A Note on Reflexivity

This dissertation is rooted in an understanding of power differences and an effort to challenge the dominant normative privilege of heterosexuality and cis-genderism. Because of the critical nature of this project and the intention of having this research inform attempts to improve school environments, an understanding of the positionality of the researcher becomes increasingly important. My own lived experiences have shaped

the topic undertaken, the choice of using qualitative interviews, and the epistemological, theoretical, and policy or intervention-based nature of the research project. From start to finish, it was important to self-reflect not only on the influence of positionality over the research, but also over interactions between myself and the participants. Such

positionality is also important to acknowledge and articulate for those who are reading this dissertation so as to provide a better understanding of the constructed ideas that are articulated here and how they have potentially been swayed or influenced by this positionality.

That I currently identify as a cis-gendered heterosexual female is probably the most prevalent factor that shapes my relationship to this research topic and the student

participants in particular. In many ways, this identity situates me as an outsider (Griffith, 1998) in relation to the research topic and student sample, and as someone that is often more privileged than SGM individuals targeted by GSB. To explain further, Griffith (1998) contrasts the idea of an insider, or “someone whose biography (gender, race, class, sexual orientation and so on) gives her [sic] a lived familiarity with the group being researched” (p. 362), with the notion of an outsider, or someone who does not have that intimate knowledge of the research group. While gender and sexuality are important classifications that situate myself in a privileged position relative to my student

participants, I would not say that these identity markers are the only relevant aspects of my identity that should determine my relationship to the research or an insider/outsider position. Furthermore, I attempted to mitigate any effect since at no point in the interview process did I disclose my identity to participants.

It was suggested earlier that the commonality of the insult (Eribon, 2004) provides a common experience that could transcend other aspects of identity and supports the inclusion of male and female participants, along with heterosexual or homosexual

participants (among other identity categorizations). Thus, having personally experienced bullying based on my gender and/or perceived sexual orientation, my similarities with the student participants no longer ring true of an exclusively outsider position relative to the entire student sample. At the same time, I do not intend to represent myself as having experienced the same level or type of GSB that my participants did. Ultimately, this

insider/outsider dichotomy is somewhat problematic when it comes to classifying myself in relation to my research participants and perhaps should better be understood as a relative distinction subject to different comparisons.

Levy (2013) supports this problematizing of the dichotomy through arguing that researchers are rarely insiders or outsiders in a truly dichotomous sense. Instead, the insider or outsider distinction often rests on an implicit and oversimplified assumption of homogeneity within the population of interest. Such homogenization is in stark

opposition to the notion of intersectionality (Collins, 2000; Crenshaw, 1989) which recognizes the diversity within groups based on axes of social inequalities or factors of oppression. Thus, while I am in some ways similar to or different from the participants in this study, the classification as absolute insider or outsider is flawed. Nonetheless,

choosing a research method that better allows participants to speak for themselves and reflecting on my positionality, is my attempt to overcome any negative effects of this insider/outsider status.

One could also consider the benefit of this relative insider/outsider positionality. Just like the advantages of retrospective interviews and the idea that it is harder to glean a clear picture of what is going on when deeply involved in a situation, I believe that my

experiences have provided a level of personal investment in this topic, while at the same time the differences between my experiences and those of the participants allows me a certain level of emotional distance. This distance can be advantageous in that it allows me the opportunity to see certain commonalities that participants themselves might not be able to articulate or may simply assume based on generalizing from their own

experiences.

Lastly, I consider myself to be an ally, or someone who makes an active commitment to stand with SGM groups that have historically been marginalized, and to seek out social justice through my personal and academic work. This is probably the personal

characteristic that has most strongly influenced this research as it helps explain my intent of wanting to conduct research with the goal of making things better for all students (given the wide-ranging effects of GSB), and in particular for SGM students. I also hold

the belief that while I may be a relative outsider in many respects, it should not be left solely to insiders or individuals who have been marginalized to challenge the systems that lead to and maintain their oppression. In this manner, I believe it is my responsibility to use the privileges that I have been afforded along with the platform and access that I do have, not to speak for those who have been oppressed, but rather to assist where possible in helping to share the stories of oppression and the ongoing challenges that SGM individuals face.