The Necessity of Intersectionality as a Framework to Explore Queer and Trans Student Retention

Abstract

Limited research on queer and transgender college student retention has led to a lack of understanding of the institutional structures that support these collegians. Moreover, what scholarship does exist oftentimes uses power-neutral lenses to explain the factors that lead to the retention of queer and transgender students. Using intersectionality as an analytic framework to illustrate the necessity of framing issues of retention with attention to overlapping systems of power and oppression provides a challenge to the existing literature. This article provides examples of higher education practices and policies from the perspectives of structural, representational, and political intersectionality. Implications for research and practice are offered.

Keywords

intersectionality queer trans retention

Sam is a resident assistant (RA) in a newly created gender-inclusive residence hall at a midsized public university in the state’s capital. During RA training, staff drilled into them that the first 6 weeks are crucial for retention of new students and that RAs should develop programs during this time period to cultivate a sense of belonging for their residents. Sam has been drawn to one student in particular, Joseph, who is a Black first-year student from a small town in the South. Joseph shared with Sam that he is struggling to navigate the “big city” feel of the university compared to his small Southern town, which he characterizes as having far more churches than stoplights. His own family is deeply religious, their Baptist values guiding all their deeds and beliefs. In addition, he communicated to Sam that he was questioning his own sense of self, particularly in relation to his race, gender, sexuality, faith, and social class—topics that were not discussed in his household as he was growing up. Joseph engages Sam in conversation about where he might go to explore his identities and realizes just how big the university is—he is given a list of all kinds of programs, services, and offices to visit—each focused on different areas. Through his discussions with Joseph, Sam wonders how university resources can cater toward certain populations and may discriminate against subgroups, a thought that is salient as he refers Joseph to what is often perceived to be the White-centric LGBTQ center on campus. Sam wonders where the institutional commitment is to helping students like Joseph who possess multiple minoritized identities and begins to place these conversations and questions into a concept he learned about in RA training—intersectionality. In particular, he recalls this concept of a “matrix of domination” or the interconnected, mutually reinforcing structures of inequality. He is curious about how he can apply the concept of intersectionality to his work with students like Joseph.

In this brief vignette, we describe a scenario not at all uncommon at most colleges and universities. That is, institutions are set up to provide resources and services along singular identity dimensions such as through African American/Black student services or a lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) resource center. Further complicating the picture is the long-held retention assumption that the first 6 weeks is most important for all new students (Levitz & Noel, 1989), which ignores the important life considerations and significant factors that may counter this taken-for-granted assumption (Nora, Barlow, & Crisp, 2005). As captured in this scenario, Sam experienced a dilemma mirrored in both retention and intersectionality—How do educators attend to the unique experiences of individuals while also considering larger structures of inequality in which people reside, institutional policies are created, and the disproportionate ways structures and policies impact certain groups?

In this article, we make the case for an intersectional perspective to promote a deeper understanding of the complexities of queer and trans students’ experiences relative to retention. Limited research exists that specifically addresses queer and trans student retention, and the scholarship that does exist tends to treat queer and trans students as a monolithic group (e.g., addressing LGBTQ+ students) rather than locating their experiences within a matrix of domination or overlapping axes of oppression (e.g., Sanlo, 2004; Sanlo & Espinoza, 2012). Further, as we will explicate, it is not enough to simply consider the multiple identities of queer and trans students (e.g., gender, sexuality, race, ethnicity, faith, and social class) without taking into account systems of power and oppression that give meaning to and impact these social identities.

To make the case for the necessity of intersectionality as a framework through which to explore queer and trans student retention, we first introduce several core tenets of intersectionality, keeping in mind that it is more important to understand what intersectionality does rather than what it is (May, 2015). We then turn to the scholarship on queer and trans students relative to retention and examine it using an intersectional framework. Next, we reimagine issues relevant to queer and trans student retention through an application of intersectionality. In other words, if the core ideas of intersectionality were employed, how would both our understanding of retention look different and how might institutional actors redesign policies, practices, and programs with queer and trans students in mind? Taking up these questions, we conclude with implications for future research that better addresses the complexities of queer and trans student retention. We assert that these implications hold the potential to make the move from considering queer and trans students as “at risk” for attrition (Sanlo & Espinoza, 2012) to a power-based analysis that gets at the structural factors impacting retention.

Intersectionality as a Framework

The framework of intersectionality (Crenshaw, 1989, 1991) has garnered much attention in recent higher education scholarship and practice (Harris & Patton, 2019). On the surface, the concept resonates with many because of the presumption of a holistic and inclusive perspective on the complexities of identities. That is, we all possess multiple identities, and many of us inhabit both privileged and oppressed social locations (Kendall & Wijeyesinghe, 2017). However, this primary focus on identities replicates the misuse and misappropriation of intersectionality in higher education research (Harris & Patton, 2019). Moradi and Grzanka (2017), in their call for using intersectionality responsibly, suggested that the language of multiple identities be abandoned completely and replaced “with constructs and terms that explicitly and precisely name the underlying social inequalities and power dynamics that are a focus in intersectionality research, practice, teaching, and activism” (p. 507). To that end, in this section, we provide key considerations when applying the framework of intersectionality in higher education.

The Importance of History

The first central consideration is the importance of understanding the historical evolution of the term. Although many attribute the origin of intersectionality to legal scholar Kimberlé Crenshaw, intersectional scholars point out (including Crenshaw) that locating intersectionality as a 20th century phenomenon is a “truncated theoretical genealogy” (May, 2012, p. 18). More accurately, the 19th century work of those such as Ida B. Wells, Anna Julia Copper, and Sojourner Truth advanced intersectional thought and activism (May, 2015). Crenshaw’s academic writing brought the language of intersectionality into the academy in ways quickly adopted by those in numerous fields, leading to the idea of intersectionality as a travelling theory (Collins, 2015). The work of Crenshaw and those before her focused on the realities of life for Black women and advanced a Black feminist critique of these realities. As Dill and Zambrana (2009) emphasized, “placing the lived experiences and struggles of people of color and other marginalized groups” (p. 5) at the center of analysis is a cornerstone of intersectional theorizing.

Relevant to this investigation of queer and trans experiences is the recognition that Black queer women contributed to intersectional-like thought (see Combahee River Collective, 1977/1993); this legacy combats the belief held by some scholars (e.g., Hutchinson, 2001; Kwan, 1997) that intersectionality, with its anchor in the experiences of Black women, fails to attend to heterosexism and trans oppression as systems of marginalization. As Cho (2013) suggested, the genealogy of intersectionality exemplifies that the framework is “neither heteronormative nor exclusionary” of other minoritized groups and can instead be used to “illustrate the larger point of how identity categories constitute and require political coalitions” (p. 390). Thus, though Crenshaw’s (1989, 1991) foundational scholarship investigated the intersections between racism and sexism, scholars can apply intersectionality to think about the ways that power operates for numerous identity groups.

Domains of Power and Matrix Thinking

Among Crenshaw’s many commitments to intersectional analysis was the distinction between three forms of intersectionality: structural, representational, and political (Crenshaw, 1991). Structural forms of intersectionality focus on policies, practices, and resources; representational on cultural images of women of color; and political on discourses that marginalize women of color (Crenshaw, 1991; Duran & Jones, in press; Harris & Patton, 2019). These three forms of intersectionality, which anchor domains of power, come together to frame another core tenet: the move away from single-axis thinking to matrix thinking, or the matrix of domination (Collins, 1990; May, 2015). As May (2015) suggested, “intersectionality highlights how lived identities, structural systems, sites of marginalization, forms of power, and modes of resistance ‘intersect’ in dynamic ways” (p. 21). This emphasis on micro and macro levels of analysis moves theorizing away from additive, either-or theories to intersectional approaches that depend upon foregrounding interlocking structures of inequality. Collins and Bilge (2016) noted:

When it comes to social inequality, people’s lives and the organization of power in a given society are better understood as being shaped not by a single axis of social division, be it race or gender or class, but by many axes that work together and influence one another. Intersectionality as an analytic tool gives people better access to the complexity of the world and of themselves. (p. 2)

The importance on social inequality is a critical one, and we turn to this core idea next.

A Central Focus on Social Inequalities

Most discussions of intersectionality include some mention to the central commitments of social change, social justice, or critical praxis. In other words, intersectional analyses must advance research, practice, and policy that disrupts structures of inequality (Carbado, Crenshaw, Mays, & Tomlinson, 2013; Dill & Zambrana, 2009; May, 2015). To this point, Moradi and Grzanka (2017) described, “the radical potential of intersectional analysis is rooted in the Black feminist commitment to social transformation” (p. 507). How social transformation is actually accomplished is much more challenging when considering institutional policies, practices, and programs. Many claim a commitment to social justice, but as Collins and Bilge (2016) observed, social justice and social inequality are not the same. They elaborated this point:

We have been careful to point out that intersectionality is not a simple substitute for social justice. Each project must be interrogated for its connection to social justice, not just assuming that because intersectional scholarship examines some facet of social inequality, it is by default furthering social justice. (p. 202)

This commitment to social justice should serve as an organizing framework for all intersectional work. To understand how higher education scholars embrace these tenets of intersectionality in queer and trans research, we offer a few examples of research mobilizing the framework.

Examples of Intersectional Scholarship Focused on Queer and Trans Students

In this section, we highlight several studies that use intersectionality to investigate the experiences of specific groups of queer and trans students within larger structures of inequality such as racism, trans oppression, heterosexism, and ableism (Blockett, 2017; Miller, 2018; Nicolazzo, 2016). These publications are not meant to be exhaustive, as a growing body of research in higher education exists; but we identified these studies as exemplars of intersectional research and illustrations of the potential of intersectionality to address overlapping axes of oppression and to “shed[s] light on the complexities of people’s lives within equally complex social contexts” (Collins & Bilge, 2016, p. 25).

In “I Think It’s Very Much Placed on Us”: Black Queer Men Laboring to Forge Community at a Predominantly White and (Hetero) Cisnormative Research Institution, Reginald Blockett (2017) used both intersectional and queer theoretical frameworks to analyze the experiences of Black queer men (BQM) within the context of a peer-support group. Intersectionality brought to light the erasure of BQM in institutional policies and practices and illustrated how racist and (hetero) cisnormative campus cultures disproportionately affected these individuals. Further, Blockett (2017) emphasized the need to account for “both the discursive and material conditions of BQM in college, for example, institutional policies and practices must consider Black queer racialization around language, vernacular, kinship bonds, and Black sexual cultures” (p. 813). In this article, intersectionality yielded a more complex and comprehensive portrayal of BQM in college.

In Ryan Miller’s (2018), Toward Intersectional Identity Perspectives on Disability and LGBTQ Identities in Higher Education, five different intersectional perspectives were portrayed that captured how participants described the relationships among their disability and queer identities. In this study, intersectionality showed how students navigated overlapping identities in agentic and resistant manners. Findings suggested that the different intersectional identity perspectives functioned as varying and overlapping discourses queer disabled students used in resilient and creative ways to counter oppressive collegiate contexts. Miller emphasized the importance of comprehending “not just how students view their identities, but the reasons why students might employ particular discourses and arrive at particular perspectives based on contextual factors” (p. 343). As a result, Miller made a compelling case for understanding both individual experiences of intersecting identities as well as systems of oppression.

Taking up the concepts of passing and trans*-normativity in relation to Black nonbinary trans* collegians’ experiences, Z. Nicolazzo (2016), in “It’s a Hard Line to Walk”: Black Non-binary Trans* Collegians’ Perspectives on Passing, Realness, and Trans*-Normativity, employed queer and intersectional approaches to illuminate how these students navigated collegiate environments. In this study, Nicolazzo illustrated the lived experiences of being both Black and nonbinary, in addition to the ways in which institutions are ill-equipped to respond to the realities of these students’ experiences from an intersectional lens. Nicolazzo explicated that Black nonbinary trans* students encounter erasure in collegiate contexts and that educators must resist flattening their experiences by viewing them through a gender-only lens: “Only by doing so can one recognize and (re)construct environments centered on holistic understandings of who collegians are and who they can become in relation to the various intersecting identity formations” (Nicolazzo, 2016, p. 1184).

These three studies showcase the potential of intersectionality to contribute to an understanding of how overlapping systems of power shape the experiences of queer and trans students on college campuses. By highlighting how racism and ableism intersect with heterosexism and trans oppression, this body of research advances intersectional perspectives about queer and trans students broadly. However, in the next section, we delve more deeply into the scholarship on queer and trans students to reconceptualize the central constructs informing retention using an intersectional lens.

Reviewing Queer and Trans Retention Literature From an Intersectional Perspective

Scholarship examining student retention has been particularly influential in determining policies and practices in higher education (Braxton, Brier, & Steele, 2007). As noted previously, retention research rarely explores issues faced by queer and trans students, thus providing limited direction for contributing positively to their academic and social success. Because the direct investigation of what contributes to queer and trans student retention is lacking, the next best option is to identify queer and trans student research that examines core constructs highlighted within retention scholarship (e.g., academic and social integration, campus climate, and relationships with faculty members). In this investigation, we used intersectionality to question how this extant scholarship attended to within-group differences present in queer and trans communities, considering how these studies explicated the role of systemic oppression tied to these subgroups.

Extensive research underscores the prevalence and damaging effect of the hostile environment that queer and trans college students face, often on a daily basis (Seelman, Woodford, & Nicolazzo, 2017). However, such research frequently views these students in monolithic ways, offering little insight into how various institutional power structures affect them. Connected to this point, an examination of which queer and trans students remain, and why, is necessary. Of note, existing scholarship, and the ways it is mobilized, does have several limitations.

For example, qualitative research focused on queer and trans students provides in-depth understanding of their daily realities, but practitioners are not taught how to apply findings to structural- and policy-level decisions, or they encounter concerns about the generalizability of such information. The use of large-scale data sets, frequently used to examine college student retention, often do not include sexual orientation or gender diversity as part of their demographics, limiting professionals’ abilities to advocate for these populations (Rankin & Garvey, 2015). In addition, although there has been growth in the policies, program, and spaces for queer and trans students on individual campuses, a shortage of research exists interrogating the value and effectiveness of institutional efforts.

Recent studies by Pitcher, Camacho, Renn, and Woodford (2018) and Woodford, Kulick, Garvey, and Sinco (2018) are notable exceptions that move scholarship forward through the use of large-scale quantitative and qualitative research on institutional resources and their impact on queer and trans students. Pitcher et al. advocated for an organizational analysis of higher education institutions to underscore institutional accountability and to reveal how services may combat the oppressive environments students’ experience. Their research suggested that “if not for the LGBTQ+ student organizations and the connections made there, some LGBTQ+ students may not stay at their institutions and might have left higher education all together” (p. 124). Similarly, Woodford et al. found that more supportive institutional policies and programs may cushion the negative effects of heterosexist bias and discrimination, potentially enhancing the mental health and well-being of LGBTQ+ students. Although enacting policies and programs advantageous to the retention of LGBTQ+ students is important, there are some limitations to these studies regarding their attention to intersectionality and inclusion among LGBTQ+ students. Namely, we noted that these studies failed to account for other systems of oppression (e.g., ableism, racism, and nativism), which in turn homogenizes queer and trans populations. To further understand retention for queer and trans students from this intersectional lens, we turn our attention to central concepts in retention literature: academic integration, social connections and integration, and campus climate.

Academic Integration

Scholarship advances that academic integration through involvement with the curriculum, engagement with institutional academic values, and relationships with faculty and staff is essential for student success (Mayhew, Rockenbach, Bowman, Seifert, & Wolniak, 2016). Although academic integration research does not typically include queer and trans students, research examining the impact of campus climate and relationships with faculty members on the academic success and integration of queer and trans students is expanding. Two quantitative single-institution climate studies (Garvey, Squire, Stachler, & Rankin, 2018; Woodford & Kulick, 2015) found a link between bias and academic success/integration for LGBQ students. Similarly, Garvey, Taylor, and Rankin (2015) relied on national quantitative data to investigate how classroom experiences for LGBTQ community college students predicted their perceptions of campus climate and the positive impact of their interaction with faculty members. Looking specifically at trans collegians, Duran and Nicolazzo (2017) found that faculty who “create[d] an atmosphere in which they could express themselves” (p. 535) and viewed trans students as equals contributed significantly to their success.

This scholarship aligns with general retention studies that underscore the importance of relationships with faculty as central to academic integration and success (e.g., Mayhew et al., 2016). However important these initial findings on academic integration are, there remain limited efforts to fully examine how within-group differences among queer and trans students, as well as the structural realities and institutional barriers, affect this population. The complex nature of intersectionality requires an examination of intragroup diversity within queer and trans students in an academic context. Do they experience academic settings differently based on their intersecting identities? Does the power enacted by their instructors and advisors affect them in unique ways? These are questions that need to be addressed.

Social Connections and Integration

Equally important to the retention of college students is their social integration on campus, a concept that encapsulates a person’s connections to other individuals on campus, as well as to the institution broadly (Fine, 2016). This reality is just as vital, if not more so, for queer and trans students. The presence of minority stress and negative climate creates barriers to social integration (Woodford & Kulick, 2015). However, findings from studies on queer and trans students support the links between meaningful relationships with peers and families and their social integration (Fine, 2016; Strayhorn, Blakewood, & Devita, 2008). Such integration may enhance their ability to more effectively deal with heterosexism and homophobia. Collectively, this body of research highlights the necessity of social connections for queer and trans students to persist through higher education.

Research examining the social integration and persistence of queer and trans students is valuable, but it is necessary to further address the lived experience of intergroup diversity among queer and trans students and the structural barriers they experience. Some studies exist that focus on intragroup diversity and barriers faced by queer and trans students, including queer Raza (Chicana/Latina) womyn (Revilla, 2010) and BQM (Blockett, 2017). These research projects demonstrated that creating counter spaces through student organizations or community involvement helped racially minoritized queer and trans students embrace a multidimensional consciousness and cope with predominantly White queer spaces. These insights are vital to consider and remind both researchers and practitioners that the field’s conceptualization of social integration has not been intersectional. However, such notions need to be intentionally researched so that professionals can create retention strategies that effectively attend to intragroup diversity and interrogate campus structures that may inhibit social integration among queer and trans student subgroups.

Campus Climate

A variety of climate studies examining the experiences of queer and trans students add value and insight to conversations on retention and persistence. These studies also make an important connection between a supportive campus climate and institutional structures. Renn (2010) described climate studies as important tools of accountability despite a lack of follow-up research. Campus climate studies tend to be quantitative in nature and are either examinations of single campuses or studies gathering insight about campus climate across the United States (Renn, 2010). Research conducted by Blumenfeld, Weber, and Rankin (2016), as well as (Garvey, Squire, et al., 2018), found connections between campus climate and persistence for LGBT students, faculty, and staff. Queer and trans students on hostile campuses feel discouraged, less comfortable, and less invested in their campuses. These experiences diminish the positive impact of protective factors, such as social and academic integration.

As one of the few qualitative studies, Evans, Nagoshi, Nagoshi, Wheeler, and Henderson (2017) discovered that acts of discrimination (e.g., microaggressions or overt aggression) either from within LGBTQ or straight-identified people were particularly harmful to LGBTQ students, often leading to avoidance and isolation. Although the negative impact of hostile campus climate on queer and trans students is well established, harassment and nonacceptance can come from all corners of the campus, including from within one’s community. Additional scholarship is needed that uses intersectional approaches to highlight connections between systemic inequalities and queer and trans retention.

Reconceptualizing Queer and Trans Retention From an Intersectional Perspective

Guided by an imperative to reconceptualize retention from an intersectional perspective, we turn our attention to what it would look like for higher education institutions to prioritize queer and trans students in their retention efforts. To do so, professionals at colleges and universities must foreground intersectionality’s analytic goal to name and contest the overlapping systems of power that affect retention for this population. An intersectional approach to queer and trans retention would consider individuals’ intersecting identities and how students’ social locations expose them to differential forms of marginalization. With this purpose in mind, this section challenges practitioners to consider how heterosexism, trans oppression, and other forms of oppression are (re)produced in their practices before then addressing these issues.

Rethinking retention for queer and trans college students from an intersectional approach, we used Crenshaw’s (1991) notions of structural, political, and representational intersectionality. In particular, we asked the following questions that aligned with these conceptualizations of intersectionality:

Structural: How can higher education institutions rethink their policies and practices to account for heterosexism, trans oppression, and other forms of oppression in retention?

Political: In what ways do queer and trans political agendas exclude those with other marginalized identities on college campuses, impacting retention in the process?

Representational: How do colleges and universities advance singular representations of queer and trans collegians, and what effect does this have on retention?

In answering the previously listed questions, we considered efforts on campus that would influence queer and trans student retention by way of academic/social integration and campus climate. Engaging in this reconceptualization required us to turn to existing literature, especially scholarship that addressed intersecting identities and forms of oppression. However, this process often resulted in an overrepresentation of studies on queer and trans people of color, signaling the centrality of institutional racism and the need for research on other subpopulations (e.g., first-generation students and international collegians).

Addressing these issues should involve an interconnected approach. In other words, we encourage scholars and practitioners to reflect on how attending to structural intersectionality, for example, has implications for political and representational intersectionality. Moreover, illustrated in the following subsections, the reality is that improving queer and trans retention requires professionals at all levels to engage in these efforts. This imperative also means that agents outside of institutions (e.g., policy makers and state legislators) should similarly ask themselves how they contribute to issues of attrition for these students.

Structural Intersectionality

Taking up a focus on structural intersectionality means interrogating the initiatives, services, and resources present on college campuses that influence queer and trans student retention. Even in campus offices and programs dedicated toward improving the success of marginalized populations, institutions may be inadvertently marginalizing queer and trans students based on their intersecting identities (e.g., not attending to issues of ableism in queer LGBTQ centers). To offer a few examples of how structural intersectionality manifests for retention of this population, this section focuses specifically on gender-inclusive housing as well as resources for those with multiple marginalized identities.

Gender-inclusive housing

Given the connections between on-campus living and retention (Schudde, 2011), one topic that has gained the attention of scholars and practitioners alike concerns the availability of gender-inclusive housing at higher education institutions (Garvey, Chang, Nicolazzo, & Jackson, 2018; Krum, Davis, & Galupo, 2013; Nicolazzo & Marine, 2015; Nicolazzo, Marine, & Wagner, 2018). In fact, scholarship clearly identifies the need for gender-inclusive housing from the perspective of trans students (Krum et al., 2013; Pryor, Ta, & Hart, 2016). Although professionals in higher education proclaimed gender-inclusive housing as a best practice, one that seeks to “alleviate the effects of trans* oppression” (Nicolazzo et al., 2018, p. 226), we echo Nicolazzo et al.’s contention that institutions cannot simply replicate this initiative without questioning how it is being implemented. Within the context of intersectionality, practitioners should interrogate how gender-inclusive housing perpetuates inequitable structures that disproportionately affect certain groups of trans students.

Specifically, implementing gender-inclusive housing without attention to intersectionality can disproportionately affect trans students who are from first-generation or working class/poor backgrounds. For example, Krum et al.’s (2013) study on college-aged transgender students revealed that individuals surveyed preferred apartment-style or self-contained single rooms over other options. Having a room to oneself is reasonably a result of trans oppression that can manifest when living with another person (Pryor et al., 2016). However, this solution may not be accessible for those who identify as trans and from working class/poor backgrounds given that these housing options are typically more expensive than other room configurations. Therefore, we extend Krum et al.’s recommendation to consider financial expenses when constructing gender-inclusive housing and how those with multiple marginalized identities negotiate gender-inclusive housing decisions. Implementing gender-inclusive housing from an intersectional perspective would mean designing appropriate solutions for those who experience overlapping systems of domination such as classism and trans oppression. Otherwise, these students may be less likely to take advantage of these resources, which in turn could impact retention.

On a similar note, accessing gender-inclusive housing could be a challenge for those who may not have the capital necessary to navigate institutional policies. Because information about gender-inclusive housing is difficult to locate on websites and has hard to understand processes (see Nicolazzo et al., 2018), those who identify as first-generation college students and trans may encounter confusion. Not providing clear instructions about what gender-inclusive housing is and how to sign up for it disadvantages trans students broadly, but especially those who may not have the necessary navigational capital to understand university structures. To be clear, the onus should not be on individuals to seek and interpret this information themselves, but rather, institutions must provide accessible material and be accountable for policies that affect groups of students in differential manners. This intersectional perspective shifts the focus to the resources available to improve queer and trans retention.

Resources for those with multiple marginalized identities

Aside from gender-inclusive housing, using a structural intersectional analytic approach leads to questions about the availability of institutionally sanctioned resources (e.g., student organizations, mentoring programs, and conversation groups) on college campuses for queer and trans collegians with multiple marginalized identities. Because strong connections exist between involvement, engagement, and retention (Harper & Quaye, 2015), institutions would benefit from taking stock of resources they have for queer and trans students, but especially those who identify with other minoritized communities (e.g., communities of color, disabled communities, and veteran communities).

Although queer and trans student organizations, mentoring programs, or conversations groups are likely to have positive effects on queer and trans retention, scholarship has also shown how these spaces reify marginalization. For example, Vaccaro and Mena’s (2011) research on queer college activists of color showcased how these students faced racism in the White queer club on campus, leading them to create a queer person of color-specific student organization. In Blockett’s (2017) study on BQM, students experienced similar oppressive interactions in White LGBT spaces, leading one participant to “question what type of gay student is the campus environment is [sic] friendly toward” (p. 810). These set of findings signal a larger issue of relying upon blanket services for queer and trans communities.

Although inevitably limited by funding and human capital, institutional agents on campus could survey queer and trans populations to better learn what they need to succeed and persist. Of note, simply creating these types of resources will not eradicate the systemic forms of oppression that queer and trans students face in collegiate environments. Nevertheless, this is one approach to conceptualizing queer and trans students’ support on a microclimate level (Vaccaro, 2012) that in turn could have beneficial impacts on their retention.

Political Intersectionality

Beyond attention paid to the structural inequities that manifest for those at the intersection of multiple marginalized identities, intersectional analyses are also concerned with the ways that people are situated within “conflicting political agendas” (Crenshaw, 1991, p. 1251). For example, queer and trans students of color are simultaneously situated within queer and trans movements and communities of color. Although they are members of both of these two groups, these communities may not have the intention or discourses necessary to advocate for queer and trans students of color. On college campuses, we contend that political intersectionality needs to address the marginalization that exists across peer identity groups and siloed student affairs offices to sufficiently attend to retention for queer and trans students.

Marginalization across peer identity groups

On an interpersonal level, queer and trans students not only face oppression within society at large but also encounter marginalization within minoritized communities. For example, as highlighted throughout this article, queer and trans communities can perpetuate other forms of domination (e.g., racism, ableism, or classism) despite the fact that these individuals experience oppression themselves. This is particularly troubling considering that social integration is pivotal to matters of retention for queer and trans people (Fine, 2016). From a political intersectional perspective, scholars can further interrogate how queer and trans peers foreground issues of heterosexism and trans oppression without considering how these systems intersect with others.

In fact, researchers acknowledge how White queer and trans communities on campus obscure their whiteness in favor of focusing on issues of heterosexism and trans oppression. An example of this is seen in Miller and Vaccaro’s (2016) study in which queer student leaders of color had difficulty participating in a predominantly White queer club organization that did not support a Black student organization following a contentious incident on campus. This narrative showcases the issue that queer and trans collegians with other marginalized identities face with fellow students in and outside of formal groups. In prioritizing a narrow belief on what counts as queer and trans issues, peer identity groups could reify other structures of oppression. A political intersectionality lens shines a light on this erasure and domination among those who experience multiple forms of marginalization.

Siloed identity centers

Apart from experiencing oppression across identity groups, political intersectionality could also draw attention to what occurs when identity centers themselves are siloed on college campuses. Although structural intersectionality might identify siloed identity centers as signaling a lack of resources for those with multiple marginalized identities, political intersectionality examines the implications for subgroups in larger queer and trans communities. In particular, we contend that the ways in which offices function in student affairs divisions, especially those designated for minoritized individuals (e.g., queer and trans students), oftentimes leads them to erase within-group differences. For queer and trans students, this erasure may look like engaging with identity centers that homogenize marginalized populations and that render invisible the needs of individuals. Although professionals consider these centers to be key to marginalized students’ engagement on campus and their retention (Patton, 2010), many concerns exist about how they advocate for students.

For queer and trans students of color, for example, scholars note that LGBTQ centers are typically read as centering whiteness (Johnson & Javier, 2017; Mitchell & Means, 2014; Nicolazzo, 2016). This centering manifests in the programming and initiatives funded by these offices. The experiences that queer and trans collegians of color have in LGBTQ centers are then also replicated by identity centers focused on racial equity: “LGBT campus centers are often critiqued for being White-centric, and multicultural centers are often critiqued for being heteronormative and cisnormative” (Johnson & Javier, 2017, p. 2). As a result of these experiences, queer and trans students of color then encounter difficulty in exploring and making meaning of their identities (Duran, 2019), which in turn can have negative influences on their retention. In addition, the whiteness existing in spaces such as LGBTQ centers is accompanied by systems such as ableism or nativism.

By not integrating attention to other marginalized identities, these identity centers can further political agendas that flatten the populations they are intended to serve and reproduce structures of domination (e.g., racism, heterosexism, and genderism). Importantly, this political intersectionality analysis has strong connections to structural issues. In fact, Harris and Patton (2017) noted that a lack of institutional funding for Black culture centers limited their ability to program in identity-expansive ways. From an intersectional view, identity centers have a responsibility to expand the populations for whom they advocate. In doing so, these identity centers can have positive impact on the retention of queer and trans students.

Representational Intersectionality

Finally, representational intersectionality requires an examination of how cultural images of queer and trans people with multiple marginalized identities are produced on college campuses. In other words, representational intersectionality interrogates how those at the intersections of overlapping systems of marginalization are discussed and presented in the social imaginary. In this section, we provide the examples of course curricula and staff/faculty representation to provide a new perspective on queer and trans retention.

Course curricula

Faculty construct their curricula in ways that benefit or disadvantage queer and trans populations. With the knowledge that classroom experiences can impact academic integration and retention, scholarship has emerged that examines queer and trans students’ perceptions of their academics (see Linley & Nguyen, 2015 for a synthesis of this research). Although certain disciplines may be more welcoming to queer and trans populations (e.g., the social sciences and humanities), opportunities still exist to critique how queer and trans students are portrayed across curricular contexts.

Because college classrooms reinforce ideas of what counts as knowledge and can further ideas about what it means to identify as queer and trans, these spaces are rich for intersectional analyses. For example, scholars have identified engineering as a discipline that frequently approaches curricula from identity-neutral schools of thought (Bilimoria & Stewart, 2009). By not discussing identity in these courses, instructors erase minoritized populations from the curriculum and reinforce the dominance of majority groups (e.g., straight and cisgender students). Echoing this point, Linley and Nguyen (2015) argued, “in short, positivism and objectivity foster an environment in which LGBTQ issues and people are perceived as irrelevant” (p. 43). This scholarship thus suggests that faculty need to reorient how they shape curricula and representations of queer and trans people in the classroom.

A representational intersectional approach to understanding course curricula necessitates that faculty interrogate how they (un)intentionally position certain populations as other. Although incorporating attention to queer and trans identities in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics-related courses is necessary, researchers have also communicated how identity-specific courses construct images of who is and who is not part of queer and trans communities. For example, in Duran’s (2019) study on queer students of color, participants discussed how even classes focused on a minoritized community rarely included readings or lessons about marginalized subgroups. Experiencing this curricula erasure can affect how students see themselves represented in society, as well as on college campuses. To reconceptualize queer and trans retention from an intersectional perspective requires instructors to question which populations they are centering in their classrooms and how this reinforces interlocking systems of oppression in the process.

Representation of staff and faculty

Another institutional-level issue that comes to light from a representational intersectionality approach concerns the availability of staff and faculty who identify similarly to queer and trans collegians. Research on queer and trans students, especially those with multiple marginalized identities, has long underscored the value of staff and faculty who can serve as resources and role models (Goode-Cross & Tager, 2011; Miller, 2015; Strayhorn, 2019); in fact, the availability of queer and trans faculty on college campuses helps students persist in environments that perpetuate systems of oppression.

Yet, research demonstrates that populations such as queer students of color (Duran, 2019) and queer disabled collegians (Miller, 2015) rarely encounter individuals who hold like identities. For example, Miller’s (2015) study on queer disabled collegians revealed that students rarely met faculty from similar backgrounds. Miller stated that not having these individuals present, queer and trans collegians lack the possibility models necessary for their retention. It is also necessary to highlight the invisible labor that faculty perform to support marginalized populations, as seen in Kortegast and van der Toorn’s (2018) research on lesbian and gay student affairs professionals. Thus, from a representational intersectionality approach, institutions should explore the potentially hostile or apathetic climates for professionals and the indirect consequences for students who want to see themselves represented in these environments.

Intentional actions to recruit and sustain queer and trans professionals could have a significant impact on the retention of queer and trans students. This is particularly salient for those who hold multiple marginalized identities like those who identify as queer and disabled. This attention to overlapping systems of marginalization also provides a vehicle for critique of the experiences that queer and trans faculty and staff have in the academy. Acknowledging the additional labor they expend to assist queer and trans students (Aguilar & Johnson, 2017; Kortegast & van der Toorn, 2018; Pitcher, 2018), institutions must revisit how this kind of work is rewarded and compensated; moreover, the ways that queer and trans faculty face oppressive climates must also be interrogated. A representational intersectionality approach to queer and trans retention highlights that hiring/sustaining staff and faculty is a complex issue. Colleges and universities need to examine this matter by centering students, as well as the staff and faculty who could make a positive impact in the lives of these collegians.

Implications for Future Research

In reimagining practice from an intersectional perspective, we examine how research about intersectionality and retention can and should evolve. Such recommendations can be understood in terms of who and what we study and how we study. Specifically, who and what we research concerns populations, institutions, and systems of interest, as well as the measures used. How we conduct research involves the questions researchers ask and the methodologies chosen.

Who and What We Study

The studies reviewed in this article revealed that the focus of retention-oriented studies is slowly expanding to include queer and trans students. However, it is also fair to say that much of this research, particularly the quantitative studies, have not been intersectional in nature, either in terms of studying within-group differences or how power structures differentially affect intragroup diversity (e.g., retention issues for Muslim trans students).

In terms of quantitative studies, who is being sampled needs to expand, including efforts to oversample to better reflect intragroup diversity within queer and trans communities. If successful, these efforts will allow differential group comparisons to ascertain if these within-group differences influence how the institution is experienced. As suggested by Rankin and Garvey (2015), ongoing databases often used in higher education (e.g., the National Study on Student Engagement) must gather sexual orientation and gender identity as essential demographic characteristics while using the most inclusive language possible. Particularly, when constructing demographic questions, “use of nonbinary and gender-inclusive/flexible pronouns presents an opportunity for direct change in scholarship” (Brazelton, Renn, & Stewart, 2015, p. 88). In addition, other forms of diversity such as institutional type, region of the United States, and even international campuses must be included. Gathering information about institutional and environmental barriers that queer and trans students face on campus, particularly with meaningful within-group data, will enhance understanding of how power structures shape and vary their experiences. Relatedly, we need to gather and evaluate data on pre- and post-college realities and experiences among queer and trans students, including those who stay to completion and those who do not. Exploring the various pathways that queer and trans students take prior to, during, and after college in the context of the institutional and environmental realities can provide meaningful data to shape retention programs and interventions.

Expanding the type of measures and outcomes used in quantitative research is also necessary. The measures used need to be evaluated—Were they created with or without queer and trans students in mind? One approach would be to conduct factor analyses of measures with these populations as well as a corresponding evaluation of any items changed to accommodate a diverse sample. If a measure is created with predominantly heterosexual and cisgender student samples rather than assume that it has adequate validity and reliability for queer and trans students, such expectations must be evaluated using the quantitative tools available. Griffin and Museus (2011) emphasized the need to evaluate the quality of quantitative measures and made a case for the use of mixed methods for effective higher education intersectional research. In addition, there needs to be an examination of the outcomes or measures that have not been used with queer and trans students but have been incorporated in broader retention research.

How We Study

Several research approaches already exist within the retention literature that could translate to the experiences of queer and trans students. Yet, there are some shortcomings in the range and type of methodologies currently used in scholarship. Specifically, although there are longitudinal and follow-up studies of individuals and institutions that examine how experiences and perceptions change over time, they have not historically included queer and trans demographic data. Such research approaches are particularly valuable and should include pre- and post-test data. Understanding how the experiences of queer and trans students change over time and what influence institutional forces have is a necessary part of the decision-making process to stay or leave one’s campus. Using program evaluation or random controlled research is another way to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions meant to enhance the retention of queer and trans students. In addition to understanding the before and after college experiences of queer and trans students, Blumenfeld et al. (2016) advocated for comparative studies across institutions and countries to increase awareness of the impact of environment and diverse contexts.

Qualitative studies addressing retention-related issues facing queer and trans students (e.g., social integration) provide essential insight into intragroup diversity and deepen the field’s understanding of the experiences of queer and trans students (e.g., trans students with disabilities and queer Jewish students). Qualitative studies focused on within-group differences can highlight the unique effects of campus climate and factors influencing retention, especially for these subgroups. The stories that queer and trans students share through qualitative methods offer an often overlooked context into their experiences on campus, which are frequently less visible with quantitative approaches. Such insights into the lives of queer and trans students can challenge practitioners to consider the day-to-day realities that impact such students. However, more importantly, these reflections can serve as the impetus to generate ideas on how to better target queer and trans students in retention efforts.

Conclusion

By examining how intersectionality can shape and inform the study of queer and trans student retention, this article serves as a call for scholars and practitioners to consider how systems of power influence retention policies, initiatives, and resources on college campuses. This shift requires professionals to move beyond a focus on multiple identities and instead consider how multiple identities are situated within structures of domination. Doing so foregrounds historical and contemporary legacies of exclusion that impact the retention of queer and trans collegians.

Returning to the story introduced at the beginning of this article, Sam realizes that intersectionality helps him understand that Joseph’s multiple identities are important to how he experiences his start to college. Sam also realizes that he needs to be attentive to the institutional programs and resources that serve as supports and barriers for Joseph, especially when taking into consideration his intersecting identities that expose him to multiple forms of oppression (e.g., racism and heterosexism). With this scenario in mind, professionals across academic and student affairs should also ask themselves how retention efforts would be different if queer and trans people, particularly those with multiple marginalized identities, were at the center of these efforts? Ultimately, considering intersectionality in queer and trans retention offers a powerful liberatory approach to transforming higher education.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Antonio Duran

Author Biographies

Antonio Duran (he/him) is an assistant professor in the Administration of Higher Education program at Auburn University. Antonio's research interests involve understanding how historical and contemporary legacies of oppression influence college student development and experiences. He is particularly passionate about using intersectional frameworks in queer and trans studies in higher education.

Raechele L. Pope (she/her) is an associate professor and associate dean for Faculty and Student Affairs and the chief diversity officer for the Graduate School of Education at the University of Buffalo. Raechele’s research offers a social and organizational analysis of diversity, equity, inclusion, and justice. Her research identifies the multicultural awareness, knowledge, skills, and critical actions necessary to effectively work with all students and to create equitable and socially just campus environments.

Susan R. Jones (she/her) is a professor in the Higher Education and Student Affairs program at The Ohio State University. Susan’s longstanding scholarly focus began with research on multiple and intersecting identities and has evolved to incorporate intersectional analyses and critical perspectives.

References

Aguilar

Johnson

J. M.

(2017). Queer faculty and staff of color: Experiences and expectations. In Johnson

J. M.

Javier

(Eds.), Queer people of color in higher education (pp. 57–72). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing Inc.

Bilimoria

Stewart

A. J.

(2009). “ Don’t ask, don’t tell”: The academic climate for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender faculty in science and engineering. NWSA Journal, 21(2), 85–103.

Blockett

R. A.

(2017). ‘ I think it’s very much placed on us’: Black queer men laboring to forge community at a predominantly white and (hetero) cisnormative research institution. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 30(8), 800–816.

Blumenfeld

W. J.

Weber

G. N.

Rankin

(2016). In our own voice: Campus climate as a mediating factor in the persistence of LGBT students, faculty, and staff in higher education. In Chamness Miller

Mikulec

(Eds.), Queering classrooms: Personal narratives and educational practices to support LGBTQ youth in schools (pp. 1–20). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing Inc.

Braxton

J. M.

Brier

E. M.

Steele

S. L.

(2007). Shaping retention from research to practice. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 9(3), 377–399.

Brazelton

G. B.

Renn

K. A.

Stewart

D.-L.

(2015). Recommendations. In Stewart

D.-L.

Renn

K. A.

Brazelton

G. B.

(Eds.), Gender and sexual diversity in U.S. higher education: Contexts and opportunities for LGBTQ college students: New directions for student services, no. 152 (pp. 85–94). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Carbado

D. W.

Crenshaw

K. W.

Mays

V. M.

Tomlinson

(2013). Intersectionality: Mapping the movements of a theory. Du Bois Review, 10(2), 303–312.

Cho

(2013). Post-intersectionality: The curious reception of intersectionality in legal scholarship. Du Bois Review, 10(2), 385–404.

Collins

P. H.

(1990). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness and the politics of empowerment. New York, NY: Routledge.

10.

Collins

P. H.

(2015). Intersectionality’s definitional dilemmas. Annual Review of Sociology, 41(1), 1–20.

11.

Collins

P. H.

Bilge

(2016). Intersectionality. Malden, MA: Polity Press.

12.

Combahee River Collective. (1977/1993). A Black feminist statement. In Hull

Scott

P. B.

Smith

(Eds.), All the women are white, all the blacks are men, but some of us are brave: Black women’s studies (pp. 13–22). New York, NY: Feminist Press at CUNY.

13.

Crenshaw

(1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory, and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 8(1), 139–167.

14.

Crenshaw

(1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1299.

15.

Dill

B. T.

Zambrana

R. E.

(2009). Critical thinking about inequality: An emerging lens. In Dill

B. T.

Zambrana

R. E.

(Eds.), Emerging intersections: Race, class, and gender in theory, policy, and practice (pp. 1–21). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

16.

Duran

(2019). An intersectional grounded theory study examining identity exploration for queer collegians of color at historically white institutions (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.

17.

Duran

Jones

S. R.

(in press). Intersectionality. In. Casey

Z. A.

(Ed.), Critical understandings in education encyclopedia: Critical whiteness studies. Boston, MA: Brill/Sense Publishing.

18.

Duran

Nicolazzo

(2017). Exploring the ways trans* collegians navigate academic, romantic, and social relationships. Journal of College Student Development, 58(4), 526–544.

19.

Evans

Nagoshi

J. L.

Nagoshi

Wheeler

Henderson

(2017). Voices from the stories untold: Lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, and queer college students’ experiences with campus climate. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 29(4), 426–444.

20.

Fine

L. E.

(2016). “ I can’t do this right now”: Social integration, significant other support, and LGB educational trajectories. Sociological Focus, 49(3), 215–230.

21.

Garvey

J. C.

Chang

S. H.

Nicolazzo

Jackson

(Ed.). (2018). Trans* policies and experiences in housing and residence life. Stylus, VA: Sterling.

22.

Garvey

J. C.

Squire

D. D.

Stachler

Rankin

(2018). The impact of campus climate on queer-spectrum student academic success. Journal of LGBT Youth, 15(2), 89–105.

23.

Garvey

J. C.

Taylor

J. L.

Rankin

(2015). An examination of campus climate for LGBTQ community college students. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 39(6), 527–541.

24.

Goode-Cross

D. T.

Tager

(2011). Negotiating multiple identities: How African-American gay and bisexual men persist at a predominantly white institution. Journal of Homosexuality, 58(9), 1235–1254.

25.

Griffin

K. A.

Museus

S. D.

(2011). Application of mixed-methods approaches to higher education and intersectional analyses. In Griffin

K. A.

Museus

S. D.

(Eds.), Using mixed-methods approaches to study intersectionality in higher education: New directions for institutional research, no. 151 (pp. 15–26). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

26.

Harper

S. R.

Quaye

S. J.

(2015). Making engagement equitable for students in U.S. higher education. In Quaye

S. J.

Harper

S. R.

(Eds.), Student engagement in higher education: Theoretical perspectives and practical approaches for diverse populations (2nd ed., pp. 1–14). New York, NY: Routledge.

27.

Harris

J. C.

Patton

L. D.

(2017). The challenges and triumphs in addressing students’ intersectional identities for Black culture centers. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 10(4), 334–349.

28.

Harris

J. C.

Patton

L. D.

(2019). Un/doing intersectionality through higher education research. The Journal of Higher Education, 90(3), 347–372.

29.

Hutchinson

D. L.

(2001). Identity crisis: Intersectionality, multidimensionality, and the development of an adequate theory of subordination. Michigan Journal of Race and Law, 6, 285–317.

30.

Johnson

J. M.

Javier

G. C.

(2017). An introduction and overview to QPOC in higher education. In Johnson

J. M.

Javier

G. C.

(Eds.), Queer people of color in higher education (pp. 1–7). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing Inc.

31.

Kendall

F. E.

Wijeyesinghe

C. L.

(2017). Advancing social justice work at the intersections of multiple privileged identities. In Wijeyesinghe

C. L.

(Ed.), Enacting intersectionality in student affairs: New directions for student services, no. 157 (pp. 91–100). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

32.

Kortegast

C. A.

van der Toorn

(2018). Other duties not assigned: Experiences of lesbian and gay student affairs professionals at small colleges and universities. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 11(3), 268–278.

33.

Krum

T. E.

Davis

K. S.

Galupo

M. P.

(2013). Gender-inclusive housing preferences: A survey of college-aged transgender students. Journal of LGBT Youth, 10(1–2), 64–82.

34.

Kwan

(1997). Jeffrey Dahmer and the cosynthesis of categories. Hastings Law Journal, 48(6), 1257–1292.

35.

Levitz

Noel

(1989). Connecting students to institutions: Keys to retention and success. In Upcraft

M. L.

Gardner

J. N.

& Associates (Eds.), The freshman year experience: Helping students survive and succeed in college (pp. 65–81). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

36.

Linley

J. L.

Nguyen

D. J.

(2015). LGBTQ experiences in curricular contexts. In Stewart

D.-L.

Renn

K. A.

Brazelton

G. B.

(Eds.), Gender and sexual diversity in U.S. higher education: Contexts and opportunities for LGBTQ college students: New directions for student services, no. 152 (pp. 41–53). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

37.

May

V. M.

(2012). Historicizing intersectionality as theory and method: Returning to the work of Anna Julia Cooper. In Faulkner

Wolcott

Parker

(Eds.), Interconnections: Gender and race in American history (pp. 17–50). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester.

38.

May

V. M.

(2015). Pursuing intersectionality, unsettling dominant imaginaries. New York, NY: Routledge.

39.

Mayhew

M. J.

Rockenbach

A. N.

Bowman

N. A.

Seifert

T. A.

Wolniak

G. C.

(2016). How college affects students: 21st century evidence that higher education works (Vol. 3). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

40.

Miller

R. A.

(2015). “ Sometimes you feel invisible”: Performing queer/disabled in the university classroom. Educational Forum, 79(4), 377–393.

41.

Miller

R. A.

(2018). Toward intersectional identity perspectives on disability and LGBTQ identities in higher education. Journal of College Student Development, 59(3), 327–346.

42.

Miller

R. A.

Vaccaro

(2016). Queer student leaders of color: Leadership as authentic, collaborative, culturally competent. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 53(1), 39–50.

43.

Mitchell

Jr. Means

D. R.

(2014). “ Quadruple consciousness”: A literature review and new theoretical consideration for understanding the experiences of Black gay and bisexual college men at predominantly white institutions. Journal of African American Males in Education, 5(1), 23–25.

44.

Moradi

Grzanka

P. R.

(2017). Using intersectionality responsibly: Toward critical epistemology, structural analysis, and social justice activism. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 64(5), 500–513.

45.

Nicolazzo

(2016). ‘ It’s a hard line to walk’: Black non-binary trans* collegians’ perspectives on passing, realness, and trans*-normativity. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 29(9), 1173–1188.

46.

Nicolazzo

Marine

S. B.

(2015). “ It will change if people keep talking”: Trans* students in college and university housing. Journal of College & University Student Housing, 42(1), 160–177.

47.

Nicolazzo

Marine

S. B.

Wagner

(2018). From best to intentional practices: Reimagining implementation of gender-inclusive housing. Journal of Student Affairs and Practice, 55(2), 225–236.

48.

Nora

Barlow

Crisp

(2005). Student persistence and degree attainment beyond the first year in college. In Seidman

(Ed.), College student retention: Formula for student success (pp. 129–153). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.

49.

Patton

L. D.

(2010). (Ed.). Culture centers in higher education: Perspectives on identity, theory, and practice. Sterling, VA: Stylus.

50.

Pitcher

E. N.

(2018). Being and becoming professionally other: Identities, voices, and experiences of U.S. trans* academics. New York, NY: Peter Lang.

51.

Pitcher

E. N.

Camacho

T. P.

Renn

K. A.

Woodford

M. R.

(2018). Affirming policies, programs, and supportive services: Using an organizational perspective to understand LGBTQ+ college student success. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 11(2), 117–132.

52.

Pryor

J. T.

Hart

(2016). Searching for home: Transgender students and experiences with residential housing. College Student Affairs Journal, 34(2), 43–60.

53.

Rankin

Garvey

J. C.

(2015). Identifying, quantifying, and operationalizing queer-spectrum and trans-spectrum students: Assessment and research in student affairs. In Stewart

D.-L.

Renn

K. A.

Brazelton

G. B.

(Eds.), Gender and sexual diversity in U.S. higher education: Contexts and opportunities for LGBTQ college students (New Directions for Student Services, No. 152, pp. 73–84). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

54.

Renn

K. A.

(2010). LGBT and queer research in higher education: The state and status of the field. Educational Researcher, 39(2), 132–141.

55.

Revilla

A. T.

(2010). Raza womyn—Making it safer to be queer: Student organizations as retention tools in higher education. Black Women, Gender + Families, 4(1), 37–61.

56.

Sanlo

(2004). Lesbian, gay, and bisexual college students: Risk, resiliency, and retention. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 6(1), 91–110.

57.

Sanlo

Espinoza

(2012). Risk and retention: Are LGBTQ students staying in your community college? Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 36(7), 475–481.

58.

Schudde

L. T.

(2011). The causal effect of campus residency on college student retention. Review of Higher Education, 34(4), 581–610.

59.

Seelman

K. L.

Woodford

M. R.

Nicolazzo

(2017). Victimization and microaggressions targeting LGBTQ college students: Gender identity as a moderator of psychological distress. Journal of Ethnic and Cultural Diversity in Social Work, 26(1–2), 112–125.

60.

Strayhorn

T. L.

(2019). Sense of belonging and ethnic gay male college students. In Strayhorn (Ed.)

T. L.

, College students’ sense of belonging: A key to educational success for all students (2nd ed., pp. 59–72). New York, NY: Routledge.

61.

Strayhorn

T. L.

Blakewood

A. M.

DeVita

J. M.

(2008). Factors affecting the college choice of African American gay male undergraduates: Implications for retention. NASPA Journal, 11(1), 88–108.

62.

Vaccaro

(2012). Campus microclimates for LGBT faculty, staff, and students: An exploration of the intersections of social identity and campus roles. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 49(4), 429–446.

63.

Vaccaro

Mena

J. A.

(2011). It’s not burnout, it’s more: Queer college activists of color and mental health. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Mental Health, 15(4), 339–367.

64.

Woodford

M. R.

Kulick

(2015). Academic and social integration on campus among sexual minority students: The impacts of psychological and experiential campus climate. American Journal of Community Psychology, 55(1–2), 13–24.

65.

Woodford

M. R.

Kulick

Garvey

J. C.

Sinco

B. R.

(2018). LGBTQ policies and resources on campus and the experiences and psychological well-being of sexual minority college students: Advancing research on structural inclusion. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 5(4), 445–456.