This blog
is the expansion of the research experience of our small group. We would like
to involve more people in it. So in this post we would like to share our
research experience started February 2013. It is an on-going research study,
but not a traditional one. It is not about a lot of people, not about numbers
and statistics. Numbers are important, but personal stories are also to
explore, to understand by research, and this inquiry is about stories of young
LGBQ students.
I (Gyuri, the project leader) am an
ethnographer (someone who studies people’s life by participating in it somehow).
Some years ago, I did school ethnography to explore youth culture in school: I
was present in a classroom of 17 year-old students for 6 months day by day
participating in classes, school life and some extra school meetings of the
students (in pubs, at parties, in an excursion). This kind of research can
offer a deeper understanding of processes and everyday life in school than
questionnaires. Then, I thought that I should do a similar inquiry about the
life of young LGBTQ teenagers in school. However, it is very problematic to
study LGBTQ students in this way in school settings. So I had the idea that students
might be researchers collecting their everyday school experiences as young
ethnographers (with my help), and at the same time they could share their
insights in a Facebook group: constructing a common knowledge on being LGBTQ in
schools. After an announcement, I found some young participants and started the
group in February. I integrated other methods into the inquiry process: a
questionnaire at the beginning of the study, off-line meetings, group interview with the participants, a personal
diary of mine. After a certain time, the original idea had to be changed,
because the young ethnographer concept didn’t work. However, the group has
become a place of sharing and knowledge construction, and now we can present
interesting “results”. The students are not observed by me as a researcher, but
they have an active role in the whole process. The group is purposely small; we
are 12, in order to facilitate personal sharing and constructive group
dynamics. The numbers are not important in this study; I didn’t want to collect
a lot of data, rather to deeply understand personal stories, and to generate
discussion, conversation.
I think
that we could create a safe digital and real environment and community where
everyone can freely share their experiences, questions, opinions and even
problems. And with our communication and discussion, we started to develop some
common ideas as well.
Now as the
leader and facilitator of the group (with the contribution of the
participants), I am telling our readers the main positive and problematic
aspects of this special research process so far (focusing not on the content,
the ‘results’, but on the way, on the research and group experience).
It’s taken
some months, but now we have a really positive community environment where
everyone is appreciated, acknowledged and invited to contribute. We have a
feeling of belonging, and we define ourselves as a group, a community that is
eager to expand somehow in the nearest future, offering a place/community for
young LGBTQ teenagers. We have had some constructive discussions but no flames,
offensive comments and such. For some of the members, the group has given
concrete help in their journey of self-acceptance and identity building. We
have discussed a lot of school related issues, and we have something to say to
a greater audience now. We had some
group meetings, where we shared even deeply personal stories and opinions, and
we are eager to organize more. The members are more and more active, for
example we organised together our workshop during Budapest Pride week (see the
previous post). From certain points of view we are a quite diverse group: with
students from different kind of schools (public, denominational, drama oriented
school and normal high school, alternative school, professional school), from
different places of Hungary (Budapest and other cities and villages).
However, we
have had some difficulties during the process. First of all, for some
participants it wasn’t really clear what the purpose of the group and the research
study was, in the beginning.
So some of them didn’t really participate in the life of the group, and after a
certain time they left. It is very problematic that we don’t know exactly whe two of
the members left, and I can’t reach them. Nevertheless, seemingly
nothing bad happened with them in the group. We are now 12 people: mainly gay
guys, one bisexual boy, one lesbian girl, and one boy who defines himself
queer, I am gay, too. This is not a problem in itself, the one lesbian girl
likes being in the group, but it would be better to have more diversity.
Unfortunately, I had tried to find more girls, but I didn’t manage to do so, and I
didn’t find transgender students either.
The
Facebook group is a very good way to involve participants from different parts
of the country, and maintain a continuous process of online conversation (of
course a’ la Facebook J!), but it has its disadvantages. The activity
of the members varies very much (for different reasons; for example somebody
might be very busy with other stuff in their life), group life is not always
interactive and personal. Sometimes, someone shares a post, and only a few
members react in spite of the importance of the raised issue. Some of the
members are more silent for a certain time, others have been away from the
group for weeks without effective activity and sometimes without checking the posts.
This is good, too, because everyone can
be free to contribute or not, but in this way, Facebook doesn’t really
facilitate active participation. I can often see on Facebook that some members
are active in other groups or on their own timeline while they don’t post
anything in this group. When I raised this issue during one of our meetings, I
received a very reasonable answer from the others: “In other groups we feel
that we can share everything, this group is more serious. We must think about
what to share.” It’s
been clear that off-line, real-life meetings offer better opportunity for
active conversation, but we haven’t been able to organize any meeting with
everybody of the group. We had several meetings, but only with some of the
members.
We had a very serious technical problem too
that jeopardized the whole research study. For some time (more than a month),
only the last three posts were visible on the timeline of the group and it
almost stopped group life. Fortunately, this problem was solved.
The members
are generally more active now, but not everyone, and it is still difficult to
promote longer contributions or time-consuming activities in the group: for
example while preparing the workshop, I wanted to involve the students into
searching interesting experiences posted in the group, but I didn’t really succeed.
Only a few members wrote some personal comments, confessions and I added some
other texts posted previously in the group. It came out good in this way too, but
I (as the leader) saw that it was difficult to share “research
responsibilities”. It might change later. I hope that in the future members can
even write blog posts on their own. Actually, I write them, and they read and
comment them in the group before posting.
Despite all
these difficulties we think that this research experience is nice, nurturing
and encouraging. We will continue and we are eager to receive comments from
others. We have shared these problematic aspects of this research only because
we want to be honest about our experience (and they are part of it) and would
like to help others if they want to do similar activities so that they may
learn from these lessons.
We will
post some concrete experiences, problems and questions soon, and we will wait
for reactions from the readers.
No comments:
Post a Comment