In their own voices: The lived personal and professional experiences of LG[BT] school administrators

Historically, educational administrators have been delegated the responsibility of policing the traditionally accepted mainstream gender identities and sexual norms of society and naturally perceived as heterosexual (Harbeck, 1992, 1997). These responsibilities often lead to the creation and stewardship of a hostile educational climate toward LGBT staff members and youth (Kissen, 1996). I conducted a study into the lived personal and professional experiences of LG[BT] school administrators to better understand how power and politics in schools affect the experiences of sexual minority educational leaders. The following research questions guided this study: 1) How do LG[BT] administrators define leadership and their roles in schools?; 2) How does an LG[BT] administrator’s understanding of his or her sexuality influence (the development of) his or her building priorities as a leader?; and 3) Why do some LG[BT] administrators choose to come out while others remain closeted? The dissertation employed a phenomenological multiple case study design. Using interview protocols, I interviewed eight LG[BT] public school administrators: five gay men and three lesbians. Pseudonyms were used in lieu of actual names for confidentiality. For purposes of triangulation, the data were collected from multiple sources including documents, standardized structured interviews, and direct observation. Five major themes were derived from the data: 1) Fear; 2) A Desire to Help Others; 3) Increased Sensitivity to Diversity; 4) Personal Integrity and Resilience; and 5) Mutual Respect Between Administrators, Staff Members, and Students. Additional clusters of subthemes also emerged from these major themes. The findings yielded that LG[BT] administrators sought positions in leadership for the same reasons as heterosexuals and subsequently endured similar challenges. Their priorities varied in accordance with their degrees of public disclosure. Finally, decisions to come out or remain closeted remained dependent on the following factors: 1) The political demographics comprising the school community where each participant lived and worked; 2) The racial/ethnic demographics comprising the school community, 3) Support provided by staff members and higher level administrators, and 4) Degrees of gender conforming behavior as measured by one’s perceived masculinity or femininity.Ed.D.Includes bibliographical referencesby Michael J. Auciell