University LGBT Report 2008
How inclusive is the University for staff and students with different sexual orientation? A climate check and report commissioned by the Equality and Diversity Unit. Researched and written by John McLellan, November 2008.
- Executive summary
- Introduction and context
- Methodology and timings
- Demographic details
- Key findings
- Recommendations
- Actual comments from interviews and focus groups
- Comments on the findings and recommendations from focus group discussions of the draft results
- Appendix A
- Appendix B
Executive summary
During a period from May to November 2008, a number of lesbian, gay and bisexual(LGB) staff and students at Oxford University were involved with interviews and focus groups about the degree to which their sexual orientation may present a barrier to inclusion. This research work also invited ‘trans’ people to come forward, making the work applicable to LGB and T people, but no one participated as such.
The findings show that men and women, working and studying at Oxford, of differing sexual orientation have been completely open about this without it affecting their relationships with other staff or students, and without it creating a barrier to progression. However, there are also people who believe that disclosure of their sexuality could create negative reactions from fellow students, colleagues and/or more senior staff and who consequently are hesitant or closed about this central aspect of their lives.
The reason why the University simultaneously has people who are being open and closed is that there is no comprehensive acknowledgment across the University that it is ‘OK to be gay’. There is an absence of official recognition of the presence of people of differing sexual orientation. Although recent legislation has enshrined the equality of lesbian and gay people, within the University there are some people who have doubts that it is a reality here. In this, there are risks to the University around recruitment and retention of staff, applications from and selection of students, and risks that people could ‘get away with’ homophobia or illegal discrimination and may feel encouraged to do this a prevailing climate where the issue is just not recognised.
In order to change this situation, it is recommended that the University embarks on a programme of action aimed at making it completely clear that the University recognises and welcomes the inclusion of lesbian, gay and bisexual staff and students. This needs to be something that involves the entire collegiate University to ensure an evenness of approach, and this reports also recommends the University working in partnership with the Colleges, with OUSU and also with bodies in the wider City. It is proposed that the programme of action closely involves lesbian, gay, bisexual staff and students.
Introduction and context
The University commissioned this research in Spring 2008. At this time the University was developing a programme of diversity and inclusion activity to ensure that the University is both compliant with legislation and, more so, developing in line with best practice. It was recognised that a key aspect of the University’s strategy is dependent on being able to nurture and sustain an environment in which everyone, whatever their difference, can study and work and be able to achieve their maximum potential.
Previously, the University had not undertaken any explicit research into the climate being experienced by students or staff and it was felt that this was a gap that needed to be filled.
The research plans were discussed with a small group of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) representatives of staff and students and commenced in late May, 2008.
The work has been undertaken, and is reported, on a ‘one-university’ basis, embracing the collegiate University and including both staff and students. Some obvious sections of the following work are specific to students and staff, but overall the survey has been an examination of the climate of inclusion for LGBT people – whatever their involvement with the University.
Methodology and timings
The research had the following stages of action:
- April/May 2008. Discussion and planning with Head of Equality and Diversity and leads for LGBT society (OUSU) and the self-organised group for staff in Oxford and ‘Brookes’. Advertising and promotion was discussed and a draft guideline questionnaire developed (see appendix A).
- April/May ’08. Advertising for participants, via notice boards, student newspapers and departmental administrators. (see appendix B).
- Late May ’08. One-to-one interviews of up to one hour commenced with a mix of staff, post-graduate students and a few undergraduates..
- June/July ’08. Main block of interviews.
- October ’08. Further interviews after start of new term, targeted on further undergraduate interviews.
- November ’08. Draft findings and recommendations discussed with Head of Equality and Diversity and four focus groups of staff and students ( this included some people not seen in the interviews).
- Late November ’08. Final report submitted to Head of Equality and Diversity.
Demographic details
Interviewee details:
- Total number of interviews:20
- Number of staff interviews:14
- Number of student interviews:6
- Number of Lesbian women:4
- Number of gay men:15
- Number of bisexual women:1
- Number of bisexual men:0
- Number of trans people:0
- Those declaring as ‘out’:14
- Those partially ‘out’:5
- Those not ‘out’:1
Student years represented:
- Year 3:1
- Year 2:3
- Year 3:1
- Postgraduate1
Staff posts represented (as described by participants):
- Medical researcher
- Departmental director
- Lecturer and fellow
- Research fellow
- Research assistant
- Central admin’ role
- Communications role
- Museum staff member
- Clerical role
- Lecturer
- Library researcher
- Assistant editor
- Safety officer
- Just retired.
In addition to the above, 5 people attended the focus groups who had not been interviewed, making a total number of 25 individual participants.
Key findings
In the findings below, near-verbatim quotes are used and are shown in italics and within quotation marks.
Feelings about the overall inclusiveness of the University.
Participants seemed to have polarised views in describing the working and studying environment at Oxford. Some found it inclusive, eg “It’s very inclusive and very international. My experience is that it’s very tolerant and any conflicts are about personality, not any other differences.” Many also said that they found it not very visibly diverse, eg “I think it’s a bit white and mono-cultural”, while others were very conscious of international and cultural differences.
Tolerance of different sexual orientation.
Overall, the research showed that students and staff believe the University is tolerant of different sexual orientation and that their own experiences supported this view. However, there was some unevenness amongst colleges, according to student views, with some colleges being less or more tolerant than others, eg “It’s generally good – there’s no active discrimination, but the level of tolerance varies amongst the colleges. I know some people who are at (another college) and can’t be open.”
While participants were able to feel that the University was tolerant, most participants also expressed a desire to see the University be more explicit about this inclusion. Staff interviewees were sometimes unable to identify anything positive the University had done about sexual orientation prior to this survey, eg “I know of nothing- this research is the first thing!” Also for staff, and agreed by students, there was a need for the University to be more openly and demonstrably tolerant through publications such as staff ‘handbooks’ and prospectuses, where wording and imagery should identify LGBT acceptability and presence, eg “It would be good to see more acknowledgement by the University – there is info on the web but nothing from the University or colleges themselves that says ‘LGBT welcome’ and you shouldn’t have to seek-out information before you get here.”
Individual experience of being open about sexuality.
Most staff interviewees were out but some were not open at work or only partially so, perhaps to a close colleague or two, and all the student interviewees were out.
For those who were ‘out’ as lesbians and gay men, all were able to describe that their experience had been one of acceptability and inclusion. The one ‘bi’ participant felt less inclusion and less tolerance.
All participants, staff and students, were able to identify with people who were not out and felt that for those who didn’t feel able, or confident, to be out personally, that the climate did not encourage it. Within the student community, being out meant a total recognition that everyone would know, eg “There isn’t much of a half-way house. The weekly event is too full-on and too cruisey for someone who wasn’t sure. Also, someone has to trust the rep or they would worry about gossip.” While within the staff community the lack of explicit recognition discouraged people from being out, eg we just need to make sure people are able to say something like: No – I’m not married, but my girlfriend and I have just bought a house together. We shouldn’t have to be assertive or be in denial.”
Perceptions of others’ experience of being open.
Few people were able to cite any instances of intolerance towards other LGBT people, but there were some examples eg “A medic friend of mine at John Radcliffe experienced some negativity and attitude” and “I know of lesbian women who are not open – it’s harder for them, they have two barriers to get over.” Also there were assumptions that some parts of the University would be more difficult in their acceptance of LGBT people, eg “I gather it’s more difficult (for students) in the private halls”.
Views about tolerance in the city of Oxford.
There are mixed views of the acceptability of being openly lesbian or gay in Oxford. Overall, people seemed to feel it was safe in the City centre, but more risky in other parts further afield, eg “I don’t go there much, but think the Centre is OK. It’s not the same, I hear, further out”. In addition, a few participants actually know of examples of homophobic assault, eg “I know a gay friend who was verbally and physically assaulted”.
Awareness of any support for LGBT students.
Student participants felt the system of college LGBT reps worked well, in the main, but there was some scope for developing the roles to become more skilled at dealing with ‘welfare’ issues and creating more activity for those who didn’t want to go to the more visible social events that are currently the main focus of activity. Two people noted that the OUSU was already trying to move towards more across-college support for reps, as “The VP Welfare is looking into provision of training for LGBT reps, I believe, - and I think more is needed – more of a framework and more training on welfare/counselling maybe”.
Although students felt there was information available to potential students before arriving at Oxford, it was not formal. Most felt that there was scope for more explicit information in prospectuses and on the web eg “There’s lots of information – but not so much official. I don’t think, for instance, the prospectus acknowledges lesbians and gays?” and “Oxford is actually very gay-friendly for students, but that isn’t generally widely known out there before you arrive.”
Awareness of any support for LGBT staff.
Staff participants were unable to identify very much that is currently done by the University for LGBT staff, eg “Nothing! – this research is the first thing”. About half of the staff interviewees knew of, and participated with, the self-organised staff network. Others were surprised to hear about the existence of this group and a number of those requested details of it as a consequence.
Where people had sought information from the University, such as benefit rights for same-sex partners, people were pleased at the response and that the provision was what was expected. However, there was a feeling that this sort of information had to be sought as a special request and that more information should be routinely available to all new staff, for instance: “Nothing was very clear when I joined and I had to ask about partners’ rights – it would be better to have that given to everyone, so you don’t feel a special case.”
What support could be provided for LGBT students?
In the main, student interviewees felt that extending the role of the reps and the range of activities on offer would be beneficial, especially for students who were coming to terms with their sexuality, eg Some colleges just have a culture that would make coming out more difficult.” So the reps and the Society need to do more than just attend to social events.” A key to this is the appropriate skills of reps, with one person suggesting that the reps needed to work together to ensure a more even level of support and that this required some change to thinking about the roles - “The role of the reps is very focused on social events and because they change over every year, there is no longer term thinking. The way the Society works is once per week to get a bit drunk and it would be nice to have more opportunity for people to meet around more than just a drink!”
As already noted in section 5.6 above, students wanted to see more explicit recognition of LGBT inclusion at the University, especially for new and potential students, perhaps through more web information and encouragement to attend events such as Pride. There was a concern that the University could be seen to be reticent about doing this and that could also be a barrier, eg “There is info on the web but nothing from the University or colleges themselves that says ‘LGBT welcome’ and you shouldn’t have to seek-out information before you get here.”
What support could be provided for LGBT staff?
Very clearly, staff saw two main needs arising from the research interviews. Firstly, people felt the presence, tolerance and acceptance of LGBT people should be given much more prominence – so that it became visible and explicit, such as this comment: “We need to raise our profile and be seen to be here. I don’t know what’s needed – events, publications, web presence?”
Secondly, people felt the informal network should evolve into a form which could be formally recognised by the University and more widely advertised. These actions were felt to be necessary to mitigate the risk of others feeling they could get away with homophobic attitudes and also to encourage those who were not open at work to see more overtly that they could be open without risk, should they choose to be so. There are many comments about the mailing list/network, of which these are typical:
“A more formally organised network would be good – one that is openly advertised and available to all easily – and backed by the University, openly.” and “Any network needs to recognition and authority of being linked to the University – its makes it clearly ‘right’!”
In addition, people wanted to see new and existing staff gain accessibility to relevant information through LGBT information pages on the web or through the staff handbook or equivalent, eg “Why not have some information in the staff welcome pack, inc contact(s) for the mailing list?”
Lastly, staff felt that Oxford could attain recognition externally for its inclusiveness, by developing more of a ‘LGBT focus’ element to its academic work, eg “I would like to see more ‘queer studies’ here, maybe across disciplines. It would be good to see Oxford take a lead on this. With its reputation, a quality piece of research on something like ‘international comparisons to same sex partners rights’ would be a real landmark.”
Willingness to work with the University on changes.
Without exception, survey participants expressed willingness to participate in a focus group around the results of the one-to-one interviews and/or to help further with development of changes/actions.
What people would like to see happen with the results of this research.
There was a good deal of comment on the use of the results of this research work and a desire to see the report as an opportunity to establish more visibility and presence, especially for the staff, eg “Putting the results out should help get the subject on to the agenda.”People also wanted to see the results being dealt with as openly as possible, eg “The University should be very open with the results and they should be well publicised” and “It needs to go to JCR notice boards“. It was also important to some interviewees that the results received high-level endorsement, eg “must be endorsed by the VC”.
People felt the handling of the publicity was important, so that the results were seen as being of wider interest than to the LGBT community themselves eg “It needs to be phrased in a way that makes it relevant to all – not just LGBT.”
However, people did not want to just see the results in isolation, and there was concern that where action was needed then the university would act, eg “If there’s anything that needs fixing, I would want to see the University fixing it!” and that whatever the outcome, some actions would be undertaken, eg “ A plan of action would be more important to me than just the results.”
Lastly, people felt that some sort of event could take place around the results, maybe as the first step in a new series of high profile activities, eg “The University has such power and such a reputation, I would like to see it do more – a conference or event that is in the calendar and is a regular event.”
Recommendations
From the key findings above, the following recommendations are made for changes and development. These recommendations were discussed firstly with the University’s Head of Equality and Diversity and then within focus groups, that formed the final stage of research prior to final conclusions.
| Key findings. |
Recommendations. |
|---|---|
| 1. Variable experience /awareness of University inclusiveness. |
Continue to develop the programme of work for promoting equality and diversity across the University (work in progress through the Equality and Diversity Unit). |
| 2. The University is generally tolerant towards different sexual orientation, but needs to do this more visibly and proactively and to ensure the tolerance is experienced evenly. |
|
| 3. People who are not out at work, or as students, find it difficult to access support and can feel excluded. |
|
| 4. The City can feel hostile to gay men and women, in some areas. |
|
| 5. There is an opportunity for the University to publicise its tolerance and inclusion to prospective students. |
|
| 6. Existing and new staff could have support, such as same-sex partners rights, more explicitly identified to them. |
|
| 7. College LGBT reps have a crucial role in creating inclusion for out and not-out LGBT students. |
|
| 8. LGBT staff want to see greater visibility and recognition for their inclusion. Part of the solution to this is the evolution of the current ad-hoc mailing list into a formally constituted network with active links and endorsement into the University. |
|
| 9. Can the University include an LGBT perspective (queer studies) in its academic work? |
|
| 10. Participants want to see wide publicity of the results of this research, together with University recognition and commitment to actions/changes. |
|
Actual comments from interviews and focus groups
The following comments were captured in the one-to-one interviews and during the focus groups. These are near-verbatim quotes, although not guaranteed for 100% literal accuracy. The interviews and focus groups were not recorded as this was assessed to be too intrusive for a survey of this nature.
The comments are gathered under headings relating to areas of discussion. Clearly, not everything people said is collected here but certainly the comments that led to the key findings.
Feelings about the overall inclusiveness of the University.
“I find it racially mixed and there’s a good gender mix up to the senior level.” (staff)
“Its liberal and progressive, but could be better – there are very few male, black students for instance.” (student)
“Its very predominantly white, public school.” (student)
“It’s very inclusive and very
international. My experience is that it’s very tolerant and
any
conflicts are about personality, not any other differences.” (staff)
“My own experience is that it’s very diverse and multicultural but there is some under-representation of, for instance, sub-Saharan Africans.” (staff)
“It’s a very inclusive place and it’s easy to
be different”. (staff)
“I think it’s a bit white and
mono-cultural. I have never seen the University advertising
jobs
through ‘The Voice’ or through black employment agencies.” (staff)
“It is non-judgmental, particularly amongst
academics and in relation to the students.” (staff)
“Where I work is probably 70% women, but it
still
feels a bit of a boys club further up!” (staff)
“It feels very male and very white to be honest”. (staff)
“Moving here from London, it feels very white – and that’s true of the Town too, not just the University”. (staff)
“Very tolerant and lots of difference
around”. (student)
Tolerance of different sexual orientation.
“Would it be the same at a more senior
level. The University is very conservative, so my perception
is that
more senior people may be dinosaurs. I assume somewhere like Imperial
would be
more liberal.” (staff)
“It’s very easy to be gay here and, if you’re
open about it, it’s fine amongst the students. I don’t think
people are so open with tutors maybe.” (student)
“It’s OK, but you know how it is with these
things, you can feel the slight change in attitude when you booking a
room for
an LGBT meeting rather than, say, a sports club or something.
Its
hard to pin down but it’s there”. (student)
“The protective structures are there but it’s
still a big issue for an individual to come out, as you don’t see or
hear of
others”. (staff)
“It’s generally good – there’s no active
discrimination, but the level of tolerance varies amongst the
colleges. I know some people who are at (another college) and
can’t
be open.” (student)
“Actually its difficult being bi.
There’s quite a lot set-up for LGBT, but I know other bi people also
feel
excluded from events.” (student)
“If you are confident, it is easy to be open
and
out here, although there is a huge difference between the colleges.
(named college) and (named college) have very strong
reputations
as tolerant but places like (named college) have a poorer
reputation.” (student)
“The groups in Colleges quickly become very
cliquey
– so if you’re not sure or not out, it’s harder. There isn’t
much of a half-way house. The weekly event is too full-on and too
cruisey for
someone who wasn’t sure. Also, someone has to trust the rep or they
would
worry about gossip”. (student)
“In the Library, there’s no issue and I am aware of quite a few other LGB people”. (staff)
Individual experience of being open about sexuality.
“I work in a small team of ten people.
I’m the gay male and there’s also one lesbian. I have never heard any
funny
jokes of anything like that.” (staff)
“I found there was a lot to deal with in my
first
year and didn’t want to risk alienation with disclosure – it felt too
big a
thing, too big a risk at the time. I had only just come out at
home”. (student)
“I was out at home and decided to come
straight
into the LGBT group when I came to Oxford. I found it was
perfectly
accepted to be out.” (student)
“I wasn’t out at school and it’s been easier
here than I expected it to be”. (student)
“never felt an instant where I needed to hide
it
– And that include going to dinner with my boss, with my
partner”. (staff)
“I’ve now worked in several offices here, and
only in this one have I felt comfortable being out – but that’s to do
with
me, not the offices I think. It’s always a very personal
decision
and then time goes by and it becomes too awkward to disclose”. (staff)
“I’m not out at work – people just assume too
much the other way, so it’s too difficult to make the effort.”
(staff)
“My boss actually made me uncomfortable when I
started as she wanted to share all sorts of information with me about
others in
the office, including their assumed sexuality – totally inappropriate
and I
stayed neutral and have done since.” (staff)
“I feel a bit left-out as a bi person.
I
know some gay men who are open, but don’t know any lesbian staff”.
(staff)
“I’m open and a fully fledged fellow –
there’s no issue for me.” (staff)
“It’s been fine, but my boss’s boss said to me that she was pleased I was a lesbian, as it meant I wouldn’t be going off and having children!” (staff)
“I tend to keep it quiet, but would like to
talk
about it more. No one asks, so I’m going to have to take the
first
step some time.” (staff)
Perceptions of others’ experience of being open.
“A medic friend of mine at John Radcliffe experienced some negativity and attitude”. (staff)
“In the colleges, news travels fast and it’s
very
gossipy, so once you disclose – it’s known! So, I think for
some
people it’s a mix of life stage and so on, so they don’t disclose”.
(student)
“I remember in my first year there was a female to male trans person, who wanted to wear male clothes and had to sit in a separate room – but it’s changed now”. (student)
“I gather it’s more difficult in the private
halls”. (student)
“I know some previous LGBT reps have received homophobic emails”. (student)
“I really don’t know and haven’t heard of
anyone being closed.” (staff)
“I think the place is attentive to being tolerant – publicly – but there is always private prejudice you can feel sometimes.” (staff)
“I am aware that some fellows attend functions
with
same-sex partners – so that seems good.” (staff)
“I know of lesbian women who are not open –
its
harder for them, they have two barriers to get over.” (staff)
“Its fine here – I think librarianship is a ‘safe’ job for lesbians and it’s the same here”. (staff)
“A colleague had his civil partnership and
lots of
people were there from work – and it was talked about in work the same
as any
other marriage.” (staff)
“I only know of one other person who is a
lesbian. I don’t know any gays either.”
Views about tolerance in the city of Oxford.
“I think Oxford is an easy place to be
gay”. (staff)
“I never feel physically threatened in
Oxford.” (student)
“There is some hate-crime. I know
there
have been physical assaults in the last six months – of gay people”.
(staff)
“I don’t go there much, but think the Centre
is
OK. Its not the same, I hear, further out”. (staff)
“There have been some attacks on gay people I
know. I think it’s more of an issue when you go further out
from
the Centre.” (student)
“I have seen same-sex couples holding hands,
but I
wouldn’t chance it myself”. (staff)
“It’s OK but there’s not much happening for
women – you need to go to London.” (staff)
“It feels safe in the middle of Town but less
safe
being obvious in other places, especially at night. I know a
gay
friend who was verbally and physically assaulted.”
Awareness of any support for LGBT students.
All the comments in this section are by students.
“There’s lots of information – but not so much
official. I don’t think, for instance, the prospectus
acknowledges
lesbians and gays?”
“At the freshers' fair, it’s difficult to miss
the LGBT society. But it would be easy to avoid it too, if you
were
put off.”
“The LGBT reps in the colleges seem to work
well
and it’s well supported in my college – there’s some funding and I think
I know what I’m there for. There are some other colleges which
have
a more boorishly hetero reputation – it might not be the same in
those.”
“It’s good that the reps are there, and the OUSU Society, and that they are financially backed.”
“The reps are good, but I don’t think all
Colleges have them? Or, if they do, I don’t think they can be
given
the same support.”
Awareness of any support for LGBT staff.
All the comments in this section are by staff.
“I found about the mailing list from a friend
and
have just joined it”.
“My partner is included in the pension scheme – that all felt very easy and good.”
“Sorry – I don’t know of anything!”
“A difficult one to be honest. I
wouldn’t want ‘special treatment’ that singles us out.”
“I don’t know how much it might be needed, but the formal route of complaint here would necessitate disclosure, so anyone being bullied because they are gay or lesbian, may not go down that route”.
“Nothing! – this research is the first thing!”
“I think its OK for benefits rights for partners, but your question has made me think I should find out more.”
“I think the academic studies themselves could be more open to including ‘queer theory’ – and I think Oxford is a bit behind others in not including LGB visibility in studies.”
“I heard of a list or society, but I don’t know anything about it”.
“I saw there was something about civil partners, and that made me feel more comforted – but there needs to be more obvious support.”
“Just doing this research is significant – and shows the University does care”.
“Nothing was very clear when I joined and I had to ask about partners’ rights – it would be better to have that given to everyone, so you don’t feel a special case.”
What support could be provided for LGBT students?
All the comments in this section are by students.
“Could maybe have more talks – would suit some
people. Everything is very social – think we need something
else.”
“ I think literature, prospectuses and so on,
could
be more positive. Its all something like ‘you won’t
experience discrimination’ – not very positive! We should be proud of
diversity.”
“Louise Randall (VP Welfare, OUSU, 2007) is looking into provision of training for LGBT reps, I believe, - and I think more is needed – more of a framework and more training on welfare/counselling maybe”. (student)
“Trans people have a more difficult time – they aren’t excluded, but I don’t feel it’s very welcoming for them generally.”
“There needs to be more visibility – maybe a
Pride event. Could that be shared with staff?”
“The role of the reps is very focused on
social
events and because they change over every year, there is no longer term
thinking. The way the Society works is once per week to get a
bit
drunk and it would be nice to have more opportunity to meet around more
than
just a drink!”
“It would be good to see more acknowledgement by the University – there is info on the web but nothing from the University or Colleges themselves that says ‘LGBT welcome’ and you shouldn’t have to seek-out information before you get here.”
“Oxford is actually very gay-friendly for students, but that isn’t generally widely known out there before you arrive.”
“The need is to help those ‘not out’ rather
than challenging potential homophobia. Some colleges just have
a
culture that would make coming out more difficult. So the reps and the
Society
need to do more than just attend to social events.”
“The way I do my role as a rep is to give
support
when needed – but people have to make the step to come to me.
There
could be more information in a ‘survival pack’ like the Oxford Survival
Guide for Women.”
“I have attended the Peer Support Programme,
but I
don’t think that is provided to all the College reps. I know
someone is trying to get all the Colleges reps to get together to talk
about
how to support welfare needs.”
What support could be provided for LGBT staff?
All the comments in this section are by staff.
“Possibly an LGBT information page on the net?”
“The mailing list works well, but I don’t know
how people get to hear about it generally – and I don’t know if someone
closed would join it. For someone in the closet, it would be
quite a
big disclosure to come to an event.”
“I would like to see ways of getting more
information and so on, but discreetly. It would be good if
there was
a staff chat-room that you could log into from home”.
“Why not have some information in the staff welcome pack, inc contact(s) for the mailing list?”
“A more formally organised network would be good – one that is openly advertised and available to all easily – and backed by the University openly.”
“We need to raise our profile and be seen to
be
here. I don’t know what’s needed – events, publications, web
presence?”
“Get the VC to say something positive – the VC is like royalty here”.
“A clear point of contact for a network would be helpful please.”
“Managers need to be more sensitive to difference – and not just assume stuff.”
“I don’t think we need a lot of groups and
committees, We just need to make sure people are able to say something
like
“No – I’m not married, but my girlfriend and I have just bought a house
together. We shouldn’t have to be assertive or be in denial.”
“Any network needs the recognition and authority of being linked to the University – its makes it clearly ‘right’!”
“I had a talk with someone in HR about
pensions and
my partner and that was OK. I feel new starters should have
something
that recognises LGBT and gives some advice and information.”
“The group’s existence needs to be publicised –
it’s a bit hidden at the moment. Maybe it can also do things
like
support Oxford Pride and it needs to be seen to be supported by the
Diversity
Office.”
“It would just be nice to have the opportunity to meet other gay staff over a coffee”.
“A web resource would be good – links, contacts, helpline, events and so on”.
“It’s all about visibility!!”
“Maybe we could share something with
Brookes? Run join events, share a subsidy or resources?”
“The LGBT network needs to be officially
recognised
and supported – it’s currently an ad hoc group. Maybe a new
network and the former group can run in parallel – for as long as is
needed?”
“I don’t know anything about the mailing list
group, but it sounds like I should! If that’s there, it needs
publicising.”
“The network needs to be more formal and organised – research shows a network is disproportionately valuable in the effect is has on LGB and non-LGB staff in an organisation.”
“I would like to see the VC, or a pro-VC,
attend a
social event or a talk – visibly show support and give recognition.
Maybe involve the LGB alumni too.”
“I would like to see more ‘queer studies’
here,
maybe across disciplines. It would be good to see Oxford take a
lead
on this. With its reputation, a quality piece of research on something
like
‘international comparisons to same sex partners rights’ would be a real
landmark.”
“Are we doing anything for LGBT history month?”
Willingness to work with the University on changes.
All participants said they would be interested in participating in a focus group or to help further with any developments, in principle at least. These are some examples of comments:
“I would happily volunteer my time.” (staff)
“Yes please – I would be very happy to help,
just
let me know.” (student)
“I’m interested in the idea of being more
involved.” (Staff)
“As long as the timing’s right, I would like to come to a focus group.” (student)
“I will come to a focus group. If we
go
on to do more, can we do it over cheese and wine!?” (staff)
“Yes – definitely, let’s keep going.” (staff)
“It will be lovely to be invited to
something.” (staff)
“Yes – very happy to help.” (student)
What people would like to see happen with the results of this research.
“Should be made public! It will help
straight people realise that sexual orientation differences exist!!”
(staff)
“Putting the results out should help get the subject on to the agenda”. (staff)
“I hope it leads to more changes.
When I
came to this country I became used to monitoring forms, but I feel we
should
have sexual orientation on those too – it will plant a seed in the minds
of
straight people.” (staff)
“The University should be very open with the results and they should be well publicised.” (student)
“Make the results public – bring them to the
attention of the straight majority.” (student)
“If there’s anything that needs fixing, I
would
want to see the University fixing it! On the flip side, it
would be
positive to show that LGBT people are here and feel good about the
place.”
(staff)
“The results should be publicised externally as well as inside the university – and need a comment from someone very high – or right at the top!” (staff)
“ A plan of action would be more important to me than just the results.” (staff)
“More profile/visibility for LGB people – inc
the
bi people”. (staff)
“It needs to go to JCR notice boards as well as other places”. (staff)
“Just get an exec summary everywhere and have a
link to the detail for those who want it. It needs to be
phrased in a
way that makes it relevant to all – not just LGBT.” (staff)
“It must not be something just read by the
minority
– so needs the right sort of pitch and emphasis.” (staff)
“Whatever it is must be endorsed by the
VC.” (staff)
“The University has such power and such a
reputation, I would like to see it do more – a conference or event that
is in
the calendar and is a regular event.” (student)
“It’s important for the University to commit
to
LGBT issues and to accord them status. There’s always the
potential
for homophobia, so for the University to give explicit ‘seal of
approach’
is more than just lip service.” (staff)
Comments on the findings and recommendations from focus group discussions of the draft results
After production of the draft report, the key findings and recommendations were discussed within focus group forums. Two were held for students, with a total of 7 people participating, and two were held for staff, with a total of 12 people participating.
Participants were given a summary sheet of the key findings and recommendations. From responses to this, the following points summarise the views arising from the groups, particularly relating to priorities for action.
Students.
Overall, the student groups felt the summary of findings and recommendations appeared comprehensive and valid.
One participant was able to cite the existence of some ‘queer study’ elements within a course of study, and all agreed that it was surprising that Oxford did not offer any known, specific studies. It was felt important that it should do so and this was an important recommendation.
People wanted to see use of imagery in publications and on the website, as photographs were felt to be more powerful than words, in depicting LGBT inclusion – if the right images can be created. Students stressed that the use of the Internet was essential for communications of positive, official, information for prospective and current students.
There was general support for the idea of providing training for LGBT reps, although there were concerns about the practical issues of identifying reps and securing participation in all colleges, and also managing the annual (or more frequent) turnover of reps.
In thinking about the potential training, people reacted positively to the possibility of developing a best-practice model for the role and then identifying what training would be useful to fill gaps in knowledge or skill. It was felt interesting and useful for the University to consider supporting OUSU on the Colleges on this matter.
Overall, student participants felt that the priority now should be implementation, ie “making changes happen”. People wanted to see actions happening based on the recommendations that ensured that inclusion became consistently good across all Colleges.
Staff.
Overall, the staff groups felt the summary of findings and recommendations appeared comprehensive and valid.
In one group there was a particular stress placed on the importance of the idea of an LGBT resource site within the University’s website. It was felt this needed to be readily and easily locatable and should contain details of events, activities, rights, policies, support, links etc.
In addition to website information, people also definitely wanted to see new recruits receive information of LGBT support as part of the normal range of publications – so people don’t have to seek it out and thereby disclosing their identity. It was felt that same-sex partner information definitely needed to be reviewed.
With regard to the City itself, people gave positive support to the participation of the University with HALT – the City’s multi-agency group working on homophobic hate crime. It was hoped that the University could encourage and support staff (and student?) participation in Oxford Pride (the annual celebration and carnival for LGBT people in the City and environs).
There was also positive support for the idea of developing a course of study (or more than one) with an LGBT focus. At the very least, people wanted to see some dialogue started.
The recommendation to have a formally recognised staff network was widely supported. Participants felt the support and active linking into University policies would be a very powerful way of getting their inclusion recognised. There was a good deal of interest in working with the University on this action, amongst others.
Overall staff participants wanted to see any actions being taken quickly, to raise awareness, gain formal recognition of their inclusion and also to get the straight majority to think about the issue of LGBT inclusion. It was felt that the final report from this work provided an early opportunity to start action in terms of publicity and awareness-raising – as long as the report is endorsed by senior people and given wide distribution.
Appendix A
Guideline questionnaire.
This is a guideline to enable a structured conversation to take place and to yield insights.
There will be an introduction to the survey background, Market Research Society guidelines, the interviewer and the expectations of the work.
Question areas.
1 Demographics: years as student/staff, study area or department, position of staff; College.
2 Sense of inclusiveness of Oxford, in general terms.
3 Awareness of inclusion for L, G, B, and T people.
4 Ease of being ‘out’ if choosing to do so – with colleagues, other student, staff (ifstudent), boss (if staff), others.
5 Awareness of experience of others in being out or closeted at Oxford. Explore sense ofclimate for others. Seek anecdotal evidence.
6 Explore intersection of LGBT inclusion with tolerance (or not) for other strands ofdiversity.
7 Awareness of anything the University does currently for LGBT inclusion or to meet needs ofL,G,B, and T people.
8 Explore what people would find useful to support LGBT people and to encourageopenness, if wanted, for closeted people.
9 Ability to attend formal function with same-sex partners.
10 Explore awareness/need in pensions/benefits area (staff).
11 Use of LGBT societies, networks, clubs etc. What exists for Oxford students, staff? What’sneeded?
12 Expectations and wishes for the use of this survey and its results.
13 Willingness to participate in focus groups and/or other work.
14 Anything to add?
Appendix B
Advertisement
used to attract participants -LGBT research poster 
(287kb) This example is for the second
tranche of interviews in October ’08, although it is a simple revamp of
the original used in May ’08.