Week 5: 1AM*
Greetings!
After another productive week in AP Research, I feel like I finally have something noteworthy to announce here: my literature review outline! Up until now, I have been somewhat of a lost puppy, following any faint scent wherever it would take me. But this week, I decided to put my foot down and introduce some structure into my research process--and what better structure is there than a color-coded outline?
Of course, it's a little bit intimidating to see most of the document filled up with orange highlights, because that color signifies that I have yet to find a source for that part of my lit review. That's okay, though, because it has given me a far more stable direction in terms of my search for sources. This week, I want to talk about two sources I've come across that have greatly informed my understanding of the relationship between sexuality education and LGBTQ youth. Hopefully, by the end of this post, you will have an idea of my thought process when compiling sources and the connections I envision among them.
I'll start off by talking about one study** from 2014 that attempted to better understand school-based sexuality education for LGBTQ youth. The authors conducted a focus group of LGBTQ high school students and discussed sexuality education in their schools. Overwhelmingly, they concluded that "heterosexuality [is] the perceived norm" in school-sponsored sex ed classes (Gowen & Winges-Yanez 792). I think that statement speaks to a lot of things beyond sex ed, actually, but that's a different topic for a different research student.
While the sample population was limited to Oregon, this could prove to be more of a benefit than a challenge. Arizona and Oregon have very obviously different politically climates, but the fact that Oregon is more liberal indicates that these results would be the same, if not more exaggerated, for a similar group of students in Arizona. In other words, if Oregon can't get LGBTQ-inclusive sex ed right, then Arizona probably hasn't done an A+ job either. Another limitation of this source, though, is that it relies on self-reporting--as in, the perceptions of students, rather than an objective content analysis (for example).
Luckily, though, another study puts these results in perspective. In 2009, Joanna Almeida and colleagues published a study*** built on previous research that had confirmed disparities between LGBTQ and cisgender/heterosexual (cis/het, or, non-LGBT) youth in terms of mental health, suicidal ideation, and self-harm. However, the authors noted that previous research lacked thorough evaluation of whether perceived discrimination factored into these statistics at all. By surveying students in 18 Boston public high schools, the authors were able to find that a significant portion (33%) of LGBT-identified participants reported having experienced discrimination on the basis of being a sexual minority, as compared to only 4% of cis/het participants (Almeida et al. 1007).
The connection? According to the Oregon focus group, LGBTQ students in high schools perceive that their sex education courses are exclusionary and heterocentric. The Boston surveys say that perceived discrimination is correlated with higher rates of self-harm, suicidal ideation, and generally poor mental health. If high school sex education courses are not inclusive of LGBTQ students, they could be a factor in the poor mental health of some students. And, because the purpose of sex ed is to equip students for their own futures, LGBTQ-exclusive sex ed is ultimately a fail.
Although these sources individually can only speak to fragments of the topic I'm trying to cover, together they indicate an urgency for more comprehensive sex ed. My project hopes to point sex education in a more LGBTQ-inclusive direction, and for that reason, these two studies together constitute a crucial part of proving the significance of my research.
Until next week,
Vanessa
(628)
*Good thing of the week!
**Gowen, Kris L. and Winges-Yanez, Nichole. "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, and Questioning Youths’ Perspectives of Inclusive School-Based Sexuality Education." Journal of Sex Research. 51.7 (2014): 788-800. Routledge Online. 26 Aug 2017.
***Almeida, Joanna et al. "Emotional Distress Among LGBT Youth: The Influence
of Perceived Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation." Journal of Youth Adolescence. 38 (2009): 1001-1014. EBSCO. 11 Sept 2017.
After another productive week in AP Research, I feel like I finally have something noteworthy to announce here: my literature review outline! Up until now, I have been somewhat of a lost puppy, following any faint scent wherever it would take me. But this week, I decided to put my foot down and introduce some structure into my research process--and what better structure is there than a color-coded outline?
Of course, it's a little bit intimidating to see most of the document filled up with orange highlights, because that color signifies that I have yet to find a source for that part of my lit review. That's okay, though, because it has given me a far more stable direction in terms of my search for sources. This week, I want to talk about two sources I've come across that have greatly informed my understanding of the relationship between sexuality education and LGBTQ youth. Hopefully, by the end of this post, you will have an idea of my thought process when compiling sources and the connections I envision among them.
 |
| Leah Remini is an icon. Watch her scientology docu-series if you haven't already. |
I'll start off by talking about one study** from 2014 that attempted to better understand school-based sexuality education for LGBTQ youth. The authors conducted a focus group of LGBTQ high school students and discussed sexuality education in their schools. Overwhelmingly, they concluded that "heterosexuality [is] the perceived norm" in school-sponsored sex ed classes (Gowen & Winges-Yanez 792). I think that statement speaks to a lot of things beyond sex ed, actually, but that's a different topic for a different research student.
While the sample population was limited to Oregon, this could prove to be more of a benefit than a challenge. Arizona and Oregon have very obviously different politically climates, but the fact that Oregon is more liberal indicates that these results would be the same, if not more exaggerated, for a similar group of students in Arizona. In other words, if Oregon can't get LGBTQ-inclusive sex ed right, then Arizona probably hasn't done an A+ job either. Another limitation of this source, though, is that it relies on self-reporting--as in, the perceptions of students, rather than an objective content analysis (for example).
Luckily, though, another study puts these results in perspective. In 2009, Joanna Almeida and colleagues published a study*** built on previous research that had confirmed disparities between LGBTQ and cisgender/heterosexual (cis/het, or, non-LGBT) youth in terms of mental health, suicidal ideation, and self-harm. However, the authors noted that previous research lacked thorough evaluation of whether perceived discrimination factored into these statistics at all. By surveying students in 18 Boston public high schools, the authors were able to find that a significant portion (33%) of LGBT-identified participants reported having experienced discrimination on the basis of being a sexual minority, as compared to only 4% of cis/het participants (Almeida et al. 1007).
The connection? According to the Oregon focus group, LGBTQ students in high schools perceive that their sex education courses are exclusionary and heterocentric. The Boston surveys say that perceived discrimination is correlated with higher rates of self-harm, suicidal ideation, and generally poor mental health. If high school sex education courses are not inclusive of LGBTQ students, they could be a factor in the poor mental health of some students. And, because the purpose of sex ed is to equip students for their own futures, LGBTQ-exclusive sex ed is ultimately a fail.
 | |
|
Although these sources individually can only speak to fragments of the topic I'm trying to cover, together they indicate an urgency for more comprehensive sex ed. My project hopes to point sex education in a more LGBTQ-inclusive direction, and for that reason, these two studies together constitute a crucial part of proving the significance of my research.
Until next week,
Vanessa
(628)
*Good thing of the week!
**Gowen, Kris L. and Winges-Yanez, Nichole. "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, and Questioning Youths’ Perspectives of Inclusive School-Based Sexuality Education." Journal of Sex Research. 51.7 (2014): 788-800. Routledge Online. 26 Aug 2017.
***Almeida, Joanna et al. "Emotional Distress Among LGBT Youth: The Influence
of Perceived Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation." Journal of Youth Adolescence. 38 (2009): 1001-1014. EBSCO. 11 Sept 2017.
Hi Vanessa!
ReplyDeleteThis is my first time commenting on your blog, so hopefully I can bring some new perspective. From reading your past blog posts and from discussions that we have had in class, it seems like you are looking into effects of including or not including LGBTQ topics into high school sex education.
In this post, I think that you do a great job of having these sources converse in that you first establish that the norm in sex education is heterosexuality, and then connect this to the next source in which you examine the effects of sexual discrimination. This would be an extremely powerful argument for the significance of your own research, and I think that this conversation could be considered a cornerstone of your research (in that it establishes significance). One thing that I would note, particularly for the conversation between these sources, is that to me it seems like you need to do a better job in explicitly showing causation or a strong association between heterocentric sex education and sexual discrimination in schools. But, again, I think that these sources can be used to develop a strong argument for your research!
(195)
Vanessa,
ReplyDeleteBoth of these sources sound so interesting; I'm fascinated by the added direction you gain each week in your research. Which is especially cool since I pretty much get to read your blog every week! You do an excellent job in linking the two sources together and I can see the natural progression of exclusion of LGBTQ people in sex ed (the first source) may lead to increased discrimination which leads to increased self-harm, poor mental health, etc. However, I definitely think you'll need to add in another source to converse with these two that helps better establish that exclusionary, heterocentric sex-ed can lead to greater discrimination against LGBTQ people in schools. This is a wonderful start! (118)
Hi Vanessa,
ReplyDeleteI am really intrigued by the sources you raised; I think you definitely have a great understanding of the connections between the two sources. It's great that you have made strong connections between Gowen and Almeida, and I think your argumentation is pretty clear. Nonetheless, from an analytical standpoint, I still have a few questions that I would like to hear more about during our group discussion tomorrow.
1. Oregon is generally more liberal than Arizona, but that is dependent on where in Oregon, where rural areas have a really strong conservative bend. Where in Oregon was the study evaluated?
2. Did Almeida et al. find that discrimination was statistically significant in causing mental health problems?
3. What do you think are the parts between the failure for sex ed to address the problems of LGBTQ people and the development of discrimination and mental health problems?
I look forward to talking with you about this tomorrow!
Cheers,
Eric
(160)