenting feminine. The contradiction in my perceived gender presentation, pronouns, and

societal gender roles caused a similar amount of ignorance and confusion. While people for the

most part have accepted my sexuality, its been harder for my friends, family, and people with

whom I interact (at school, in public during errands, etc.) to accept my gender.

When I arrived at Connecticut College, I identified as a boy, using he/him/his pronouns;

the community at the LGBTQIA+ Center (then, the LGBTQ+ Center) was very welcoming in

my experience. I was offered a job there, and I was involved in several clubs, though I continue

to be a part of only one of them. I felt very welcome, and the Center quickly became a second

home to me. However, the Center had a change in leadership from my first year to my second,

our previous director leaving and a new director coming in, and since then I have been less

involved. Many people who were once heavily involved with the center are no longer, and Id

heard through casual discussion with friends and acquaintances that some people felt ostracized.

As someone who had lost a job that I valued so much, I was inclined to agree, and felt the same

way.

Im friends with three people who frequently visit the Center, and acquaintances with

many others. Since I attend club meetings frequently, I talk to many of the leaders of the Center

and could consider some of them friends, however we arent very close. My trans/nonbinary

identity is well known by the members who know me, as well as my queerness, as I loudly boast

about my girlfriend. I like to think Im friendly with all people I meet at the Center, so I believe

my reputation is a relatively good one; I believe this was helpful in my observation, as the

members were comfortable with my presence.

Cultural Themes and Patterns

 In my three ethnographies, I ended up with seven overall observations which I discussed.

I observed three CQ2 (a queer therapy club) sessions, two free-time sessions, one QPOC+

(Queer People of Color and Allies) meeting, and a discussion event. The purpose of the events I

observed was to foster discussion and feelings of security on campus, and this purpose carries

over to the reason for the Centers very existence. In this section, I focus on the three themes

mentioned previously, and I will include specific illustrations of each theme through my

observations. Additionally, I will refer to all participants by initials.

Theme 1: The Center as a Safe Space

During most of my observations, this theme arose; students either discussed or exhibited

feeling secure with the presence of an LGBTQIA+ Center or in their involvement with the

Center. This was mainly seen in the context of CQ2- which is reasonable, since it is a student-run

queer therapy group- however, other observations also illustrated the Center as a safe space.

My first observation was a discussion led by staff and faculty meant to educate worried

students on the lawful protections granted to trans students as well, which I found informative

and beneficial. I wasnt expecting to attend this discussion at first, but an email was sent out after

Trumps ruling on Title IX and removing federal laws protecting transgender childrens right to

use the bathroom corresponding to their gender identity. As a nonbinary person, this concerned

me. I obtained permission to record the goings on of the discussion, which included both

students and faculty. What I found most interesting were power dynamics, which Ill address in

Theme 2, however my observations were still substantial to viewing the Center as a safe space.

Research conducted by Marx and Kettrey (2016), although focusing on high school students,

found that LGBTQ+ youth are more likely to face victimization than their peers, and are thus

more likely to suffer from a variety of harmful mental health issues. However, their research also
found that school clubs (in this case, specifically Gay-Straight Alliance [GSA] clubs) that are

LGBTQIA+ specific statistically show less victimization of queer students. By not only having

an LGBTQIA+ Center on Campus, but also holding informational and educational events at the

interest of queer students, a safe space is created where otherwise victimized students can be

reassured and secure in their identity.

I observed perhaps the most significant queer safe space during CQ2, the student-run

queer therapy group in the Center. The typical happenings included a brief introduction, a

highs-and-lows session, in which every participant discusses their high and low points of the

week, and a free discussion. During my first observation, there ended up being eight students

involved in the session- of which, three were observably POC, one was male, and three

(including myself) were nonbinary. The space seemed to be dominated by minority genders,

seven of the eight students being either female or nonbinary. In my experience with that space,

supported by this specific visit, it seemed to be a female-dominated space. Perhaps this was

because of the safe space offered to discuss anything on their minds, or perhaps the higher

presence of women was a result of a lack of presence of men, as the intersections between being

queer and male are often stigmatized. Regardless, the space still remained somewhere that each

participant had a chance to speak, be listened to, and be reassured. As an active member of this

space, I found that my research connected to Christine Elizabeth Kiesingers ethnography, From

Interview to Story: Writing Abbies Life. Kiesinger immerses herself into her research as a part of

the community she is studying, which is a similar approach to my own. My ability to observe

this space was rooted in my previous participation in the same space, and identity as a member of

the queer Conn community. In other words, as a fellow queer person with similar struggles, I
was a fellow participant- an insider of sorts- in this safe space. Fig. 1 presents the highs and

lows of each participant:

Name Pronoun High of the Week Low of the Week

(Initial)

H She/Her excited about a Stressed about a girl she likes. Her demeanor was
theater show very flustered when talking about this, and not as
witty as Ive come to find her.
T She/Her She and her friends she has a thing with a girl, though she is not
went to a gay club looking for a serious relationship. She feels,
over the weekend however, that the girl is expecting a serious
relationship with her, even though shes stated that
she only wants something casual.
A She/Her She went for a job Her relationship with her ex-girlfriend.
interview today.
C She/Her She participated in a She didnt do too well in the event.
sports event.

S He/Him Hes very happy He hasnt gotten work for his classes done due to
with his tech classes rehearsals
even though they
make him very busy.
W They/Them Theyre getting help Their mental health issues are difficult to handle.
for their mental They explained that they made a vial charm for
health issues healing, but then accidentally shattered it.
M They/Them Their girlfriend They contracted an STD.
ordered them a chest
binder

Its clear that some of these experiences are very personal, and a majority (four of the seven)

mentioned queer experience somehow, meaning that the participants must have felt secure

enough of their identity in the space to share these feelings and events.
 The third CQ2 I observed involved many of the same participants and themes as the first.

Of the nine people (besides myself) present, three mentioned queerness specifically during the

highs-and-lows session, and everyone eventually, whether in the discussion before or after the

session, discussed their queerness, specifically in the topic of a cheating situation as brought up

curiously by one participant to debate. The discussion involved some deeply personal anecdotes

being mentioned, and a related scenario came up with one participant during the highs-and-

lows session. These personal discussions, as I observed in my first CQ2 observation, certainly

paint the Center as a safe space. ADD MORE

In terms of CQ2 in general, I conducted two interviews in my second ethnography which

shed some light on participant feelings toward CQ2. I interviewed W, a student only involved in

CQ2, as well as SH, a former employee of the LGBTQIA+ Center. In the interview with W, they

discussed how CQ2 in particular brought them closer with other members of the community and

the worldwide community as a whole, including political issues and oppressions. Hackimer and

Proctor (2015) state in their study of LGBTQ+ community support that while in-school safe

spaces (such as GSAs, but in this case, the LGBTQIA+ Center) can be incredibly beneficial to

queer students, community acceptance plays a significant role as well. They cite supportive

peers, faculty, and parents as significant sources of acceptance for queer youth, and W mentions

how CQ2 has offered them that peer support, as well as how Conn (in some cases) has offered

them faculty support, with their therapist and several teachers. SH discussed similar feelings of

belonging as W did, in terms of CQ2 at least. CQ2 seemed to have a consistently positive effect

on those I observed in the space, as it was a peer-run safe space with little to no power structure,

the benefits of which I discuss in Theme 2. CQ2 has shown to be perhaps the most significant

source of support so far in my ethnographic study of this space. While the LGBTQIA+ Center is
generally considered a safe space on campus, there are plenty of criticisms in this ethnography

about it, which Ill unpack in Theme 3. However, CQ2 is consistently referred to as a positive

source of support, therapy, security, and other constructive aspects. This draws my thought to

Dyrness Mothers United, specifically Ofelias kitchen. In this chapter, a group of Hispanic

mothers whose voices have been ignored by their childrens school gather at the home of one

mother. This space serves as a base of community change where the women can speak their

minds freely. Additionally, it fosters healing, bonding, and resistance. The space as described in

Dyrness ethnography, though serving a different specific purpose, I see as serving a very similar

purpose as CQ2- being a safe space. Both of these spaces are meant as a place where members of

the community can gather and speak freely with the confidence that their words will remain

confidential.

Hackimer and Proctor (2015) discuss that community support through parents, school

adults, school peers, and overall school climate is critical in the development of queer identities

and the overall mental wellbeing of queer individuals. CQ2 can clearly serve as both peer and

school climate support, encouraging identity formation, development, and embracing. During my

interviews, I found that while SH doesnt talk about their own identity formation much, they do

discuss the development of their friends development to identifying as queer and nonbinary as

well. When they came to Conn, they stated that they were the only nonbinary person who

frequented the Center. However, since then, to our knowledge there are five more nonbinary

people who attend Center events and CQ2, and none of them came to Conn with a nonbinary

identity. Additionally, SH cites still being unsure of their sexual orientation, however CQ2 is a

place where it seems they can discuss their concerns with peers and get help in their continuing

identity formation, thus leading to further self-assurance and self-esteem.

 Additionally, in relation to identity, by openly discussing queer identity in this space an

in-group is created; in other words, a group identity is formed, with individuals considering

themselves members as opposed to simply individuals and nothing more. This is outlined in

Tajfel and Turners 1979 Social Identity Theory, as explained by Ellemers and Haslam (2011).

Tajfel and Turner defined social identity as the portion of an individuals view of themself that

stems from their membership with a social group or groups as well as the emotional

significance of such membership. This can lead to an us vs. them mindset in some

circumstances, but it can also bring people together with common purpose or identity. One of the

aspects of social identity that Ellemers and Haslam (2011) mention is that of social creativity, in

which groups who may have negative connotations attached to them find ways to redefine their

group and represent it as positive (383). I believe that in general, that process is the very goal of

the LGBTQIA+ center; to take a marginalized group of people which society generally looks

upon negatively and offer support to redefine the queer label as positive. In the specific case of

this particular CQ2 observation, I think that concept comes into play during the highs and lows

session of E, J, and A. E discussed the concept of ear piercing, with one being considered gay;

she was disappointed that she had to take out a piercing on the gay ear, implying her pride in

being a member of the LGBTQIA+ community. A discussed Lavender Graduation, describing it

as a revelation to him and saying that coming out was the best thing to happen to his friend

group since hes so much happier. A significant aspect of S.I.T. are themes of belongingness,

which are also important when considering the LGBTQIA+ Center especially in a small group

like CQ2. According to Ryff (1989 and 1995), cited by Bratt (2015), important aspects of

psychological well-being include self-acceptance and self-esteem, mastering life, and the

absence of emotional problems, which are all aspects that can be improved both by therapy and
by significant interactions and relationships with others. Bratt also cites the importance of close

relationships with others in terms of feelings of belongingness- which are essential to

psychological health- due to the social and emotional support that subsequently arises. That

belongingness factor of being part of an in-group- specifically, as Bratt argues, a small group-

may contribute to why people are able to open up so easily and interact so easily in the Center

during CQ2. For instance, J opened up about something personal in terms of a relationship and

his sexual experiences, something that typically is done in society individually with a close

friend, perhaps. However, with this group of less than ten people, most of whom are close friends

with him outside of class, and all of whom share a queer identity with him, J must have felt

secure enough in his in-group to open up about such an experience. The concept of Social

Identity Theory branches off into many different aspects, and bridges the way to a variety of

other related points, which brings me to my next theme.

Theme 2: Group Dynamics

As I moved from writing my second ethnography to writing my third, I realized a

significant theme that showed up in my observations that Id failed to notice before- participant

interaction. Interaction happened in each of my observations, and studying exactly how it

happened is crucial to attempt to understand the participants feelings during that time.

Returning to the Title IX trans talk, perhaps the most interesting aspect of this

conversation was the power dynamics presented. The talk was led by adults- as expected, since

they were professionals on the topic- though even when the forum was open for discussion and

questions, it took until almost the end of the meeting until a student spoke up. Additionally, I

found that the students appeared to be much more anxious than the faculty there. Below is an
observation chart of the five students who were present besides myself, and the behaviors I

observed from them. Each student is referred to by an initial for confidentiality reasons.

C: Rubbing arms, writing in a book

O: Toying with jewelry

G: Touching face a lot

B: Playing with nails, face appears to have been crying (swollen eyes, shiny cheeks)

S: Playing with nails

Lisa M. Dorner addressed some of these power dynamics in her ethnography From Relating to

(Re)Presenting: Lessons Learned from an Ethnographic Study With Young Children. She

explores the relation of power a young child Madison, whom she interviewed, and the adults in

Madisons life. In a drawing study, Dorner was able to conclude that the most important people

in her school were adults, those with power. Perhaps the silence of the students was due to the

presence of adults speaking, which is a situation that we as students are conditioned to be silent

during. Or, perhaps, the silence of students was due to the policies in question having more

involvement in their lives, since it affects school bathrooms. Additionally, the end of the meeting

involved less of a discussion between participants, and more reassurance by faculty to students.

The reasoning for this may have stemmed from the faculty having more life experience in

general, however I think it certainly contributed to the power dynamics of the environment, that

the older participants had more control of the discussion.

In terms of my first CQ2 observation, the most fascinating aspect of interaction I

observed was, in fact, my own. An interesting experience that occurred at the club was when it

came to be my turn to discuss my highs and lows of the week. I had to shift rather suddenly from
observer to participant, a process discussed in the ethnography Working Our Hyphens by Tina

Wagle and David T. Cantaffa. Identity is concluded to be a large part of research, as our

identities as researchers affect the outcomes of our research (Wagle and Cantaffa, 2008). The

metaphorical hyphen discussed is that between the researcher and that being researched-

something I experienced that night. Im regularly a part of that club, however, merely by taking

the position of an observer, I made myself feel disconnected from my own community.

Additionally, I found that my research connected to Christine Elizabeth Kiesingers ethnography,

From Interview to Story: Writing Abbies Life. Kiesinger immerses herself into her research as a

part of the community she is studying, which is a similar approach to my own. My ability to

observe this space was rooted in my previous participation in the same space, and identity as a

member of the queer Conn community; it was rooted in the dynamics I had already set up with

the space in my previous experiences there. In my participation of activities at the LGBTQIA

Center for this ethnography, I had in mind the work of Tina Wagle and David T. Cantaffa in their

ethnography Working Our Hyphens. In their research, they discuss the importance of the

researchers identity in their work. Since Davids work was at an LGBTQ Center, I had the

mindset that my research may be similar to his- however, Im very sure in my identity, and the

Center hasnt made me question it at all. I realized my work was similar to Tinas, as I am very

much an accepted member of the queer community on campus. Perhaps my own research

illustrates an interesting combination between the two, as I was able to get insider information

and perspectives while being recognized as a part of the community in which I identify. Its

because of my own involvement that I think I was able to not only get meaningful stories of the

positive experiences of participants, but also meaningful critiques of the queer community on

Conns campus.
 In terms of the third CQ2 session I observed, the eight people who were there (besides

myself and the participant who entered very late) were all close friends, mostly seniors. The

session was less of a therapy session, with one person talking and the others listening, and more

of a conversation. Each persons turn became an in-depth discussion of their life, with everybody

offering support to each other. Returning to my discussion on Social Identity Theory, CQ2

creates in in-group which encourages personal discussion and closeness between members, while

additionally fostering belongingness in its members. Ive already established that CQ2 is a

crucial safe space for queer students at Conn, and the subsequent connections between CQ2 and

Dyrness book Mothers United; however, there is another theme the two circumstances share:

friendship and belonging. In Ofelias kitchen, the Madres have a space filled with shared identity

and people they trust, much like CQ2. Although the core identity in both situation differs- being

a Latina mother versus being queer- both situations revolve around a marginalized group using

the social support of merely gathering as a means of gaining confidence. Dyrness writes that the

mothers made the space soothing [and] comforting (139) with children running about, and the

mothers setting out snacks for them. Notably, during CQ2, R grabbed a cup of tea before they sat

down, and theres a small space in the corner of the Center with a fridge, microwave, mugs, tea,

and snacks, creating the a similar kind of casual comfort. Both the mothers and the participants

of CQ2 experienced an intimate setting (Ofelias kitchen and a circle of chairs and couches in the

Center), a place to share their personal stories and issues, and a place to, as Dyrness writes, be

present in their wholeness (140).

One of the most critical pieces of data I collected was in the form of the two interviews

mentioned earlier. I got valuable insight on both the positive and negative impacts that the Center

has had on queer people, and I believe the reason for this had to do with where, how, and with
whom I conducted the interviews. I chose the two students, W and SH, as participants because I

knew them from CQ2. Much like Kiesingers ethnography, Writing Abbies Life, I was able to

form a bond with both participants through sharing our struggles in life. While Kiesinger and

Abbie had a shared experience of eating disorders, SH, W and I shared experiences of being both

queer and nonbinary. I talked with both of them frequently, and the actual interviews were

conducted in my room, a more private space. I took the idea from Kiesinger, who interviewed

Abbie in her (Abbies) home for a more intimate setting. Both participants had been to my room

for casual get-togethers several times before, so Id hoped that conducting the interview in the

same setting would make them comfortable. While I cant be sure if they both truly felt

comfortable, they did both offer their stories in depth to me.

Shifting to a different note, some of my observations took place in more casual settings.

During my second and third sets of observations, I visited the Center during a time where no

event was going on. In visiting the Center on a normal day, I was able to visualize who may

frequent that space at a popular study time, and return to how the power dynamics may work- the

goal of my first ethnography- in the absence of a specific event. During my first visit, it was

evident that the two people who worked at the Center- J and G- held the most power. Both sat in

the center of the room, both were loud, both had their belongings spread around them. This was a

casual setting for them, but all I pictured was the exclusion felt by SH that they were benefitting

from. It was an unpleasant power dynamic, and perhaps I myself was feeling the aggression and

attitude shift as a result of social exclusion felt by myself and the other students who were denied

a job at the Center. For someone not involved, however, perhaps it may have felt welcoming. Its

bright, has many rainbows, and music was playing. If I was unaware of the hidden tension, it

may have been a more pleasant study space.

 In my third ethnography, I conducted another free time observation. I arrived at 5:30 on a

Wednesday, however the lights in the Center were all off, leading me to believe it was closed.

Upon inspection, however, I found it was open, and the director of the Center (who Ill refer to

as D), as well as J were having a discussion in Ds office. Eventually, two others join- both

Center employees. The conversation they have is light and filled with laughter, however its

incredibly different from CQ2. Even when I attempt to join the conversation, it is awkward.

Additionally, the majority of the conversations between the other four revolved around their

employment at the Center. This time, unlike with CQ2, I am an outsider. Like my first free time

observation, the majority of people in the Center were employees, and it was a much more

segregated place than CQ2. In terms of Social Identity Theory, perhaps a different in-group had

been formed. While the in-group at CQ2 would be queer people, which includes everyone in the

space, the in-group during free time may have been Center employees; this would make me a

part of the out-group during this observation.

Theme 3: Criticisms of the Center

Although the Center is, in my opinion, a very beneficial resource to have on campus,

every positive space has its downside. Through my observations and interviews, I collected a

significant amount of data detailing peoples problems with the Center in how its run, how

people conduct themselves there, and with what it does as compared to what it could be or

should be doing.

My first observation that really included a criticism of the Center was my interview with

W. In response to me asking if they felt that having an LGBTQIA+ Center on campus was

beneficial, they responded, Um, I feel like it is really beneficial, even though the- it sounds a lot

like the people who are running it need to get their shit together, so [sighs] I dont even know.
Interviewing SH, however, I was able to receive a lot more in-depth information involving the

Center, especially the change in leadership since SH personally experienced that. Their response

to my question asking if they felt the Center was beneficial was especially interesting:

Um, in general not as much as I was hoping it would be for me. [] So um, like I got to work

there um, uh so I had this like, job um, freshman year like getting videos for the Center that they

had like educational queer videos every week and that was, cool in some ways [] And then um,

[Previous Director] left and was like, were gonna uh, get a new person whos gonna like- you

know dont worry youll still have your jobs. And then we got a new person, and I went to the

interview, and he you know said you seem great, and then I didnt get hired, and Im not really

sure why so that was like really disappointing. And um, hm, and also theres um, this like

committee thing where were like trying to um, get more gender-neutral bathrooms around

campus, because theres like, all these uh, academic buildings which just dont have any which is

sucky. And um, Im not sure how thats going yet, I guess I just gotta be hopeful.

After this question, I asked them to describe their feelings about the Center. The answer they

provided also offered some significant inside information:

Hmm, umm, pretty good before and mixed now [] Um, because Im not sure whats going on

with the guy working there, like why he um, seems very nice in some ways and like, is strange in

others *chuckles, is hesitant* like, maybe like, I dont know theres some things that seemed

obvious to me to do for like, the Center that like, hes not doing and I dont really know why. And

um, yeah.

There was a theme of exclusion here, that at one point they did many things for the center, but

now it is barely even beneficial to them anymore. Research by DeWall, Deckman, Pond, and

Bonser (2011), mentioned before, examined the effects of social exclusion, which seemed to be

what SH described experiencing. According to their research, people experiencing social

exclusion may respond with aggression/aggravation, prosocial behavior, self-regulation,

variations in attitudes, and others. SH certainly exhibited mixed feelings and responses in the

interview, praising the Center sometimes while criticizing it other times. Additionally, outside of

the interview in CQ2, I noticed such behavior from them when the group discussed the Centers

change in leadership. SH exhibited a clear negative attitude towards the new director, however,

they also agreed to help him with a project involving their artistic skill. These behaviors enforce

that, at the very least, SH feels excluded in the general Center community.

Both interviews included criticisms of how the Center is run, which I found interesting.

W, even though they are mainly involved with CQ2, seemed to at least be aware of the tension

some have felt with the change in leadership. They used the term it sounds like when referring

to this strain, and they seemed to be aware that those with more involvement in Center activities

have issues with the way the Center is being run.

SH, being a former employee, directly experienced the change in leadership. They

discussed their mixed feelings on the Center, and through their story it was evident that they used

to be very involved with the Center. When asked about their involvement now, they admitted to

not being involved in much anymore besides CQ2 and scattered events. I should have gone more

with the flow of the conversation during our interview, as it would be interesting to find out more

about their mixed thoughts on the Center and new leadership. Its evident, though, that they feel

hurt from being excluded from something that was once so meaningful to them that they cited it

as a main reason to attend Conn.

An observation that I havent discussed yet is my second time at a CQ2 meeting. For this

observation, I didnt record the highs-and-lows session, but I paid careful attention to the free

discussion that took place afterwards. M asked me about meetings for a project me, them, and
SH were working on. The director excluded them, because it was too hard to find a time that

fit their schedule as well. We discussed how a cisgender man was added to this project, even

though it was started by two nonbinary people, and how little was being done to further the

project. SH, an artist, talked about their discussions with the new director. He spoke highly of

how much use their artistic talent could be for the center before deciding not to hire them. SH

mentioned how after a meeting with the facilities coordinator, the new director asked them to

complete an artistic project. SH felt like they were expected to contribute to the center, but

without pay. They spoke of the irony in that, and the hurt they felt. We discussed how 3 of us

lost our jobs, while the new director hired a straight cisgender freshman. Critique of this

employee followed, with H asking questions such as: Why would a straight person apply to a

queer center? Why would a straight cisgender person get hired over three queer people? What

was the director thinking? Myself and H mentioned how we knew people who no longer visit

the center due to the exclusionary feelings they get from it. M, H, W, SH, and myself all

discussed feeling excluded and that our needs were being disregarded.

The conversation focused much on critical theory- empowering people to surpass

institutional constraints put upon them- and additionally queer and feminist theories, since much

of the discussion revolved around unfairness in regard to gender and sexuality. Additionally, we

can return to discussion of DeWall and colleagues (2011) research on exclusionary responses.

This group, closed to the public and a safe domain for discussion, included a majority of angry

members. Perhaps the exclusion led to such aggravation and attitude shift from the casual

conversation and therapy beforehand, and such responses may have led to the realization that

unfairness was taking place. SH, a nonbinary student who was denied a job at the Center,

discussed feeling exploited by the center director, expecting art without payment and ignoring
the tension over having fired them. M, another nonbinary student, was excluded from a bathroom

project intended for nonbinary/gender nonconforming students, because their schedule was too

difficult to work with. However, a cisgender man was added to the project without consent of the

nonbinary students who began the project. This discussion was largely critical of the new way

the Center is run. Additionally, it was mentioned that some students felt so excluded that they

were boycotting the Center. The majority of the feelings expressed, I noticed, were centered on

treatment that queer women and nonbinary people felt from straight people and men.

My other observation I discussed in my second ethnography took place at a different club

called QPOC+, standing for Queer People of Color and Allies. The criticisms mentioned in this

club meeting were less revolved around management of the Center- in fact, the director was

praised frequently during this meeting. What I noticed here, as expected, was a large focus on

critical race theory- focusing attention on race, racial constructions, institutionalized racism, race

privilege, discrimination, and oppression- among others. The first part of the discussion in this

club revolved around the thought of combining Spectrum- the schools gender and sexuality

club- with QPOC+ in order to promote diversity and knowledge of intersectionality. The only

problem to this was cited as opposition by white students, who leaders feared would voice

discomfort with racial discussions. One member, D, voiced that she thought a space like

Spectrum should be somewhere that POC students feel comfortable speaking about race issues if

they felt it necessary. Somewhere meant for inclusivity should not ignore intersectionality. It was

brought up that sadly, much of the queer community does just that, ignoring intersections of

gender, race, class, ethnicity, and other aspects of identity, and that we at Conn should fight that

frame of thought.
 The second part of the conversation revolved around the ignorance observed at

another Conn club- Connecticut College Conservatives. Myself and W, who hadnt heard of such

a thing existing, were shocked both by its existence and the amount of support it received. Queer

theory appeared to be a dominant discussion topic here, as those in the club brought up being

offended of their homosexual friends being angry at their political views, as well as

transgender people simply existing and using bathrooms. The president of the club referred to

trans people as mentally ill- something refutable with a quick DSM search. We discussed the

ignorance and hatred observed in this club, and how the LGBTQIA+ Center along with other

inclusive Centers on campus were working to combat that. R, the club president, mentioned a

meeting with the six leaders of this conservative club, in which they argued feeling like an

attacked minority on campus, and argued for their freedom of speech. While the Center

director appeased them, R fought back in opposition, a key part of critical race theory. He

opposed the white students who were complaining about feeling oppressed by discussing his

black identity, making sure they heard him out and killing them with kindness. This criticism

was more focused on student behavior than that of faculty or the school administration.

The last criticism, based upon my second free time observation, will be my own. In

Theme 2, I discussed the power dynamics of what I observed, in large part in terms of my own

interactions with the others in the setting. I mentioned feeling like the outsider of the group,

which is exactly where my criticism comes in. In contrast to the social belongingness offered by

CQ2, it is very possible that some aspects of the Center are more exclusionary. From my own

experiences in talking to others who were previously involved in the Center, that view doesnt

seem too far of a stretch, either. While the Center is meant to be a safe space, even safe spaces

can be exclusionary in some cases. However, the impacts of social exclusion on mental health
can be intense and harmful. In studying the concept of social exclusion, DeWall, Deckman,

Pond, and Bonser (2011) cite that the need to belong is evolutionarily connected to survival

(980), and thus, social exclusion is linked to a variety of negative outcomes, such as physical

deficits (poorer immune system and sleep quality), increased aggression in behavior, and more

selfish (less prosocial) behavior (I return to this study in Theme 3). Perhaps the feeling of

being excluded is why I was the only person there who wasnt an employee, and why there have

been so few people in the Center during free times.

Related to exclusion is a concept called team identification, a core aspect of in-group

social identity. Team identification refers to, according to Kexin et al. (2013) and defined by

Tajfel (1978), the significance, value, and emotional prospects of a group as seen by its

members. In other words, this concept refers to how members of an in-group or team view their

team. Interactions and relationships with other team members, with social inclusion being an

important factor, help to form this identity and can lead to better teamwork, loyalty, satisfaction,

and work outcome when individual team members needs are met (Kexin et al., 2013). However,

exclusion or the feeling of being excluded, ignored, or not important enough can have negative

outcomes on team identification. In this case, I believe that including and fostering better

relationships employees as while lacking focus on non-employee members at the Center can lead

to ostracizing of members and a divide in the LGBTQIA+ community on campus. In order to

counteract this, Kexin et al. (2013) suggest that managers or leaders of groups work to inspire

team members to offer their voices to the group, as well as organize activities to foster positive

relationships within the teams. Perhaps the Center could take steps to reach out to non-employee

students, and offer opportunities for such students to be involved or at least a part of the space,

even if its in a non-active way- for instance, studying or doing homework in the Center.
Conclusion

I began this ethnography as a part of the LGBTQIA+ Center, so I thought my

observations would be no different or more eye-opening than my prior experiences, but I was

wrong. By observing the benefits, dynamics, and downfalls of the Center, I feel like I have a

better grasp of how many students feel, and perhaps some areas in which to advocate for change.

Ive observed and recorded the voices of many students, all experiencing the Center in different

ways, and all having different needs. Hopefully from this, I can be a better participant in Center

activities as well.

As for specific new knowledge about the LGBTQIA+ Center, Im not sure I can say I

learned any new information per se, however I was certainly able to notice more, and bring

concepts I somewhat understood more to life. For instance, through my interviews I was able to

capture deeper feelings of people who I interact with frequently in the Center. In QPOC+, I got a

specifically non-white perspective, which is crucial for any and all participatory work.

Additionally, I was able to see what the Center was like under this new management in the

absence of any special event, which is something Ive avoided doing since I lost my job there.

Conducting this ethnographic research inspired me to return to the LGBTQIA+ Center, and as a

result I now feel a bit more comfortable in the space. Additionally, critiquing the space has made

me a bit more open to doing so in person, and thus more able to advocate for change that, based

on my observations, discussions, and interviews, clearly needs to happen. Overall, I have

enjoyed conducting research at the LGBTQIA+ Center. I think this space is overlooked by many

Conn students, and the feelings of those who visit the Center are important to portray, especially

with the prevalent tensions with the new leadership.

 Ethnography is still a form of research that Im new to, and as such Ive found it difficult

to determine exactly what is considered meaningful to write. I enjoyed conducting interviews

and holding conversations, as I feel it gives more insight into the happenings of the LGBTQIA+

Center than just my own experiences, observations, and analysis. Something Ive been unsure of

are my own analyses of observations, because I dont think I have the authority to analyze other

peoples lives in depth just through observing their actions. I can make simple interpretations and

offer my thoughts, however that may not align with the truth. With interviewing and more

interactive approaches, however, I feel an analysis is much easier and also more accurate to what

the participant feels, since its their own words I would be analyzing. Though observations can

create meaningful discussion, I feel that analysis without consulting the participants of the space

is difficult to portray the truth of the situation. As a researcher, Im still human, and not

automatically able to determine what people may be thinking or feeling just by observation.

Discussions and interviews are ways to make more meaningful analyses, but theres still a lot I

have to learn.

From constructing ethnographic knowledge, I learned how to present the human

experience as meaningful research. As someone in a field of study where quantitative research is

held as the only valuable information, it was eye-opening to be exposed to anything different,

especially something that values observation, interaction, discussion, and overall experience.

While it interested me at first, the ethnographic process wasnt easy to learn, but through class

readings, discussion, and experience through research assignments, I think I was able to get a

meaningful grasp on it. It was odd learning the basics of a good ethnography: self-reflexivity,

empathetic and active listening, balancing focus between oneself and the research site and

participants, and changes in research plans, among others. Many of these lessons were
expansions of things I do every day, but never truly thought about in depth. At first, it was

awkward to put them into practice, and that awkwardness never fully went away; thus, there are

aspects of this ethnography as well as a lack of aspects that could have been changed. For

instance, my interviewing was choppy and too planned, while I should have gone with the flow

of the conversation. One of the most important things I learned to apply in my research was the

difference between writing about and writing with, although Im not sure I was able to achieve

that concept to its full potential. However, I did abide by some basic concepts though; I involved

my participants, let them know what I was researching and how I planned to go about it. I

allowed them to shape my research by telling them I wanted their voices heard. While there are

definitely skills I could improve upon in terms of qualitative research, I feel like Ive learned a

lot, and I hope I can apply this to future research in classes or future work.
 References

Bratt, C. (2015). One of few or one of many: Social identification and psychological well-being

among minority youth. British Journal Of Social Psychology, 54(4), 671-694.

doi:10.1111/bjso.12105

Campbell, E., & Lassiter, L. E. (2015). Doing ethnography today: theories, methods, exercises.

Chichester: Wiley Blackwell.

Creswell, J. (2012). Introduction. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Amount

Five Approaches. (pp. 1-34). California, Sage Press.

DeWall, C. N., Deckman, T., Pond, R. S., & Bonser, I. (2011). Belongingness as a Core

Personality Trait: How Social Exclusion Influences Social Functioning and Personality

Expression. Journal Of Personality, 79(6), 979-1012. doi:10.1111/j.1467-

6494.2010.00695.x

Dorner, L. (2015). From Relating to (Re)Presenting: Challenges and Lessons Learned From and

Ethnographic Study With Young Children. Qualitative Inquiry 21(4), 354-365.

Dyrness, A. (2011). Mothers united: an immigrant struggle for socially just education.

Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Ellemers, N., & Haslam, S. (2011). Social Identity Theory. In Handbook of Theories of Social

Psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 379-398). SAGE Publications.

Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I., & Shaw, L. L. (1995). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. Chicago:

University of Chicago Press.

Goodall, H. L. (2000). Writing the new ethnography. Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press.

Hackimer, L., & Proctor, S. L. (2015). Considering the community influence for lesbian, gay,

bisexual, and transgender youth. Journal Of Youth Studies, 18(3), 277-290.

doi:10.1080/13676261.2014.944114

KEXIN, G., ZHENGXUE, L., JIAXI, P., ZHEN, W., HAITING, S., & CHUN, Q. (2013).

TEAM NETWORKS AND TEAM IDENTIFICATION: THE ROLE OF LEADER-

MEMBER EXCHANGE. Social Behavior & Personality: An International

Journal, 41(7), 1115-1123. doi:10.2224/sbp.2013.41.7.1115

Kiesinger, C. (1998). From Interview to Story: Writing Abbies Life. Qualitative Inquiry, 4(1),

71-95.

Marx, R. A., & Kettrey, H. H. (n.d.). Gay-Straight Alliances are Associated with Lower Levels

of School-Based Victimization of LGBTQ Youth: A Systematic Review and Meta-

analysis. In Journal of Youth and Adolescence (7th ed., Vol. 45, pp. 1269-1282).

doi:10.1007/s10964-016-0501-7

Wagle, T. & Cantaffa, D. (2008). Working Our Hyphens: Exploring Identity Relations in

Qualitative Research. Qualitative Inquiry 14(1), 135-159.