A Constructivist Grounded Theory of Gay Fatherhood in Alberta

University of Calgary PRISM: University of Calgary's Digital Repository

Graduate Studies The Vault: Electronic Theses and Dissertations

2014-04-04 The Authentic Self: A Constructivist Grounded Theory of Gay Fatherhood in Alberta

Roughley, Robert

Roughley, R. (2014). The Authentic Self: A Constructivist Grounded Theory of Gay Fatherhood in Alberta (Unpublished doctoral thesis). University of Calgary, Calgary, AB. doi:10.11575/PRISM/28016 http://hdl.handle.net/11023/1401 doctoral thesis

University of Calgary graduate students retain copyright ownership and moral rights for their thesis. You may use this material in any way that is permitted by the Copyright Act or through licensing that has been assigned to the document. For uses that are not allowable under copyright legislation or licensing, you are required to seek permission. Downloaded from PRISM: https://prism.ucalgary.ca

UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY

The Authentic Self: A Constructivist Grounded Theory of Gay Fatherhood in Alberta

Robert Allan Roughley

A THESIS

SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES

IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE

DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

DIVISION OF APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY

CALGARY, ALBERTA

JANUARY, 2014

ABSTRACT

Over the past 6 decades, research exploring gay fatherhood has told many interesting and often conflicting stories of gay men as parents. Within the current landscape of gay fatherhood in

Canada, very little research exists that informs counselling practitioners of the processes in which gay men navigate in their roles as fathers. This grounded theory study explores the processes gay fathers in Alberta, once married to women with children, negotiate as they experience key developmental milestones. Based on the identity transitions of 12 gay fathers, 6 categories emerged: (a) foundational years, (b) the sexual self, (c) becoming and fatherhood, (d) shifting of identity, (e) protection and place, and (f) the authentic self. Contributions to the academic and professional literature are discussed. Recommendations for future research are identified and discussed.

Keywords: gay fatherhood, transitions, identity development

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to initiate these acknowledgments by recognizing Dr. Kevin Alderson for his ongoing support, advocacy, kindness, and expertise. Together, we created a chapter publication and conference presentations to advance the landscape of queer affirmative practice in Canada.

Dr. Fiona Nelson, thank you for your kindness, expertise, and empathetic support. The foundation you established in your brave research exploring lesbian motherhood in Canada gave me the courage to move forward with both a new methodology and topic of great significance in

Canada. Finally, I would like to thank Dr. John Manzo for brining your amazing expertise, probing questions, and encouragement to the completion of this dissertation.

Additionally, I would like to thank Drs. Nancy Arthur, Christine Walsh, and Jac Andrews for joining my committee in the co-creation of social justice practice during my candidacy examination. A special and warm hug is extended to Edith Mandeville for enduring the impossible and always making me feel welcome as a graduate student and human being in the

Division of Applied Counselling Psychology. A very special thank you is extended to Dr.

Andrew Estefan (Faculty of Nursing, University of Calgary) for his friendship, expertise, and opportunities.

To my very special friends and colleagues within the Faculty of Education: Drs.

Meadow Schroeder, Kyle Schalk, Jennifer Thannhauser, Lara Schultz, and Don Zeman. From the Teaching and Learning Centre at the University of Calgary, I would like to Carol Berenson,

Lorraine Letkemann, Dr. Patricia Dyjur, Rachelle Haddock, Grace Hansen, Rosalie Pedersen,

John Penton, and Dr. Randy Garrison for supporting me and enduring my frustrations, tears, and moments of intellectual psychobabble. A special thank you to Mary-Jane Leeder for going above and beyond in her everyday endeavours. iv

To my colleagues and amazing graduate students from City University of Seattle,

Canadian Programs, I wish to thank Drs. Arden Henley, Deena Martin, Steven Cowan, and soon to be Drs. Ivana Djuraskovic, Jacqui Linders, and Colin Sanders. Finally to all the amazing graduate students in counselling psychology that have provided me with encouragement and support in the final stages of my doctoral completion!

I would like to acknowledge my family, Carole and Don Roughley, for always checking in on my progress and loving me unconditionally as their gay son and brother. To my sisters,

Deanna and Audra, thank you for your empathetic ears and challenging me when I felt I could not move forward in completing this degree.

To Christopher, Cait, Aishling, Heather, Caterina, my friends, and my colleagues: Thank you for your humour and unconditional support during the final 6 months of this journey.

To my forever friend, Brenda Hoddinott – I would not be here today if it weren’t for you!

Finally, to the 12 gay fathers that shared their experiences and trusted me with their stories: Thank you! Without your contribution, this would not have taken place. v

DEDICATION

This dissertation is dedicated to the late David Roughley for providing me with courage to be the confident gay man I am today. Your story provided me with the inspiration to take my doctoral dissertation to a very important space.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………………...ii Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………………………iii Dedication………………………………………………………………………………………....v Table of Contents…………………………………………………………………………………vi List of Tables……………………………………………………………………………………...x List of Figures………………………………………………………………………………….....xi Epigraph………………………………………………………………………………………….xii

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………1 Outline of the Chapter…...... 3 My Connection to the Research…………………………………………………………...3 Personal story……………………………………………………………………...4 Professional interest and gay affirmative counselling…………………………….6 Definition of Key Terms…………………………………………………………………..7 Fatherhood ...……………………………………………………………………...7 Gay Fatherhood…………………………………………………………………....7 Coming Out………………………………………………………………………..8 Transitions…………………………………………………………………………8 Purpose of the Study………………………………………………………………………9 Research Question……………………………………………………………….10 Potential Significance of the Study………………………………………………………10 Significance for Professional Practice…………………………………………...11 Theoretical Importance…………………………………………………………..11 Social Implications……………………………………………………………….12 Personal Impact…………………………………………………………………..12 Biases and Assumptions…………………………………………………………………13 Organization of the Dissertation………………………………………………………....14

CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE………………………………………………15 Historical Implications of Homosexuality and Counselling Psychology………………..15 Homosexuality and the Medical Model………………………………………….15 Homosexuality and Mental Health………………………………………………16 Declassification of homosexuality……………………………………….17 Affirmative Approaches………………………………………………………….17 Homophobia and Heterosexism………………………………………………………….18 Male Identity Development……………………………………………………………...20 Male Identity Development and Masculinities…………………………………..20 Hegemonic masculinities………………………………………………...20 Marginalized masculinities………………………………………………21 Gender Socialization and Gender-Role Strain…………………………………...22 Theories of Gay Identity Development…………………………………………………..24 Stage Models of Gay Identity……………………………………………………25 Flexible Models of Gay Identity…………………………………………………26 Ecological Model of Gay Identity………………………………………………..26 vii

Multiple Intersecting Identities Models………………………………………….27 The Formation and Experiences of Gay Fatherhood…………………………………….28 Fatherhood Identity………………………………………………………………29 Same-Sex Parenting……………………………………………………………...30 Gay Father Identity………………………………………………………………31 The Experience of Gay Fatherhood……………………………………………...33 Counselling Gay Men and Gay Fathers………………………………………………….35 Potential Presenting Concerns…………………………………………………...35 The Counselling Relationship and Experience…………………………………………..36 Counsellor Self-Awareness and Competence……………………………………36 The Counselling Relationship……………………………………………………37 The Counselling Experience……………………………………………………..38 Affirmative Counselling as an Integrated Lens………………………………….39 Social justice efforts……………………………………………………...39 Culture-infused counselling……………………………………………...39 Ethically-based practice………………………………………………….40 Transformative learning………………………………………………….40 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………….40

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY……………………………………………………………….42 Methodological Rationale………………………………………………………………..42 An Overview of Grounded Theory………………………………………………………45 A Rationale for Constructivist Grounded Theory………………………………..46 The Role of the Researcher………………………………………………………49 Participant Recruitment and Site Selection………………………………………………50 Requirements for Participation…………………………………………………..50 Participant Recruitment………………………………………………………….51 Sample Population……………………………………………………………….52 Data Collection Process………………………………………………………………….54 Phase 1: Participant Acknowledgment of Interest……………………………….54 Phase 2: The Interview Process………………………………………………….54 Step 1: Demographic questionnaire……………………………………...55 Step 2: Intensive interviewing…………………………………………...55 Step 3: Interview debrief…………………………………………………56 Phase 3: Field-Notes and Memo-Writing………………………………………..56 Data Management………………………………………………………………………..56 Data Analysis…………………………………………………………………………….57 Initial Coding…………………………………………………………………….59 Focused Coding………………………………………………………………….60 Memo-Writing and Reflexivity………………………………………………….61 Constant Comparison…………………………………………………………….61 Theoretical Sensitivity…………………………………………………………...62 Theoretical Sampling and Theoretical Saturation……………………………….62 Trustworthiness………………………………………………………………………….63 Ethical Considerations…………………………………………………………………..64 Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………66 viii

CHAPTER 4: THEORY AND DISCUSSION…………………………………………………..67 The Grounded Theory……………………………………………………………………67 Category 1: The Foundational Years…………………………………………….70 The nuclear family……………………………………………………….72 Societal norms……………………………………………………………74 The pathological other…………………………………………………...76 The dissonant self………………………………………………………..78 Category 2: The Sexual Self……………………………………………………..80 Who versus what Am I?...... 81 Testing the waters………………………………………………………..84 Accepting self as gay…………………………………………………….86 Disclosing to family……………………………………………………...87 Disclosures to wives……………………………………………..88 Disclosures to children…………………………………………..89 Disclosures to family of origin…………………………………..89 Category 3: Fatherhood Identity Development………………………………….91 Defining “fatherhood”…………………………………………………...92 Fathers as sons…………………………………………………………...93 Straight fatherhood/gay fatherhood……………………………………...96 Modelling the message…………………………………………………..97 Category 4: Shifting of Identity………………………………………………….98 The hegemonic ideal……………………………………………………..99 Gay father/child relationships…………………………………………..101 Blending the family……………………………………………………..103 Category 5: Protection and Place……………………………………………….104 Finding place and membership?...... 105 Safeguarding our children………………………………………………107 The need for mental health resources…………………………………..109 Advocacy……………………………………………………………….112 Category 6: The Authentic Self………………………………………………...114 Summary of Grounded Theory…………………………………………………………116 Heterosexual Marriage with Children…………………………………………..117 Coming Out……………………………………………………………………..118 Gay Fatherhood Identity………………………………………………………..119 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………...120

CHAPTER 5: IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSION Contributions and Implications…………………………………………………………122 Contributions to the Literature………………………………………………………….123 Category 1: Foundational Years………………………………………………..123 Category 2: The Sexual Self……………………………………………………125 Category 3: Becoming and Fatherhood………………………………………...126 Category 4: Shifting of Identity………………………………………………...130 Category 5: Protection and Place……………………………………………….132 Category 6: The Authentic Self………………………………………………...134 ix

Implications for Counselling Psychology Practice……………………………………..135 Supporting Gay Fathers………………………………………………………...135 Supporting Family Members…………………………………………………...137 Supporting ex-spouses………………………………………………….137 Supporting children……………………………………………………..138 Counselling Approaches and Interventions…………………………………….139 Individual counselling…………………………………………………..139 Relationship counselling………………………………………………..140 Family counselling……………………………………………………...141 Group counselling………………………………………………………141 Community-based and psychoeducational interventions……………….136 Counselling Gay Fathers: An Integrated Approach…………………………………….143 Feminist Therapy……………………………………………………………….143 Client-Centred Counselling…………………………………………………….145 Social Justice and Ethical Practice……………………………………………………..146 Ethical Practice…………………………………………………………………147 Education and Training…………………………………………………………………149 Gay Fatherhood: The Canadian Context………………………………………………..149 Limitations and Delimitations of this Study…………………………..………………..151 Sample Population……………………………………………………………...151 Pre-Existing Literature………………………………………………………….151 Researcher Self-Disclosure……………………………………………………..152 Cultural Diversity……………………………………………………………….152 Generalizability…………………………………………………………………153 Delimitations……………………………………………………………………153 Researcher as the Reflexive Self………………………………………………………..155 Fundamental Next-Steps in Researching Gay Fatherhood……………………………..156 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………...157

REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………………………159

APPENDIX A: Recruitment Poster………..…………………………………………………...210 APPENDIX B: Informed Consent Form………..……………………………………………...211 APPENDIX C: Demographic Questionnaire…………..……………………………………….215 APPENDIX D: Sample Questions……………………………………………………………...220

List of Tables

Table 1: Participant Demographic Information……………………………………………….53

Table 2: Categories and Sub-Categories………………………………………………………70 xi

List of Figures and Illustrations

Figure 1: The Transition Model……………………………………………………………...10, 68

Figure 2: The Grounded Theory Process………………………………………………………..58

Figure 3: Category 1 – The Foundational Years………………………………………………...72

Figure 4: Category 2 – The Sexual Self………………………………………………………….81

Figure 5: Category 3 – Fatherhood Development……………………………………………….92

Figure 6: Category 4 – Shifting of Identity………………………………………………………99

Figure 7: Category 5 – Protection and Place…………………………………………………..105 xii

Epigraph

TWO roads diverged in a yellow wood, And sorry I could not travel both And be one traveler, long I stood And looks down one as far as I could To where it bent in the undergrowth;

Then took the other, as just as fair, And having perhaps the better claim, Because it was grassy and wanted wear; Though as for that the passing there Had worn them really about the same,

And both that morning equally lay In leaves no step had trodden black. Oh, I kept the first for another day! Yet knowing how way leads on to way, I doubted if I should ever come back.

I shall be telling this with a sigh Somewhere ages and ages hence: Two roads diverged in a wood, and I— I took the one less traveled by, And that has made all the difference.

The Road Not Taken, Robert Frost (1874-1963)

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

This doctoral dissertation represents a key milestone in the recognition, celebration, and life transitions of 12 gay fathers in Alberta, Canada. Viewed through the lens of social constructivist grounded theory (Charmaz, 2006), the central goal of my research is to initiate social discourse from which to explore, appreciate, and advocate for the current landscape of gay fatherhood in Canada. While gay men become fathers through various means, this study explores the process and movement from fatherhood in heterosexual relationships, to self- identification as gay men, to gay fatherhood and beyond. The literature exploring gay fatherhood tells interesting yet socially conflicting stories about this phenomenon within Western culture. Historically, research has portrayed gay men as fathers in an extremely negative way.

Such literature has often limited and even penalized gay men from experiencing fatherhood free from stigmatization and marginalization (Giesler, 2012; Rootes, 2013). Numerous scholars suggest that traditional family values, meanings of masculinity, and heterosexism have implicated gay men as unworthy of and potentially dangerous representations of fatherhood

(Hicks, 2013; Robinson & Brewster, 2013).

Gay fatherhood within the context of the Canadian multicultural milieu represents a phenomenon that is underrepresented in the scholarship of counselling psychology. Within dominant culture discourse, the assumption has long viewed fatherhood as a privilege extended only to heterosexual males. Throughout the past 3 decades, many fathers who self-identified or were presumed heterosexual have disclosed their gay identities to their opposite sex partners, children, and loved ones. This movement has challenged numerous social and cultural assumptions surrounding fatherhood and sexual orientation. Consequently, the longstanding context that gay and fatherhood constructs could merge into a meaningful social experience has 2 challenged traditionalist perspectives surrounding traditional family values. As the definition of family continues to move away from heteronormativity, so increases controversy surrounding other areas of heterosexual privilege (i.e., same-sex marriage; Alderson, 2004, 2013; Hopkins,

Sorensen, & Taylor, 2013). Hence, through their coming out journeys, gay fathers often challenge the traditional social constructions of fatherhood and have unique insights into the changing expression of fatherhood in Canada.

The present literature tells us much about gay men and fatherhood. A fundamental bridge is absent that links these two separate, yet equally important, identities. Research has placed significant focus on the development and processes associated to gay identity development and management (Alderson, 2013; Bilodeau & Renn, 2005; Mohr & Kendra, 2011;

Savin-Williams, 2011). Although the phenomenon and research of fatherhood is well documented, it is predominantly focused on the male heterosexual experience. Often missing in this dialogue are the individual and shared experiences that occur while establishing and maintaining a positive gay father identity. Many view fatherhood as an identity one assumes, others describe it as a process, and many interpret it as an experience. Within the Canadian context, research that explores these puzzling constructs can seek solutions for the constraints that limit integration of multiple perspectives and intersecting identities.

Over a decade ago, D’Augelli (2003) argued, “As new research accumulates, the unique contribution of LGBT1 lives make to our understanding of the nature of human development will be documented in ways never before thought possible” (p. xxi). Some scholars even advocate that the time has come to explore lived experiences within subcultures of gay identity (Liddle,

2008). While the majority of the literature describes specific contexts of gay fatherhood, an

1 For the remainder of this dissertation, LGBT will be used to represent lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender. 3 emphasis on process represents a fundamental next step. A “one-size-fits-all” model, or description, is not possible. The current literature situates the experiences and expressions of gay fatherhood in several contexts and life experiences, including: (a) co-parenting (Berkowitz &

Kuvalanka, 2013); (b) mixed-orientation relationships (Tasker, 2013); (c) adoption (Farr &

Patterson, 2013a); and (d) surrogacy (Berkowitz, 2013; Dempsey, 2013). Despite advances and social movement that appear to support LGBT identities and celebrate the experiences of gay men in Canada, their roles as gay fathers place gay men in vulnerable and challenging social conditions.

Outline of the Chapter

I have organized this introductory chapter into the following sections. First, in section 1, entitled My Connection to the Research Phenomenon, I provide the reader with my personal and professional insights and attractions to the research topic. In section 2, I discuss and define four specific terms that appear throughout this study. In section 3, I provide a rationale for the study and discuss the research question. In section 4, I outline the potential significance of this study within four specific domains: professional practice, theoretical importance, social implications, and personal impact. In section 5, I briefly discuss the fundamental biases and assumptions I bring to this study. I conclude this chapter with an overview and brief discussion of the structure of this dissertation.

My Connection to the Research Phenomenon

When I made the personal decision to embark on the journey of completing a doctorate of philosophy in counselling psychology, I promised myself that I would engage in introspective processes of social justice and self-awareness. I did not enter my doctoral studies with the intention of studying gay fatherhood, nor was this area of interest situated within my landscape 4 of research areas to explore. My research interests consistently reflect an internalized “call to action” to situate myself in social advocacy and change agent roles. I fundamentally believe that research must extend beyond the surface levels of understanding and move into appreciating the lived experiences of human beings within specific phenomenon. Social justice research guides consumers through possibilities that extend beyond the periphery of understanding with the expressed goal to educate.

So how did I get here? The process of choosing gay fatherhood as the topic of my dissertation stemmed from three specific perspectives: (a) personal story, (b) professional interest, and (c) social justice change gay affirmative counselling. Gay fatherhood, specifically the process of re/negotiating gay fatherhood identity, appeared to expose itself to me as a topic of choice.

Personal story. I bring a personal story to this research, authored by my own journey as a gay man without children. My courage to come out resulted from a traumatic family loss. My uncle, like the participants in this study, married a woman and had two children. Years after his gay identity disclosure to family, friends, and community, he completed suicide. This occurred at a pivotal time in my life, a time where I was actively suppressing my own sexual orientation identity.

I can remember this incident, just as though it was yesterday. It was the last evening of a high school night course, Finite Mathematics, to be exact. As I drove my dark grey Corsica into my Aunt Sue’s driveway, I remember a solemn sense of emotion as I noticed my father peering through the window of the antiqued, stained door that offered entrance into the home filled with many wonderful memories, family dinners, and euchre games. The orange shadow from the stain-glassed frame of the door highlighted the nonverbal notion of despair on my father’s then 5 jaundiced face. I sat, paralyzed in my car, as I knew in my heart and soul that the information to be delivered by my then approaching father was not positive. It was not a matter of what happened, but rather who died. I choked back the pending amphibian surfacing at the back of my throat, preparing for the pending digestion of shock and sadness.

It was rare that I saw my father cry, a common experience to many young boys negotiating their own journeys into traditional roles and masculinities. The pain, the tears frozen by my father’s shock and disbelief quickly melted as he said, “Robert, David is dead.” Robert, a name given to me in remembrance of my father’s best friend (killed beside my father by a drunk driver), had never sounded so strange coming from the very lips of my quivering patriarch. A part of my father had died – his only sibling had ended his life that very day. Time stood still as my father embraced me as he had never before. His touch, his grasp, his pain echoed through his grasp. If it had been spoken, his gestures may have said: You are my son, I love you. This should never be your reality.

In that very moment, my father and I connected as two men. Masculinity and the voidance of the emotional self was no longer a masked reality; fear of my approaching bile of emotional release was then censure free. Together, we wept. The days that followed expanded my awareness of the multiple communities of individuals involved in David’s life. David never shared with me his loves, friendship networks, and chosen family. It became clear to me that as a man once married to a woman, having two children was a heavy weight to bear in his life journey. A moment of clarity resulted as I chose not to allow the very noose that permanently silenced David to reap upon my life journey. Through his death, I was reborn.

I bring to this research endeavour numerous life roles, coupled with personal and professional roles and responsibilities. As a gay man, researching the experiences of other gay 6 men, I have both the benefits of the insider perspective, and the challenges of being an outsider to the fatherhood experience. Growing up, I often silenced my same-sex attractions because I felt that if I self-identified as gay, that I would then relinquish all my rights to fatherhood.

Viewed through the current lens of the Canadian mosaic, I now question the embedded script of the dominant culture that denied my paternal instincts and development. Through a new lens, I see more clearly the endless possibilities, free from the talons of the hegemonic ideal.

Professional interest and gay affirmative counselling. In my practice of counselling psychology, I have had the unique privilege to share in the life journeys of hundreds of gay men

(some fathers, most not). The evolving nature and roles of counselling practitioners and other allied health professionals are moving beyond the parameters of the traditional counselling relationship. Counsellors have the power to empower change at all levels of society: individual, societal, and institutional. In essence, counsellors have the unique opportunity to extend their contributions to client wellbeing by identifying and advocating for marginalized communities

(Arthur & Collins, 2010). Such practitioners strive to connect gay clients with themselves and the gay community, and to reconnect with the mainstream culture (Alderson, 2010). As a social justice initiative, gay affirmative counsellors identify and put a name to inequalities that limit gay men from complete and authentic participation in society. Through the dissemination of this study, it is my hope that counselling practitioners will gain deeper insights into the experiences of gay fatherhood. Armed with this newfound knowledge, counsellors can assist and support clients through these major life transitions.

Definition of Key Terms

Throughout this dissertation, I use specific terms to contextualize the core foundations for this exploratory study. In this section, I call upon the literature to inform these definitions.

These terms include: fatherhood, gay fatherhood, coming out, and transitions.

Fatherhood

Fatherhood is often linked to the heterosexist and hegemonic ideals of masculinity.

Connell (1995) and Cheng (1999) identified the notion of masculinities as forms of social construction that operate on numerous levels of masculinity: (a) hegemonic, (b) subordinate, (c) complicit, and (d) marginalized. Traditionally, fatherhood has reinforced gender constructs of men as playing specific roles to reinforce male gender-role stereotypes. Specifically, men were placed in roles as “breadwinners” and “secondary parents” (Gillis, 2000). Researchers endeavour to rethink and redefine fatherhood beyond definitions informed by marriage, biology, and socioeconomic scripts (Killewalda, 2013; Marsiglio, Day, & Lamb, 2000). Marsiglio and

Roy (2012) called for a contemporary meaning of fatherhood where fathers work to create bonds with their children and assume nurturing roles free from the suffocating limitations of traditional masculine definitions.

Gay Fatherhood

The attempt to create a universal definition of gay fatherhood represents one of the central gaps in the academic literature. Who is a gay father? Gay fathers come from all sectors of society and present diverse demographics, cultural identities, and worldviews. Gay men become fathers through various means (Goldberg, Downing, & Moyer, 2012; Ryan &

Berkowitz, 2009). Gay fatherhood, like other aspects of parenting, represents a life-long journey. Connell (1995) noted “homosexual masculinities are at the bottom of the gender 8 hierarchy among men” (p. 78). In essence, gay men as fathers experience tremendous internalized and externalized social stressors. For the purpose of this study, gay fatherhood will be positioned within the experiences of gay men who procreated children within a marriage with a woman.

Coming Out

The experience of coming out is best viewed as an individual and unique process and not an isolated event. Coming out involves diverse factors and socio-cultural influences. For many gay men, the core moments in the coming out journey include the self-recognition of being gay as well as the subsequent disclosures to others (Alderson, 2013; Legate, Ryan, & Weinstein,

2012; Vargo, 1998). Historically, the research appeared to emphasize the coming out experiences of gay men during youth and adolescence; however, focused attention now addresses the experiences of gay men coming out across the lifespan (Floyd & Bakerman, 2006;

Fruhauf, Orel, & Jenkins, 2009). In Chapter 2, I provide the reader with a more in-depth discussion of the theoretical contexts and various models of coming out.

Transitions

Broderick and Blewitt (2003) believed that “the study of human development over the life span reveals the fascinating story of human beings and how they change over time” (p. v).

Several areas of the literature prescribe a process-orientation to life transitions (Bridges, 2001;

Kralik, Visentin, & Van Loon, 2006; Thomson, Winkler-Dworak, & Kennedy, 2013).

Moving through a transition requires letting go of aspects of the self, letting go of former

roles, and learning new roles. Transitions often involve significant life events that require

coping with what is perceived to be a crisis situation. Innate growth and potential may be

realized through addressing and coping with these significant life events. (Goodman, 9

Schlossberg, & Anderson, 2006, p. 23)

Life transitions include individual transitions, relationship transitions, and work transitions.

Throughout this dissertation, transitions will represent the significant periods of time where participants experienced self-doubt, developed self-awareness, and moved to an authentic awareness of self.

Purpose of the Study

The central purpose of this study was to explore the individual and collective experiences of gay fathers in transition. Within the parameters of this study, transition refers to the process involved in coming out as a gay father. The transition occurs along a theoretical continuum of experience wherein the individuals’ self-interpretations and constructions of identity are the result of intrapersonal and interpersonal processes. Within the context of this inquiry, three developmental milestones informed the process of transition: (a) heterosexual marriage with child(ren), (b) coming out as a gay man, and (c) gay fatherhood identity. Inherent within this journey are individual and collective experiences that exist around, between, and within these core milestones. Hence, the overarching goal of this study is to generate an educative, theoretical framework to provide potential explanations of the process of negotiating a gay fatherhood identity for men who were once married to women.

Figure 1: The Transition Experience

Research Question

For the past decade, I have been asking many personal and professional questions regarding the coming out experiences of gay men. For the past several years, I have been curious about such experiences at different stages across the life-span development. My main curiosity surrounds the definition of fatherhood and how gay men; formerly married to women renegotiate or experience their transitions from perceived heterosexual fatherhood to gay fatherhood. Hence, the specific grounding question for this research was: What is the process of negotiating gay fatherhood identity for men who were once married to women?

Potential Significance of the Study

This exploratory study demonstrates potential to create awareness and appreciation in many contexts of counselling psychology. Within the scientist-practitioner model of counselling psychology exists the necessity of merging theory with practice and practice with theory (Bedi,

Klubben, & Barker, 2012; Lichtenberg, Goodyear, & Genther, 2008; Teachman, Drabick,

Hershenberg, Vivian, Wolfe, & Goldfried, 2012). While this study explored the transition 11 experiences of fathers as they renegotiated their sexual orientation identities and parental roles, the contextual elements behind and within this research are multifaceted in nature.

Significance for Professional Practice

The outcomes of this study have significant potential to inform professional knowledge and practice in supporting gay fathers, their children, and families in counselling-based interventions. Such findings may assist new and expert counsellors working with gay fathers in the establishing of cultural competencies (Powell Sears, 2012), gay affirmative therapeutic strategies (Johnson, 2012), and increased insights into the socio-cultural barriers experienced by these individuals. This study also has the potential to contextualize the ethical principles of non- discriminatory practice, including: (a) respect for the dignity of persons, (b) responsible caring,

Association, 1996/2001). While aspirational in nature, many principles of ethical and competency-based practice are at a leading edge of the counselling profession. By extending an invitation for participants to share their individual stories and insights, it is my hope that this research will inform present and future counselling practice, free from undue harm.

Theoretical Importance

Through the generation of theory, counselling practitioners are presented with opportunities for awareness and appreciation of the experiences of fathers transitioning into parenthood as a process-orientation. For example, movement beyond the sequential steps of developmental models generated from theory is essential as counsellors should be encouraged to view the theoretical components of this study as educative, not prescriptive in nature. In essence, an act of social justice calls upon practitioners to promote positive development through prevention. Kenny and Romano (2009) argued, “In applied psychology, attention to the 12 prevention of mental health problems and the promotion of health-enhancing behaviors has waxed and waned over the years as a history of significant accomplishments has been tempered by major challenges” (p. 17). One critical factor in this reality extends from the need to conceptualize experiences as universal and generalizable perspectives. As the social, clinical, and political climates continue to move towards the inclusion of gay men, so too must the academic literature that for years has silenced the voices of sexual minorities through the lens of the pathological other (Estefan & Roughley, 2011; Roughley & Alderson, 2012).

Social Implications

It is my hope that this study will challenge the numerous myths that exist around gay male parenting, while detailing the numerous diverse pathways that exist in transitioning from heterosexual to gay fatherhood. To do this, one must first question then challenge the social construction of fatherhood. The changing definitions of family, parenting, and marriage within

Canada support the need and desire for research in this area. Researching communities and cultures that are recipients of marginalization and stigma is a form of social justice. As a scientist-practitioner, I am reminded that I can be a mere follower, or I can be an active change agent in furthering discussion and change in this area (Pettifor, 2010).

Personal Impact

For many years I have heard colleagues speak to the notion that “the best dissertation is a finished dissertation.” In the initial stages of my dissertation, I visited the abandoned aisles of dissertations and theses in the university library, often questioning the impact that such endeavours played in affecting the society in which we live. I found myself asking, “How might the graduate students and their committee members been changed or enlightened based on their research?” I creatively danced with the historical positive scripts that poisoned my belief that I 13 had to an absent human being from the research experience. The reflexive self within often challenged my need to put the empirical self ahead of my practitioner self. I cannot fully acknowledge or place into concrete text, the personal impact of working within, around, and beyond this truly transformative research experience. What I am aware of is that the collaborative process that occurred in the completion of this dissertation has forever changed me.

Throughout the unfolding of this research endeavour, the social contexts for gay men and other sexual minority individuals have dramatically shifted on a global level. Sadly, the messages of “It Get’s Better” is not a reality for my many brothers and sisters in countries that do not identify them as human beings deserving of equal rights. Human rights for gay men and gay fathers sadly appears through a lens of privilege that is not extended to all. For me, this dissertation is founded in the belief that this is not enough, that the ability to live and thrive with authenticity and safety in the future is a necessary goal. The personal impact of engaging in this social justice initiative has left me asking, “How can we make things better now!”

Biases and Assumptions

From the onset of this research initiative, I openly acknowledged and actively monitored my personal and professional biases as well as the fundamental assumptions about gay men and gay fathers. As I indicated earlier in this chapter, I bring multiple lenses to this dissertation on both personal and professional levels. First, I believe that all human beings have the capacity to be positive role models in parenting roles. Second, I believe that gay men have been and continue to be marginalized in their roles of parents. Third, regardless of sexual orientation, some fathers do not succeed in their roles as parents. Fourth, I believe that gay fathers might have different capacities to express and nurture their children outside traditional and hegemonic definitions of fatherhood and masculinity. 14

While my assumptions and biases may appear to be positive in nature, I entered into this research aware that the outcomes of the dissertation may in fact paint a potentially negative landscape of fatherhood roles and capacities among the participants in this study. With this in mind, as a social justice researcher, I was and continue to be aware that the implications of a study are to generate discussion amongst the academic and professional practice research. In essence, my positive bias in support of the parenting abilities of LGBT individuals is flavoured by my commitment to culture-infused approaches to wellness and families, as well as my awareness of the breadth of literature (empirical and evidence-based) that supports the overall positive influence LGBT parents can have in the lives of their children and families.

Organization of the Dissertation

The structure of the dissertation has been organized into five chapters. The purpose of

Chapter 1 was to provide the reader with a brief introduction of the topic of gay fatherhood, definition of key terms germane to this dissertation, purpose of the study, research question, and potential significance of the study to professional practice, theory, society, and personal. In

Chapter 2, I provide a comprehensive review of the literature in the essential areas of gay identity, fatherhood, and counselling gay men and fathers. In Chapter 3, I outline the research methods employed in this dissertation. In Chapter 4, I introduce and describe the preliminary grounded theory of gay fatherhood. I conclude this dissertation with Chapter 5, where I discuss and summarize the implications of this research endeavour.

CHAPTER 2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

In grounded theory research, the completion of the literature review is a contentious issue

(Charmaz, 2006; Dunne, 2011; Lillemor & Hallberg, 2010). Although the literature review is presented before the theoretical framework, it must be noted that the literature review was drafted, redrafted, and finalized throughout the production of this dissertation.

I have organized this chapter into the following sections. I begin with a discussion of the historical implications of homosexuality and counselling psychology. Second, I discuss the implications of homophobia and heterosexism. Third, I provide a brief discussion of male identity development, including traditional and marginalized masculinities and gender role socialization. Fourth, I discuss theories of gay identity development. Next, I address the formation and experience of gay fatherhood. Sixth, in the section counselling gay men and fathers, I briefly discuss the topic of potential presenting concerns. Finally, I identify key factors necessary in the gay affirmative counselling relationship.

Historical Implications of Homosexuality and Counselling Psychology

To situate the context of this literature review, the historical contexts of homosexuality in the fields of counselling psychology and mental health will be reviewed. This section will focus on three specific areas highlighting this phenomenon: (a) homosexuality and the medical model;

(b) homosexuality and mental health, including the milestone of declassification as mental illness; and (c) movements to support gay men in wellness and healthy functioning.

Homosexuality and the Medical Model

The historical foundations of homosexuality and mental health are grounded in the medical model of pathology as well as in moral and spiritual influence of perceived deviance

(Drescher, 2002; Ovesey, 1969; Rothblum, 1994). Historically, these foundations, in 16 combination with sociocultural and political constraints, have created reoccurring patterns of sexual minority oppression through history. Perhaps Rollins (1997) said it best: It is a “circular metamorphosis, homosexuality has gone from sin, to criminality, to illness, and back to each status. Often by legal or other official definition, when not sinners of criminals, gays and lesbians have been identified as sick” (p. 71). To date, etiologies of homosexuality have ignited the nature versus nature, essentialist versus constructionist debate (Alderson, 2013). Such perspectives have evolved into varies theories of immaturity (Freud, 1905, 1908; van den

Aardweg, 2011), pathology (Rado, 1940), and normal variation (Ashley, 2013). Silverstein

(1996) provides a comprehensive and detailed examination of the history of homosexuality and associated psychological treatments. He identified three core pillars in this process: (a) the view and treatment of homosexuality as a disease, (b) the need for individuals to change, and (c) biomedical treatments of homosexuality.

Homosexuality and Mental Health

Many mental health practitioners call upon the American Psychiatric Association’s

(APA) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Health Disorders (DSM), depending on one’s theoretical and philosophical approaches to counselling and psychology, when diagnosing and developing intervention plans for clients experiencing psychological distress. Currently, homosexuality does not exist within the existing version of the DSM-V (APA, 2013). However, this has not always been the case. In the first edition of the DSM (APA, 1952), homosexuality was referred to as a psychopathic personality sharing space with other mental disorders such as pedophilia and sexual sadism (Smith, 1985). In the second edition of the DSM (APA, 1968), homosexuality was classified as a sexual deviation under the category of personality disorders.

Research revealed evidence that suggested that homosexuality was not an abnormality, but more 17 ordinary that once believed and led to the beginnings of homosexuality being declassified as a mental health illness (Ford & Beach, 1951; Hooker, 1957, 1969; Kinsey, Pomeroy, & Martin,

1948; Kinsey, Pomeroy, Martin, & Gebhard, 1953).

Declassification of homosexuality. In 1973, the APA declassified homosexuality as a mental and psychiatric disorder. The APA has become fundamentally opposed to re-pathologize or endorse sexual orientation change efforts. Such energies often result in potentially harmful and mental health consequences (APA, 1973, 2000, 2009). Despite these warnings, efforts continue to engage in sexual orientation change efforts (APA, 2009). Davison (2001) suggested the majority of change-based psychotherapeutic interventions dating back to the late 1970s focused in the minimization or suppression of all homosexual attractions and same-sex attractions. Aggressive efforts have been documented where individuals have been coerced and subjected to aversive therapeutic techniques such as electric shock treatments (Tanner, 1973,

1975), systemic desensitization (Bieschke, McClanahan, Tozer, Grzegorek, & Park, 2000), orgasmic reconditioning (Bancroft & Marks, 1968), and lobotomies and castration (Morrow &

Beckstead, 2004). Additional approaches have included reparative therapies and conversion therapies (Haldeman 2004, 2008).

Affirmative Approaches

Current counselling practices call for affirmative approaches to counselling gay men

(Beckstead & Israel, 2007; Hill, 2009). Such approaches for counselling sexual minorities represent significant contention and confusion in academic literature (Bieschke, Perez, &

DeBord, 2007). The main controversy appears to exist in the nature of language (Fassinger &

Arseneau, 2007). Fassinger and Arseneau (2007) argued that using affirmative therapy as an umbrella term risks silencing and decontextualizing the unique experiences of sexual and gender 18 minority individuals. The American Psychological Association (2009) adopted the language of affirmative approaches as being “supportive of clients’ identity development without a prior treatment goals of how clients identify or express their sexual orientations” (p. 14). Gay affirmative methodologies challenge heterosexism and dominant culture values and beliefs

(Gonsiorek, 2004) and identify gay male individuals as healthy and functioning human beings

(Williamson, 2000). To date, numerous allied health-governing associations have taken official stances against the pathologizing of gay men and sexual orientation change efforts (Roughley &

Morrison, 2013). The discussion of affirmative counselling with gay men will continue through this literature review and dissertation.

Homophobia and Heterosexism

Two significantly relevant aspects that impact the psychological well-being of gay men and their subsequent coming out processes include heterosexism and homophobia (Smith, Oads,

& McCarthy, 2012). In simple terms, heterosexism refers to the hegemonic belief or supposition that all individuals are or should be heterosexual (Chernin & Johnson, 2003). Examples of heterosexism include gender identity as either male or female and the assumption that one’s spouse is opposite in gender orientation (Heck, Flentje, & Cochran, 2012). Homophobia refers to dislike/hatred and subsequent predisposition and discrimination against non-heterosexual sexual identities (Alderson, 2013).

Gay men experience homophobia on four levels: (a) internalized, (b) externalized, (c) cultural, and (d) institutional homophobias (Roughley, 2006). Internalized homophobia occurs when gay men view their sexual identities through a heteronormative lens. This often results in psychosocial stress, emotional difficulties, relationship stress, and suicidal ideation and completion (Frost & Meyer, 2009; Greene & Britton, 2013; McAndrews & Warne, 2012). 19

Externalized homophobia transpires when members of society respond to gay men, or those perceived to be gay, with aggression (Banks, 2003). Gay men often experience externalized homophobia within multiple life-environments, including family of origin, schools, the workplace, and society at large. Such acts include: anti-gay violence (Holland, Matthews, &

Schott, 2013), bullying (Hu, Jones, & Bruce, 2013), prolonged psychological distress and microaggressions (Woodford, Howell, Kulick, & Silverschanz, 2012), and sometimes death

(Savage & Schanding, 2013).

Cultural homophobia is expressed and manifested in “social standards and norms, which dictate that being heterosexual is better or more moral than being GLB, and that everyone is or should be heterosexual” (Banks, 2001, p. 15). Examples of cultural homophobia include definitions of masculinity and femininity (in men), perceptions of men and women in careers traditionally assigned to members of the opposite gender, and definitions of socially-acceptable intimacy in same-sex friendships (Anderson, 2012; Barrett, 2013). Institutional homophobia refers to societal pillars that construct, support, and reinforce heterosexism. Examples of such institutions include: organized religion, provincial and federal governments, and educational institutions. Examples of institutional homophobia include refusal to marry same-sex couples and censorship/exclusion of same-sex identities in school curricula (DePalma & Atkinson, 2010;

Foster, Arnold, Rebchook, & Kegeles, 2011; Sauntson, 2012).

In summary, the impact of homophobia and heterosexism has significant consequences to all members of Canadian society (Banks, 2001, 2003). Such consequences include: (a) psychological distress and loneliness (Berg, Mimiaga, & Safren, 2008); (b) internalized oppression (Barnes & Meyer, 2012; Herek, Gillis, & Cogan, 2009); (c) self-harm and suicide completion (Bybee, Sullivan, Zielonka, & Moes, 2009); (d) victimization and trauma (Cheng, 20

2004); (e) socioeconomic status and poverty (Safren & Heimberg, 1999); and (f) diminished sexual health (Hamilton & Mahalik, 2009).

Male Identity Development

Arnold and Brady (2011) provide a comprehensive overview of the historical progression and developing metamorphosis of masculinity throughout the history of humankind. Men and masculinities have been heavily researched across the social sciences. What does it mean to be a man and/or a father? Counselling practitioners often overlook the complexities that exist for men and fathers in society. Often unobserved as cultural identities, men and fathers represent complex experiences that necessitate cultural competence on behalf of counselling practitioners

(Good & Brooks, 2005). The following headings are included in this section: (a) male identity development and masculinities, and (b) gender role socialization and gender-role strain.

Male Identity Development and Masculinities

Important to the discussion of gay fatherhood is the exploration of male identity development. In this exploration of male identity development, two domains of understanding are identified: hegemonic and marginalized masculinities.

Hegemonic masculinities. Hegemonic masculinity is often referred to as a social construct that evolves and is maintained throughout one’s lifespan development (Connell &

Messerschmidt, 2005; Mankowski & Maton, 2010). Hegemonic masculinities reflect dominant culture discourse, often reinforcing men’s power over women as well as men who fall outside the constructs of popular representation (Connell, 1995). Inherent in such masculinities exists inter- gender othering, the comparison of men to others across class, sexuality, socioeconomic status, fatherhood, and workplace organizations (Mumby, 1998). Heterosexism and homophobia systematically create otherness, a means of differentiating one’s self from others lacking in 21 social status (Arthur, Merali, & Djuraskovic, 2010; Smith, Shin, & Officer, 2012; Strong &

Zeman, 2005). Holter (2005) referred to such realities as social constructivist theories of direct gender hierarchy (male dominance) and social inequality (gender inequality). Traditional forms of masculinity exist within local, regional, and global perspectives and represent an “ideology of supremacy” (Connell, 1995, p. 83). Masculine constructs, while similar on global positions have unique intercultural exclusivities (Connell, 2005; Gilmore, 1990). Social constructs that represent pillars supporting homophobia and heterosexism also support structures, institutions, and process that privilege masculine ideologies (Anderson, 2002; Messner, 2013).

Traditional assertions of masculinity have been linked to poor physical and psychosocial well-being (Courtenay, 2000; Eisler, 1995). Outcomes of numerous studies have indicated that traditional reinforcements of masculinity impact help-seeking behaviours (Addis & Mahalik,

2003). Herek (1986) argued that the reinforcement and social construction of heterosexual masculinity could be linked to socially undesirable outcomes. Brooks and Silverstein (1995) referred to this reality as the “darkside of masculinity” (p. 280). Examples of such realities include: (a) intrapersonal and interpersonal conflicts (Hunt, Gonsalkorale, & Murray, 2013); (b) family and parenting challenges (Shirani, Henwood, & Coltart, 2011); (c) relationship challenges and divorce (Catlett & McKenry, 2007); (d) domestic violence (Moore & Stuart, 2005); and (e) homophobic aggressions (Parrott, Peterson, Vincent, & Bakeman, 2008).

Marginalized masculinities. Several scholars and advocates have argued that traditional interpretations of masculinity are in direct conflict with modern day social perspectives (Tosh,

2011). Marginalized masculinities refer to masculine identities outside the dominant structures that maintain and reinforce traditional definitions and expressions of masculinity (Lusher &

Robins, 2009). For example, Edwards (2005) offered an interesting parallel of gay masculinities 22 a term he refers as a illogicality as historically, the two terms “gay” and “masculinity” have cancelled each other out in terms of social representations and interpretations of gay men.

Suttleworth, Wedgwood, and Wilson (2012) explored the intersections of male masculinity with disability.

Coston and Kimmel (2012) provided an interesting discussion of privilege within marginalized masculinities. Examples might include individuals with multiple identities, where the more dominant identity shifts them into the perceived worldview of the hegemonic ideal

(Case, Luzzini, & Hopkins, 2012; Cheng, 1999). Some examples of this might include the concept of passing (Rumens & Broomfield, 2012) and living on the down low (Gibbs & Jones,

2013; Malebranche, Gvetadze, Millett, & Sutton, 2012). Passing refers to the phenomenon of presenting one’s self as heterosexual in social networks (Berger, 1992). Living on the down low refers to a community of men who identify as heterosexual, but are men who have sex with men

(MSM) (Schrimshaw, Siegel, Downing, Martin, & Parsons, 2013). Attempts to manage marginalized masculinities have also been linked to negative mental and physical health outcomes (Courtenay, 2000; Emslie, Ridge, Ziebland, & Hunt, 2006; Hamilton & Mahalik,

2009).

Gender Socialization and Gender-Role Strain

Gender socialization and gender role-strain are two very important social perspectives associated to male and female identities. From very early ages, males have been taught and exposed to consistent reinforcements of what it means to be male. The social constructions of masculine and feminine gender traits extend beyond primary and secondary sex organs. It would appear that boys learn quickly that being male equates the opposite of being female (Mahalik,

Good, & Englar-Carlson, 2010). Such learning is consistently messaged within the socialization 23 of family structures and hegemonic values and beliefs (Carlson & Knoester, 2011). Socialization refers to how “we learn the ways of a given society or social group so that we can function within it” (Elkin & Handel, 1989, p. 2). An extension of this process is gender role socialization.

Gender roles socialization is a unique social construct that often determines how males and females behave within a specific society or culture (Eccles, Jacobs, & Harold, 1990;

Signorielli, 2013). Historically and even within present day practices, boys and men are conditioned to mold themselves into traditional gender role expectations. Mahalik et al. (2010) reported five masculine scripts, which reinforce such beliefs: (a) strong-and-silent script, (b) tough-guy script, (c) “give-em-hell script,” (d) winner script, and (e) independent script (pp. 79-

85). Males who fall outside of these gender conformities, for example, the expression of affect emotions and/or engaging in non-traditional career often experience negative consequences for non-gender conformity (Roberts, 2012; Simpson, 2005). Language such as “that's so gay” and other forms of homophobic bullying are often used to reinforce the message that the only way to express masculinity is through a heterosexual identity (Hall & LaFrance, 2012).

Pleck (1981) introduced the paradigm of gender role strain (GRS) in his book entitled,

The Myth of Masculinity. Within this theoretical tenet, Pleck (1981, 1995) proposed a social constructivist landscape that identified masculine and feminine identities as challenging social constructs. According to Good and Brooks (2005), the GRS model makes four important assumptions that gender role norms are: (a) often erratic and inconsistent, (b) subject to repeated encroachment, (c) subject to societal judgment and mental health consequences when dishonoured, and (d) restrictive and dysfunctional (p. 5). In a phenomenological study exploring gay fathers’ negotiation of gender-role strain, Giesler (2012) found the following themes: (a) internal and external barriers to occupying the fathering role, (b) conflict with both gay and 24 straight cultures, (c) deviation from heteronormativity in parenting decisions, (d) intentional consequences of female/heterosexual role models, (e) anxiety about fathering, and (f) personal growth and development because of fathering role (p. 125). In subsequent studies exploring gay fatherhood, several participants reflected on their experiences with GRS (Berkowitz &

Marsiglio, 2007; Schacher, Auerbach, & Silverstein, 2005). Giesler (2012) concluded, “Gay men who parent have the additional pressure to resolve the incompatibility of ‘gay’ and ‘father’.

In doing so, they hybridize their roles; they destabilize their identities even as they reconfigure them” (p. 137).

Theories of Gay Identity Development

For many gay men, whether they parent or not, the process of self-acceptance and assimilation of a gay identity represents an existential and transformative journey into self- discovery. Inherent in this process of developing a positive gay identity are key developmental milestones (Alderson, 2002, 2010). What does it take for an individual to attain a positive self- concept as a gay person? Alderson (2000) defines a person with a positive gay identity as having:

A high self-regard for themselves as gay persons. They view their gay status as equal to

straight status. If given a choice, they would not prefer to be straight over gay, for they

have come to value their uniqueness, and the richness of life that comes from being

themselves. They have integrated their gay identity with their other identities, and having

accomplished this, they are out in most areas of their lives, wherever and whenever it is

not highly disadvantageous to do so. They have largely overcome their own internalized

homophobia, which frees them to fully love others of the same gender. (p. 189) 25

In this section, I discuss theoretical models of gay identity development, including stage models, flexible models, and multiple-intersecting identities.

To date, numerous efforts have been made to theorize gay identity development (Cass,

1979, 1984, 1996; Coleman, 1981-1982; Cox & Gallois, 1996; D’Augelli, 1994; Fassinger,

1991; Minton & McDonald, 1983-1984; Savin-Williams, 1988, 1989; Troiden, 1979).

Throughout academia and professional practice, approaches to support gay men in their identity development and maintenance have played a significant role in the current understanding of the gay male experience. With the changing social and political climates, theoretical constructs have affording the field of counselling with numerous insights and practical limitations (Casey, 2009).

Stage Models of Gay Identity

Numerous theorists position gay-identity development and the coming out process through prescribed, developmental stages and milestones. Stages, or phases, required specific measures in order to achieve a final outcome: identity synthesis, identity integration, and commitment (Cass, 1979, 1996; Coleman, 1981-1982; Minton & McDonald, 1983-1984;

Troiden, 1979). In her initial exploration of gay male identity development, Cass (1979) argued that individuals go through the six stages when developing a gay identity: (a) identity confusion,

(b) identity comparison, (c) identity tolerance, (d) identity acceptance, (e) identity pride, and (f) identity synthesis. Essentially, in order for individuals to move from one stage to the next, they must experience and find resolution intrapersonal and interpersonal conflicts within themselves and the environment. Cass (1979) warned her model was “not intended that it should be true in all aspects for all people since individuals and situations are inherently complex” (p. 235).

Inherent in this statement is a strong caveat that reflects one of the strongest limitations of linking theory with practice. Central limitations to this model includes oversights of ecological 26 frameworks, the assumption that identity is not a lifelong process, mismatches of stage requirements with actual lived experiences, including multiply-intersecting identities (such as race/ethnicity), and limited sample sizes occupied by white men (Bilodeau & Renn, 2005;

Langdridge, 2008).

Flexible Models of Gay Identity

In response to criticisms of developmental models, several academics repositioned toward more non-linear and flexible models (Alderson, 2003; D’Augelli, 1994). Such theories focused on life-span perspectives and social constructs within identity development. Cass (1996) revised her 1979 theory to address and initial suspicion “that over time, changes in social attitudes and expectations will require changes in the model” (Cass, 1979, p. 235). Influences of sociocultural factors have since been identified in the development of gay identities reflective of the social constructionist perspective that an “individual’s identity development and self expression result from his or her interactions with external forces” (Barber & Mobley, 1999, p.

169). In response to the merging of person and community, Fassinger and Miller (1996) presented an inclusive theoretical framework that acknowledged the co-experience of individual and group membership. Fassinger and Miller reported their model afforded the potential of increased flexibility outside of political and social constructs. The process of individual and group membership both includes four successive phases: (a) awareness, (b) exploration, (c) deepening/commitment, and (d) internalization/synthesis.

Ecological Model of Gay Identity

Alderson (2003) offered a more holistic lens to explore the multiple psychosocial factors and ecological frameworks inherent in positive gay male identity formation. Alderson proposed that gay men are often informed, influenced, and shaped by their interactions and subsequent 27 reactions to social environments. Alderson presented three specific phases that inform gay male identity development: (a) before coming out, (b) during coming out, and (c) beyond coming out.

In the initial phase, Alderson suggested that gay men are influenced by social norms and constructs as fortified by their families and cultures of origin, peer relationships, and social and institutional values (Alderson, 2003, 2010). Alderson (2000, 2002, 2003) identified the disequilibrium between self and the expectations of society as catalysts (events or experiences).

In the second phase of this model, during coming out, individuals develop and adopt a gay identity. According to Alderson (2010), it is during this phase where gay men “identify themselves as having primarily homosexual cognition, affect and/or behaviour, and who have adopted the construct of gay as having personal significance to them” (p. 404). Alderson (2003,

2013) highlighted the important role of environmental influences during this phase. In the third and final phase, beyond coming out, Alderson (2010) stated three areas are essential for identity integration: (a) connecting with self, (b) connecting with the gay world, and (c) reconnecting with the straight world.

Multiple Intersecting Identities Models

Addition theoretical frameworks exist that explore multiple intersecting identities experienced by gay men. During the initial foundations of exploring gay male identity development, theories often neglected the impact of additional cultural identities in tandem with sexual orientation (Renn, 2010; Stevens, 2004). Over the past decade, scholars have explored how gay men negotiate multiple and intersecting identities (Alderson, 2000, 2003, 2010;

Fukuyama & Ferguson, 2000; Roughley & Alderson, 2012). Specific studies have explored the integration of racial identity (Morales, 1989; Savin-Williams, 1996) and religious identities

(Dahl & Galliher, 2012) with sexual orientation. The findings of such research indicates that 28 individuals attempting to integrate sexual orientation with additional cultural identities experience increased stressors, including isolation and dual rejection from their cultures of origin as well as the LGBT communities (Dubé & Savin-Williams, 1999).

In summary, the adage that “theory informs practice” elucidates both the potential strengths and limitations of theoretical models. Theoretical models must be viewed through an informed, educative lens. Theory is an active, guiding agent for effective counselling relationships and competent delivery of psychosocial interventions.

The Formation and Experience of Gay Fatherhood

To date, very little research has been conducted exploring the experience of gay fatherhood in Canada. The literature that does exist in Canada appears to focus on the experiences of same-sex parented stepfamilies and the expression of lesbian motherhood

(Claxton-Oldfield & O’Neil, 2007; Dundas & Kaufman, 2000; Nelson, 1999; Robitaille & Saint-

Jacques, 2009). During the initial stages of this dissertation and subsequently throughout, various searches for empirical research of gay fatherhood in Canada proved extremely scarce. In comparison, copious amounts of research and scholarship exploring gay fatherhood and same- sex parenting appeared within the American-based literature. This proves challenging for an initial study exploring gay fatherhood in Canada as the only literature from which to theorize is

American in nature. A careful review of the American literature suggests several key researchers in the fields of gay fatherhood and same-sex parenting (Barret & Robinson, 2000; Bigner, 2000;

Bozett, 1989; Patterson, 2000, 2004, 2005, 2009). As a result, the following section of the literature review, I discuss the following areas: (a) fatherhood identity, (b) prevalence of same- sex parenting, (c) gay fatherhood identity, and (c) gay male parenting.

Fatherhood Identity

Over the past 2 decades, roles and expectations in tandem with the experience of fatherhood have created significant discussion with the academic literature (Habib, 2012; Vuori,

2009). Historically, the fatherhood experience has been identified as reinforcements of traditional family values and hegemonic masculinities (Bryan, 2013). Embedded without our understanding of social constructions and lived experiences of fatherhood exist significant limitations that reinforced dominant culture discourse and cultural ethnocentrism (Murgia &

Poggio, 2012). In my review of the literature of fatherhood identity, common concerns addressed by scholars focused on the dependency of the White, middle-class, heterosexual male experience of fatherhood.

Since the mid 21st century, numerous theoretical frameworks examining the fatherhood identity landscape have emerged (Kay, 2009; Marsiglio & Roy, 2012). Daly (1993) identified predominant theoretical frameworks of fatherhood identity as falling within four categories: (a) socialization theories, (b) microstructural theories, (c) psychoanalytic explanations, and (d) social learning theory. More recently, attention appears to have focused on the following areas:

(a) father participation in the family system (Bushwell, Zabriskie, Lundberg, & Hawkins, 2012),

(b) the impact of fathers on child and adolescent development (McFarland-Piazza, Hazen,

Jacobvitz, & Boyd-Solsson, 2012), (c) fatherhood and shifting definitions of masculinity (Miller

& Maiter, 2008), and (d) the meaning and processes in which the fatherhood experience unfolds

(Eggebeen, Knoester, & McDaniel, 2013). Researchers have identified five specific roles that fathers play in child-rearing: (a) the remote or absent father (Corcoran, 2005), (b) the traditional father or breadwinner (Saliha & Jayan, 2013), (c) secondary parent role (Braver & Lamb, 2013),

(d) co-parent (McGene & King, 2012), and (e) primary care provider (Risman, 1989). 30

Same-Sex Parenting

What we currently know about same-sex parenting is once again dependent upon the

American literature. While Canada has represented a global leadership role when it comes to same-sex marriage, it is surprising to learn how little is know about same-sex parenting within a uniquely Canadian context. According to research conducted in the early 2000s, it is estimated that approximately 20% of lesbian women and 10% of gay men are biological parents (Tasker,

2005). A common trend within the historical renderings of the research exploring gay fatherhood has focused on the perception that same-sex parenting results in negative consequences or overtly influences children into a same-sex oriented identity (Roughley &

Alderson, 2012). A significant shift has occurred within the literature over the past 2 decades.

Specifically, several studies have emerged that counter the heterosexist assumption that non- traditional means of parenting have negative influences of the social and psychological wellbeing of children.

In essence, it has been argued that sexual orientation has no role in whether or not a parent can offer a loving and secure environment for their child(ren) (Herek, 2006; Patterson,

2009; Patterson & Hasting, 2007). In a meta-analysis by Allen and Burrell (1996), a comparison of 18 studies suggested that little difference existed between the parenting capacities of same-sex and opposite-sex oriented parents. What must be acknowledged is that with continued awareness and support for same-sex parenting and marriage, comes increased threat and risks from members of the community Canadian community whose primary goals are to maintain the once hegemonic ideal of traditional family values (Roughley & Alderson, 2012). The inherent lack of current information regarding same-sex parenting in Canada is troubling at best. The invisibility 31 of same-parenting identities in current Census data reinforces the very importance of exploring same-sex parenting in Canada.

Gay Father Identity

What we currently know and subsequently understand about gay fatherhood identity within the cultural millennium is contingent upon foundational works completed numerous years ago. For example, Bozett and Sussman (1989) estimated that 20-25 percent of gay men are also fathers. In the establishment of new cultural awareness in this area, a review of these essential research endeavours is necessary. The limited amount of empirical research exploring gay fatherhood identity development reveals and reinforces the message of identity incongruence between gay and fatherhood identities. In my review of the literature, the topic of gay fatherhood appears to have surfaced in the late 1970s and 1980s (Bozett, 1980, 1981, 1988;

Miller, 1979a, 1979b).

The study by Miller (1979a) explored, identified, and challenged historical scripts assigned to gay men and parenting. Such myths and stereotypes included: (a) necessity of withholding same-sex oriented identities from children, (b) perceived links between child abuse and gay men, (c) conversion or negative impacts of parental non-heterosexual sexual orientation on children, and (d) children as victims of their father’s same-sex orientations based on societal responses. Miller (1979b) was the first to identify a process of coming out for gay fathers. The model proposed by Miller (1979b) identified four stages which did not include disclosures to their children: (a) married to a women, then come out; (b) negative relationships with their ex- wives; (c) coming out as a result of meeting a same-sex partner; and (d) social stigma and internalized scripts led to the belief that the process would be much more difficult than imagined.

While an essential foundation to the appreciation of the gay fatherhood experience, this model 32 asserts some difficult assumptions: (a) coming out requires meeting another same-sex person, and (b) that experiences with their wives/ex-wives will in fact be negative.

The work of Bozett (1980, 1981, 1988) took what was learned from Miller (1979a,

1979b) to the next level. In essence, I would argue the efforts by Bozett were acts of social justice in that they brought to the forefront discussions of the positive contributions gay men bring to parenting. Findings include: (a) negative outcomes of withholding sexual orientation identity from their children, and (b) hiding of sexual orientation reinforced that same-sex attractions were socially unacceptable. Bozett (1980) concluded that in order to successful assume congruence between gay and fatherhood identities, necessitates gay fathers to present and disclose their identities to mainstream parenting and LGBT communities. During the time of Bozett’s work, the social, political and cultural climates were quite different than experienced within Canadian society today. While limited, Bozett should be recognized as one of the foundational researchers in this area.

Movement toward the exploration of fatherhood instinct and desire to parent amongst gay men was highlighted in Berkowitz and Marsiglio (2007). In this research, the authors explored the impact of social norms and cultural restraints on innate, procreative consciousness amongst gay men. The outcomes of this study reflected beliefs amongst gay male participants that: (a) openly gay men cannot be fathers, (b) gay men often deny and/or silence their yearning to have children, and (c) gay fathers are highly impacted and challenged by barriers such as homophobia and heterosexist. These findings expanded the awareness of the experience of gay fatherhood, while offering potential insight into factors impacting whether or not gay men invest in parenting.

The Experience of Gay Fatherhood

Within the last 3 decades, literature exploring gay men in parenting roles has been heavily explored and discussed. The movement from the impact of a father’s sexual orientation on his children to a more systems focus demonstrates the progressive nature of the current social research literature. Historically, gay men have been condemned by the literature and deemed as unfit to parent within the hegemonic construct of family. Patterson and Hastings (2007) warned that empirical research to support the myth that gay men are inferior parents and negatively impact the developmental processes of their children, due to their sexual orientation is extremely limited. In contrast, empirical research supports that gay fathers and lesbian mothers positively contribute to the psychosocial wellbeing of their children (Farr & Patterson, 2013a). Despite such support from the literature, gay fathers experience the unique complexities of parenting children within a heterosexist society (Telingator & Patterson, 2008).

Despite the findings that gay fathers offer unique approaches to parenting in comparison to their heterosexual counterparts, gay men as fathers have been identified as social inferior to traditional representations of fatherhood (McLeod, Crawford, & Zechmeister, 1999; Vescio &

Biermat, 2003). The literature suggests that gay men engage in fatherhood in different ways than heterosexual men. Research has identified that gay men as fathers parent outside the definition of traditional masculinities, are more engaged in identifying and meeting the needs of their children, and are more nurturant in their caregiving roles (Bigner, 2000). Bigner advocated that due to their lack of reinforcing hegemonic definitions of fatherhood and masculinity, gay fathers move beyond traditional gender role socialization and assume gender-role androgynous modeling to their children. In fact, amongst the most respected literature is the belief that gay fathers are just as fit, if not more so to parent than their heterosexual counterparts (Bigner, 2000; 34

Goldberg, 2010; Herek, 2006). Furthermore, studies suggest that gay fathers go above and beyond the traditional norms of fatherhood and strive to develop positive and loving relationships with their children (Bigner, 2000; Patterson, 2009). This often occurs when gay fathers adopt specific care-giving values that move beyond traditional masculinities and perceptions of fatherhood (Bigner, 2000; Roughley & Alderson, 2012)

Most men who fathered children within an opposite-sex relationship did so while in heterosexual marriages to women (Barret & Robinson, 2000; Bigner & Jacobson, 1989; Bozett,

1985; Miller, 1979). Despite the findings that many gay fathers experience positive and loving relationships with their children, the fact is that like most fathers of divorce, they are the non- custodial parent. According to research by Henehan, Rothblum, Solomon, and Balsam (2007), the fact that gay fathers are most likely in a non-custodial role represents a significant limitation in our current understanding of their capacity to parent. They identified several social and demographic constructs that may impede a gay fathers capacity to be more involved in their children’s lives, including: homophobia and heterosexism, legal decisions that work against fathers, and demographic changes (gay fathers, when coming out may move to larger cities to find support and acceptance). The shift in our current understanding of gay fatherhood suggests that the experience of same-sex parenting is moving towards a place that no longer pathologizes gay fathers as agents of harm in the psychosocial development of their children. In essence, while overall parenting capacity of gay fathers has not been adequately addressed in the literature, successes in experiencing fatherhood outside of dominant culture expectations suggest that gay fathers are fairing well in their roles as parents (Johnston, Moore, & Judd, 2010;

Patterson, 2004, 2009; Patterson & Hastings, 2007).

Counselling Gay Men and Gay Fathers

Gay men bring similar, yet undeniably unique, experiences to their relationships with counselling practitioners. Historically and within current contexts, gay men have and continue to experience diverse forms of oppression and stigmatization (Herek, Gillis, & Cogan, 2009). The movement toward diversity consciousness and culture-infused approaches to counselling practice identifies and discusses mental health needs that evolve as a result of dominant culture beliefs.

The notion of common presenting concerns has the potential to limit, or over-generalize the experiences gay men bring to counselling. Globally, gay men experience multiple oppressions based on sexual orientation and cultural identities (Balsam, Molina, Beadnell, Simoni, &

Walters, 2011; Rice & Nakamura, 2008). Research supports the importance of approaching counselling with gay men through the lens of gay affirmative counselling practice (Beckstead &

Israel, 2007; Johnson, 2012; Langdridge, 2007).

Gay men seek counselling services for a variety of reasons. Counsellors are cautioned to move beyond the assumption that gay men present to counselling because of their sexual orientation (Alderson, 2013; Roughley, 2006). The literature supports the importance of practitioners developing essential competencies for counselling gay men and fathers (Alderson,

2007). Counsellors are cautioned to challenge their internal and social stereotypes of gay men

(Breen & Karpinski, 2013; Mohr, Chopp, & Wong, 2013). I am drawn to the language of

“attending to common themes” (Collins & Arthur, 2010, p. 124) as an invitation to explore additional possibilities that impact the mental health of gay men and gay fathers.

Potential Presenting Concerns

The research indicates that gay men often present to counselling for the following reasons: (a) sexual identity exploration (Alderson, 2010, 2013); (b) coming out and disclosures 36

(Corrigan, Kosyluk, & Rusch, 2013); (c) multiple intersecting identities (Aster, 2005; Dubé &

Savin-Williams, 1999; Kertzner, Meyer, Frost, & Stirratt, 2009; Meyer, 2010); (d) familial and intimate relationships (Grove, Peel, & Owen-Pugh, 2013); (e) biopsychosocial health (Lovasz &

Clarke, 2007; Thoits, 2013); (f) occupational health and career investigation (Alderson, 2003;

Parnell, Lease, & Green, 2012); and (g) faith and spirituality (Barnes & Meyer, 2012; Buchanan,

Dzelme, Harris, & Hecker, 2001).

In comparison, gay fathers bring additional concerns, in tandem to those experienced by gay non-fathers to the counselling relationship. Such issues might include: (a) supporting children from social and institutional homophobia and heterosexism (Clarke, Kitzinger, & Potter,

2004; King, Huffman, & Peddie, 2013); (b) effective parenting as custodial and non-custodial fathers (Patterson, 2010; Ritter & Terndrup, 2002); (c) single parenting (McGarry, 2003; Tasker,

2010); (d) relationship stress and challenges (i.e. division of labour) (Rostosky, Riggle, Gray, &

Hatton, 2007); and (e) LGBT and straight family community memberships (LeBeau & Jellison,

2009; Oswald & Holman, 2013).

The Counselling Relationship and Experience

The exploration and evaluation of the counsellor-client working alliance has received much attention in the academic literature over the past 3 decades. In this section of the literature review, I discuss the following areas: (a) counsellor self-awareness and competence, (b) the counselling relationship, (c) the counselling experience, and (d) affirmative counselling as an integrative lens.

Counsellor Self-Awareness and Competence

Counsellor self-awareness and competence is essential to ethical and socially just counselling practice with gay men. Professional regulatory organizations require the provision 37 of multicultural and gay affirmative competencies of counsellors and psychologists (American

Psychological Association, 2000; Canadian Psychological Association, 1996, 2001). As both counsellors and clients bring conscious and unconscious biases to the counselling relationship,

Collins and Arthur (2010) proposed three domains for competence: (a) cultural self-awareness,

(b) awareness of client culture, and (c) the development of the culturally sensitive working alliance (p. 55). Effective and competent counsellors are aware of the intrapersonal, interpersonal, and institutional barriers that impact gay men’s worlds and counselling experiences (Pope & Barret, 2002). With consistent engagement in the process of self- awareness, counselling practitioners assist gay men through the myriad of change (Schope,

2004).

The Counselling Relationship

The counsellor-client relationship, or working alliance is the foundation for gay affirmative counselling (Heck, Flentje, & Cochran, 2013). Bordin (1979, 1994) outlined three characteristics of the working alliance: (a) affective connection between client and counsellor,

(b) establishment of mutually agreed upon counselling goals, and (c) agreement of intervention strategies. Horvath (2000) deemed the collaborative working alliance as critical to creating successful counselling outcomes. Influences on the effectiveness of the working alliance include: counsellor self-awareness, multicultural competence, transference and countertransference, and therapeutic ruptures (Stacuzzi, Mohr, & Fuertes, 2011). Collins and

Arthur (2010) invited counsellors to establish and maintain culturally sensitive working alliances with clients. Such alliances stress the importance of the counselling environment, comprehensive assessment, and cultural responsive interventions (Alderson, 2010; Chernin &

Johnson, 2003). 38

The Counselling Experience

The counselling experiences of gay men have been widely researched over the past 3 decades. Sadly, factors associated to the personal and professional identities of counsellors have often had a negative impact on the counselling relationship (Mohr, Chopp & Wong, 2013).

Counsellors are undoubtedly influenced by dominant culture discourse and risk causing undue harm through reinforcement of such value systems. The field of counselling psychology is not free from heterosexism and homophobia (Korzenowski, 1996). Heterosexist bias is a predominant barrier for many sexual and gender minorities in accessing counselling and other mental health services (Stotzer, Silverchanz, & Wilson, 2013). Factors such as transference and countertransference have also been identified as potential areas of concern within the gay affirmative counselling relationship (Stracuzzi, Mohr, & Fuertes, 2011).

Pixton (2003) explored clients’ perspectives of gay affirmative counselling and discovered sex main categories impacting the overall experience: “(a) communicating a non- pathological view of gay men, (b) the counselling space, (c) what the counsellor brought to the relationship, (d) the counselling relationship, (e) the presence of counsellor and client humanity, and (f) the holistic perspective of the counsellor” (p. 214). Korzenowski (1996) also identified several factors gay men face in the counselling experience, including: homonegativism, lack of gay affirmative competencies, and the invisibility. In contrast, Mair (2003) found that gay men experienced constraints and subsequent frustrations associated with counsellor relationships.

Specifically, these findings suggest that uniqueness, otherness, and togetherness are important to gay men in their relationships with counsellors.

Affirmative Counselling as an Integrative Lens

As the counselling psychology literature in Canada continues to explore the processes and meaning of gay fatherhood identity, the need to move beyond the theoretical construct of therapeutic modality requires revalidation. Affirmative counselling can be viewed through an integrative lens, one that moves beyond counselling techniques to that of change agent. In essence, gay affirmative counselling has the power to empower change in: (a) social justice efforts, (b) culture-infused counselling, (c) ethically-based practice, and (d) transformative learning.

Social justice efforts. The evolving nature and roles of counsellors and other allied health professionals in Canada move beyond the perimeters of the culturally sensitive-alliance.

The role of counsellor extends beyond the therapeutic hour, to include social justice advocacy for marginalized communities (Arthur and Collins, 2010; Roughley & Morrison, 2013). Counsellors have the power to empower change at all levels of society: individual, social, and institutional.

They strive to connect clients with themselves and the gay community, and to reconnect with mainstream dominant culture (Alderson, 2010). As a social justice initiative, gay affirmative counsellors identify and name inequalities that limit gay men and gay fathers from complete and authentic participation in society.

Culture-infused counselling. Gay affirmative counselling reinforces the foundations of culture-infused counselling practice, including the following pillars: (a) the belief that culture is relevant in the lives of gay male clients; (b) the purposeful intention and acknowledgment of the diverse experiences gay men bring to counselling; (c) the multiple roles that systems play in identity formulation, recognition, and transformation; (d) reinforcement and change agentry in all roles and responsibilities; and (d) viewing the gay male client as an individual, a member of 40 communities, and society as an incomplete whole. Through self-awareness, cultural competence, and interactions with social at large, gay affirmative counsellors move beyond historically oppressive measures. They cocreate new lenses through which to view the unique lives of gay men and gay fathers in Canada.

Ethically-based practice. Gay affirmative counsellors adhere to the ethical principles of non-discriminatory practice: (a) respect for the dignity of persons, (b) responsible caring, (c) integrity in relationships, and (d) responsibility to society (Canadian Psychological Association,

1996/2001). Ethically-based, gay-affirmative practice offers acknowledgment and respect for gay men and their intersecting identities. In their adherence to ethical practice, counselling practitioners can provide guidance in the acceptance of marginalized communities (Pettifor,

2010). While aspirational in nature, many principles of ethical and competency-based practice are at the leading edge of the counselling profession. Comprehensive examination of the past, present, and future of counselling practice remains necessary to prevent undue harm.

Transformative learning. The experiential nature of gay affirmative counselling creates learning opportunities for counsellors to learn about themselves, each other, and society as a whole. Co-created counselling environments explore and question the social contexts of homophobia and heterosexism for gay men. Gay affirmative counsellors, like their clients, are individuals and learners that experience, critically reflect upon, continue to develop and evolve beyond the shared-experience.

Conclusion

In this chapter, I provided an overview of the literature exploring what is currently identified in relation to the experiences of gay fatherhood. Despite the vast amount of research on the topic, factors associated with the process that gay fathers experience in Canada who were 41 once married to women with children is still highly under researched. As the social climate continues to evolve, so too must counselling initiatives that effectively support gay fathers and their immediate and extended families. First, the professions of mental health have a dark history of infusing pathologization of same-sex orientated men. With current affirmative processes in place, the ability to right the wrongs of the past must remain a central focus.

CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY

In this chapter, I provide the reader with an overview and description of the research methods I employed in this study. It is essential that methods used in qualitative research represent the best fit for the research questions (Creswell, 2013). The research question for this study was, “What is the process of negotiating gay fatherhood identity for men who were once married to women?” I called upon constructivist grounded theory and various data sources (i.e., demographic questionnaire, interviews, and journal entries) to gain deeper insights into the process involved in assuming a positive gay father identity. I have organized this chapter into the following sections. I begin with a discussion of the methodological rationale, followed by a brief overview of grounded theory. Then I discuss and outline a rationale for constructivist grounded theory. Next, I describe the process of participant recruitment and site selections before I address the data collection process. Following this, I detail the data analysis process. I then discuss the trustworthiness of the methodological approach, before finishing the chapter by looking at the ethical considerations attended to in this research.

Methodological Rationale

The practice of qualitative research represents a process of naturalistic inquiry (Denzin &

Lincoln, 2008). According to Haverkamp and Young (2007), “the fundamental purpose or goal of qualitative inquiry is often described as understanding lived experience within its socio- historical context” (p. 276). In striving to achieve this objective, qualitative researchers often explore diverging perspectives from all sectors of society (Patton, 2002). What does this truly mean? As individuals in this world, we experience our lives through eclectic lenses prescribed by our cultural identities and worldviews. Inherent in this process of acquiring deeper insights into the human experience is a journey that calls upon the researcher to explore, describe, and 43 interpret the specific experiences inherent within a specific phenomena (Smith, 2003). It is my belief that qualitative inquiry is like gardening, wherein the researcher strives to unearth the roots of awareness and identity, while nurturing a relationship where shared-understanding between participants and the researcher can be achieved (Roughley, 2006).

A review of the scholarly literature in the field of counselling psychology over the past 3 decades illustrates an increasing trend towards qualitative inquiry (McLeod, 1996; Morrow,

2007; Murdock, Duan, & Nilsson, 2012; Rennie, Watson, & Monteiro, 2002). Notwithstanding this trend, resistance from various academic communities, including psychology, has resulted in ongoing political and procedural controversies surrounding the efficacy of qualitative research

(Christians, 2005; Hesse-Bibler & Leavy, 2011; Roberts, 2013). Supporters of qualitative inquiry argue for a naturalistic approach where lived realities are acknowledged as socially constructed and complex in nature (Charmaz, 2006; Glense, 1999; Lincoln & Guba, 1985).

Liddle (2008) argued that methodological barriers have historically attempted to assimilate and quantify the experiences of marginalized communities (including gay men) into a universal definition. Numerous scholars call upon researchers to engage in qualitative inquiry as a means of social justice. Platzer and James (1997) proposed that qualitative inquiry could work to dismantle social and institutional barriers by observing and responding to the unique life experiences of gay men.

A critical review of qualitative research literature outlines a rich history that has evolved and continues to transition into numerous approaches to research design (Auerbach &

Silverstein, 2003; Butler-Kisber, 2010; Creswell, 2013; Green & Thorogood, 2009; Mertens,

2010). Creswell (2013) identified such approaches as including (a) narrative, (b) phenomenology, (c) grounded theory, (d) ethnographic, and (e) case-study. It is essential to note 44 that these approaches represent the dominant presence within the theoretical landscape of qualitative inquiry. Upon completing a critical search of the literature, it became apparent that studies exploring the lived experiences of gay men have benefited from the above-mentioned perspectives.

Qualitative research can significantly clarify the merging of theory with practice in counselling psychology (Ponterotto, 2005). Haverkamp (2005) suggested, “Qualitative research can be characterized by a concern with lives in their historical, social, and cultural context, with an emphasis on the particularity of experience rather than a search for universal laws or generalized processes” (p. 147). The goal of qualitative research is not to identify cause-effect relationships; rather, it is to engage in description, interpretation, verification, and evaluation

(Leedy & Ormord, 2005). Counselling psychologists are called upon to engage in self- awareness and culturally responsive practice when supporting gay male clients (Alderson, 2013;

Mohr, Chopp, & Wong, 2013). So too must those scientist practitioners who engage in qualitative inquiry in such areas (Haverkamp, 2005).

Qualitative inquiry often addresses the limitations of quantitative approaches when researching vulnerable populations (Platzer & James, 1997). Through various strategies of naturalistic inquiry, researchers make available detailed descriptions and depictions of the lived experience (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005; Estefan & Roughley, 2013; Haverkamp & Young, 2007).

Such forms of inquiry are often scrutinized, challenged, and dismissed, however, by critics who adhere to quantitative and positivist perspectives (Christians, 2005). Despite these attempts to further silence vulnerable communities, qualitative researchers continue to forge ahead in efforts to discover and investigate the lived experiences of these populations in a complex world. The intricacies offer numerous possibilities for clarity and promise for an understanding of gay 45 fatherhood (Dowsett, 2007). Unlike quantitative perspectives, qualitative research cannot speak, nor claims to speak, for all gay men (Robertson, 1998). It does provide, however, opportunities for many to be heard.

An Overview of Grounded Theory

In their publication, The Discovery of Grounded Theory, Barney Glaser and Anselm

Strauss (1967) introduced the world to a grounded theory approach to qualitative research methodology. The original intent of this approach was to challenge the traditionalist notions of qualitative inquiry as inferior methods to the perceived quantitative ideal. Glaser and Strauss believed that theory emerged through a constant comparison method, or reciprocal relationship between data collection and data analysis (Glaser, 1992, 2001; Strauss & Corbin, 1994).

Through this systematic and rigorous process, they believed that qualitative outcomes offered equally significant results to their quantitative counterparts (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). This traditionalist approach to grounded theory was influenced by the philosophy of pragmatism, symbolic interactionism, and ethnography (Charmaz, 2006). Despite the strong foundations within classical sociological theory, grounded theory has been identified as one of the most called-up methodologies within cross-disciplinary fields of study (Buckley & Waring, 2013).

From its inception in 1967 to the present, grounded theory has not been without controversy and debate (Bearman & Dawson, 2013; Covan, 2007; Kendall, 1999; Walker &

Myrick, 2006). Key moments in this process include: (a) the controversial split and divergence between Glaser and Strauss (Bryant, 2013; Nayar, 2012); (b) the subsequent emergence of

Galserian and Straussian paradigms (Glaser, 1992; Strauss & Corbin, 1998); and (c) grounded theory as a constructivist interpretation (Charmaz, 2000). Throughout The Sage Handbook of

Grounded Theory (Bryant & Charmaz, 2007), the grounded theory approach is discussed as 46 either (a) formal grounded theory (FGT), or (b) grounded theory method (GTM). While grounded theory has been acknowledged as one of the most widely used qualitative methods, it is clear that many scholars claiming to be using FGT were actually “engaging in qualitative data analysis or doing some form of coding” (Hood, 2007, p. 152). What is clear is that the intent to engage in the process of grounded theory does not always translate to authentic practice. Haig

(1995) referred to the GTM as a “useful umbrella term” that covers a vast array of differing approaches, interpretations, and philosophical perspectives that define grounded theory methods.

As a researcher, I am drawn to the flexible nature inherent in the grounded theory method.

In her text, Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative

Analysis, Charmaz (2006) invited readers on a journey through the historical foundations and modern day approaches to grounded theory. She encouraged readers to explore the possibilities that exist in all stages in the transformation of grounded theory. My decision to approach this research from the Charmazian construct of grounded theory has been informed by: (a) viewing the process of grounded theory from a constructivist, versus objectivist lens; (b) exploring the development of theory as interpretive in nature; (c) excavating the social foundations that influence experiences; and (d) engaging in reflexive practices (Charmaz, 2006). Charmaz (2006) wisely stated, “grounded theory leads us back to the world for a further look and deeper reflection—again and again. Our imaginative renderings of what we see and learn are interpretations, emanating from dialectics of thought and experience” (p. 149).

A Rationale for Constructivist Grounded Theory

Researchers that call upon grounded theory strive for a specific research intention, that is, to generate theory and to theorize the processes. Specifically, in this study, the processes of gay men managing the various life transitions and experiences, before, during, and beyond 47 fatherhood are researched via interviews. Grounded theory is different than other forms of qualitative inquiry in that it focuses more on the “how” than the “what is it like.” Attention to the “how” can assist in bringing gay fatherhood into a sharper focus for society. Grounded theory can be used to explore the context and construction of gay fatherhood, as well as processes related to this phenomenon. Context is the interaction that informs process. Process can be defined as “the sequence of action/interaction pertaining to phenomenon as it evolves over time” (Strauss & Corbin, 1998, p. 123).

Constructivist grounded theory brings new opportunities that extend beyond the historical dogma presented in Glaser and Strauss (1967). This perspective brings forth an interpretative element that actively engages the researcher in the co-construction of meaning in the development of theory. Meaning within the context of constructivist grounded theory

“addressed human realities and assumes the existence of real worlds (Charmaz, 2000, p. 523).

Within constructivist grounded theory, the theory itself is not prescribed and fixed, rather moves to educate consumers with regards to appreciating possibilities and processes experienced by human beings (Charmaz, 2000). While theory within constructivist grounded theory presents only one perspective of how gay fatherhood might be experienced, its purpose is not to move toward a generalizable, “one story tells all” approach. Historically, research exploring gay fatherhood appears to have been motivated by the need to generalize and capture a universal perspective of the experience. Within constructivist grounded theory, the subjectivist lens enables researchers to actively immerse themselves in a research process that “addresses human realities and assumes the existence of real worlds (Charmaz, 2000, p. 523).

With this in mind, constructivist perspectives of grounded theory exist along the philosophical paradigm between post-positivist and postmodern approaches to qualitative inquiry (Charmaz,

2000).

Theory is essential for counselling practice because “a useful theory is one that tells an enlightening story about some phenomenon. It is a story that gives you new insights and broadens your understanding of the phenomenon” (Anfara & Mertz, 2006, p. xvii). New intuitions create further curiosities, stimulating new ideas for exploration. Research suggests that counselling practice and psychology are driven by dominant culture values (Arthur & Collins,

2010). Arthur and Collins (2010) argued, “The dominant theories must be deconstructed to consider their embedded values, assumptions by clients, the roles of counsellors, and the implications for counselling practice” (pp. 27-28). It is my intention is this study to move beyond exploring and questioning such perspectives, while establishing a new theory of gay fatherhood that represents non-dominant cultural perspectives.

Within the allied health professions, various forms of grounded theory have been used to explore the lives of gay men, including: (a) gay fatherhood identity development (Bozett, 1981);

(b) perspectives of gay fatherhood through the eyes of gay male, emerging adults (Rabun &

Oswald, 2009); (c) homophobia and heterosexism in the workplace (Willis, 2012); (d) masculinity and male gender identity development (Edwards & Jones, 2009); (e) relationship status and gay male couples (Pawlicki & Larson, 2011); and (f) religious and sexual identity conflicts (Levy & Reeves, 2011). Grounded theory, as an exploratory initiative, has significant potential to answer some fundamental first questions, which could tell us about the “what” and the “how” of gay fatherhood. A constructivist grounded theory has the potential to bring significant insights to the Canadian gay fatherhood landscape. 49

The Role of the Researcher

As with other forms of naturalistic inquiry, the researcher is the instrument in a grounded theory study (Creswell, 2013; Speziale & Carpenter, 2007). As the researcher, I am responsible for planning, recruiting, and moderating data, as well as analyzing and reporting the findings. To protect the wellbeing of each participant, essential resources for mental health support were identified and provided within the informed consent document. Patton (2002) argued that the qualitative researcher must strive to attain a rich awareness of the lived experience. As an ethical scientist-practitioner, my main goal was to establish and maintain relationships of openness, caring, and compassion for the experiences of each participant (Platzer & James, 1997).

In constructivist grounded theory, the researcher plays numerous significant roles.

Unlike traditional forms of grounded theory, the researcher cannot play the objectivist, divorced role from the data collection and analysis process. In essence, the researcher cannot remove him or herself from the process, as previous life experiences and in this case, engagement in research exploring the lives of gay men, are likely to influence the overall development of theory

(Charmaz, 2006). Historically, this may have been viewed as problematic and likely to result in significant elements of researcher bias polluting the final outcomes of the researcher. Perhaps such insider perspectives are not reflective of bias, but rather of possibilities. For instance,

Charmaz (2006) educated me that my abilities and experiences, like those of a skilled clinician offer unique opportunities to make possible connections, ask specific questions that others without such experiences may not. Charmaz (2006) would argue that such abilities and worldviews bring increased elements of sensitivity to the development of theory.

As I indicated in the introduction of my dissertation, as a gay man without children, I brought to this study my own experiences, knowledge, and understanding of gay fatherhood. For 50 many gay men, speaking with a researcher who self-identifies as gay could result in an atmosphere of mutual respect and support. It has been noted in the literature that shared experiences between the researcher and participant do not always equate to shared understanding. I worked hard to remain self-aware and engaged in peer-debriefing and self- reflexive processes such as journaling (Green & Thorogood, 2009; King & Horrocks, 2010;

LaSala, 2003).

Participant Recruitment and Site Selection

Research participants are the heart of qualitative research (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005). For many qualitative researchers, access to marginalized populations, such as gay fathers, is often onerous and political in nature (Penrod, Preston, Cain, & Starks, 2003; Sutton, Erlen, Glad, &

Siminoff, 2003; UyBico, Pavel, & Gross, 2007). Alberta represents one of Canada’s most conservative provinces (Filax, 2006). In the initial planning stages of this research, I was concerned about gaining access to gay fathers in Alberta. At the onset of this research, I asked myself the question: Where are these men and how will I gain access to them? In this section, I discuss the: (a) requirements for participation, (b) participant recruitment, and (c) a description of the sample.

Requirements for Participation

The following pre-established criteria were required for interested participants to become involved in this research endeavour, participants must:

1. Live in Alberta,

2. Have been in a marriage or common-law relationship with a woman,

3. Have a child or children (between the ages 8-19 from this former relationship)

4. Be the non-custodial parent, and 51

5. Self-identify as a gay man.

Participant Recruitment

I selected purposeful sampling as a strategy for recruitment and selection of participants in this study. My central rationale for the use of purposeful sampling was to gain access to

“information-rich cases for study in-depth” (Patton, 2002, p. 46). While various sampling techniques exist in qualitative research, purposeful sampling, using precise pre-established criteria for study participation, is widely called upon in researching marginalized populations

(Abrams, 2010; Crosby, Salazar, & DiClemente, 2011). The first step in accessing participants was through a local community newsletter and emailed to the Alberta-Gay Fathers Support

Network list-serve administrator for dissemination. The advertisement used can be found in

Appendix A. The second step involved snowballing, where through “word of mouth,” potential participants might contact the primary researcher.

The results of my recruitment strategy proved opposite to my initial concerns in accessing potential participants. Within two weeks, 27 responses were received to the advertisement. Within 2 months, over 100 responses were received based on both word of mouth and review of the study advertisement. Out of the total responses, over 75 of the initial respondents sent words of support and encouragement for this research project. The remaining respondents expressed interest in participating in the study; however, only 15 were eligible and met the specific requirements for participation. In my discussions with all respondents, it quickly became apparent that an unintended snowball sampling played a significant role in accessing potential participants.

Sample Population

Twelve participants are represented in the sample of this study. The 12 participants were between 29 to 59 years of age (M = 47). Regarding relationship status at the time of the study, 6 were common law/married to men, 4 were single, and 2 were dating and single. Two of the participants had completed high school, 6 had completed undergraduate or college credentials, and 4 had earned professional degrees. The sample consisted of 10 Caucasians, 1 Francophone, and 1 Chinese Canadian. All of the participants in this study were divorced from the mothers of their children. Each of the participants had two or more children, ranging from 8 to 19 years of age. Table 1 presents a visual depiction of each of the 12 participants.

Table 1: Demographic Questionnaire of the Participants

Participant Age Children Age of Children Relationship with Mother Relationship Status

Jay ** 55 4 10, 12, 17, 19 Divorced Common-Law Man

Gene ** 46 2 9, 11 Divorced Married to Man

Ted * 58 3 16, 18, 19 Divorced Single

Samuel ** 44 2 12, 14 Divorced Single

Michael ** 52 3 12, 15, 18 Divorced Common-Law Man

Jack *** 47 2 12, 13 Divorced Single

Peter ** 40 2 10, 11 Divorced Married to Man

Nick *** 47 2 15, 17 Divorced Single and Dating

Shane * 29 2 8, 9 Divorced Single

Tony *** 38 2 9, 10 Divorced Common-Law Man

Francois ** 49 2 15, 16 Divorced Married to Man

Rick *** 59 2 14, 16 Divorced Single and Dating

* High School ** Undergraduate/College Credentials ***Professional Degree 54

Data Collection Process

Data collection in grounded theory occurs in multiple ways, including (a) participant observation, (b) intensive interviewing, and (c) textual analysis (Charmaz, 2008; Potter &

Hepburn, 2005). The procedures for data collection in this study occurred in three phases: (a) participant acknowledgment of interest, (b) the interview process, and (c) field notes and memo- writing.

Phase 1: Participant Acknowledgment of Interest

Interested participants contacted me via phone or email. A brief discussion occurred between the interested individual and me in order to confirm that they met the requirements for participation. Additionally, a concise description of the study and the procedures involved in participation was provided. Upon confirming that all requirements were met, I asked the potential participant if he was still interested in being involved in the study (taking into account the information covered in the discussion). There were no participants that declined participating based on these discussions (except in the case where they did not meet the criteria). Upon demonstrating an interest in proceeding, an interview was arranged. The location of the interviews occurred either at my University of Calgary office or at the home of the participant.

Phase 2: The Interview Process

At the onset of the interview phase, participants were guided through the informed consent protocol (Appendix B). The use of the qualitative interview is considered both essential and advantageous when exploring participants’ experiences, interpretations, and reflections of a specific phenomenon (Charmaz, 2000). Charmaz (2006) acknowledged qualitative interviewing as intensive and negotiated conversations that are “open-ended but directed, shaped yet emergent, and paced yet flexible” in nature (p. 28). This phase in the data collection included

55 three steps: (a) demographic questionnaire (Appendix C), (b) intensive interviewing, and (c) interview debrief.

Step 1: Demographic questionnaire. Participants in this study completed a demographic questionnaire that queried into the following topics areas: (a) general information

(i.e., age, occupation, education, current living arrangements, and relationship status); (b) personal and social history (i.e., birth origin, nuclear and extended family history, intimate relationships, opposite sex marriage, and biological/adoptive children); (c) emotional wellness and identity recognition, and (d) self-definition of gay fatherhood. The central purpose of the demographic questionnaire was to assist in creating a descriptive context of the research participants as well as to access information that might not be addressed during the intensive interviews.

Step 2: Intensive interviewing. The interviews in this study were open-ended in nature, which allowed for deeper insights into the lived experience and interpretations of each participant (Dearnley, 2005). The questions that I asked were descriptive and circular rather than linear in nature. As with many forms of qualitative research, the questions I asked throughout the various interviews with participants evolved over the lifespan of the study. In order to attain rich data, I used open-ended questions and probes throughout my conversations with participants. By doing so, I believe that I gained access to lengthier and detailed descriptions of their experiences. I attended to the cultural relevance of my questions in order to capture the true embodiment of participants’ stories. A sample protocol of potential questions and probes can be found in Appendix D. I interviewed each participant once and had several informal follow-up conversations with most of the participants. Each interview lasted between 120-180 minutes in length.

Step 3: Interview debrief. I concluded each interview with a short debrief to explore and seek feedback from each participant about his experience talking about gay fatherhood. I paid careful attention to the wellness of each participant. Charmaz (2006) warned, “No interview should end abruptly after an interviewer has asked the most searching questions or when the participant is distressed” (p. 30). During each debrief, participants were reminded of their rights and were also reminded of the community-based counselling resources included in their consent document. At the end of the debrief, participants were educated about the “next- steps” involved in their participation. Upon completion of the transcription of their interviews, participants were required to review their individual transcripts for accuracy, clarification, and expansion of ideas. Participants were provided with the opportunity to censor any information that they wished to be removed from the transcript. I offered this option as most of their participants informed me that their children were aware of their involvement in this study.

Phase 3: Field-Notes and Memo-Writing

During and immediately following each interview, I documented essential field-notes and self-reflections. I also engaged in memo-writing as a means of documenting and acknowledging comparisons and connections, questions and reflections, and most importantly, to remain actively engaged in linking the data collection and analysis processes.

Data Management

The interviews for this study were digitally recorded. I transcribed the interviews, which proved to be a time-consuming yet informative process. In total, I transcribed approximately 30 hours of interviews. I assigned each digital file and subsequent transcript one code, for example,

“John, 31 January 2012.” Each digital interview was transferred to a disc and archived in a locked file cabinet located in my office. For interviews conducted outside of Calgary, the digital

57 recorder remained in a secure locked briefcase during transport from a site location to my office.

The name of each participant and any other identifying information was not present within the digital recording of the interview. Instead, participants were addressed by their pseudonym. All documents of a digital nature were password protected (word documents, digital files, and field- note observations). All work pertaining to this research occurred in my work office (I was the only one with the key to my filing cabinet and my computer is also password protected).

I transcribed each interview within 14 days of the meeting date. Transcribed interviews were provided to each participant to review within seven days of receipt. Each participant reviewed the transcripts and all but one participant chose to censor/delete information from his interview documents. On many occasions, participants added additional information to clarify the points they were trying to make. Final transcripts were returned to me and were subsequently added to data for analysis. Upon completion of the data analysis process, all digital data was removed from my computer. Upon successful completion of my dissertation, all text- based transcripts and storage disks will be destroyed after a period of five years.

Data Analysis

In some forms of qualitative research, the analysis of data occurs once all data has been collected. Grounded theory as a research methodology does not follow a linear process.

Consistent amongst the various schools of grounded theory is an interactive experience where the researcher engages in a simultaneous process of data collection, data analysis, and conceptual theorization (Bryant, 2013). The idea is for the researcher to continuously remain affianced until the final theory is established. The process of continuously interweaving one’s self with the data collection and analysis processes was both time consuming and at times, agonizing in nature.

In constructivist grounded theory, this process involves two phases (initial coding and focused coding) that are used in conjunction with constant comparison analysis, memoing, theoretical sensitivity, neutral questioning, and theoretical sampling. This is referred to as the grounded theory process (Charmaz, 2006).

In order to provide the reader with a visual representation of the grounded theory process,

I have included a diagram in Figure 2 (Charmaz, 2006, p. 11).

Figure 2: The Grounded Theory Process

Coding the data is an essential component in grounded theory. As stated in Charmaz

(2006):

Coding is the pivotal link between collecting data and developing an emergent theory to

explain these data. Through coding, you define what is happening in the data and begin

to grapple with what it means. These codes take form together as elements of nascent

theory that explains these data and directs further data-gathering. By carefully attending

to coding, you begin weaving two major threads in the fabric of grounded theory:

generalizable theoretical statements that transcend specific times and places and

contextual analyses of actions and events. (p. 46)

Initial Coding

Initial coding represents the “part of [data] analysis that pertains to naming and categorizing phenomenon through the close examination of data” (Mertens, 1998, p. 325). It was during this stage that I critically investigated and questioned the data. Within this process, I asked specific questions as encouraged by Charmaz (2006). Specifically, I asked the following questions, as called upon by Charmaz (2006):

 “What is this data a study of?

 What does the data suggest?

 From whose point of view?

 What theoretical category does this specific datum indicate?” (p. 47)

By asking such questions, Charmaz (2006) challenged Glaser’s (1978, 1992) argument that open coding must be free of researcher experience, awareness, and social constructs. Throughout her

60 works on constructivist grounded theory, Charmaz consistently invites her readers to be open and reflexive during the initial coding phase.

When engaging in the phase of initial coding, Charmaz (2008) raised the following critical points for researcher to consider:

 “Engage in coding throughout the data collection process;

 Code for actions and theoretical potential, rather than themes and topics;

 Coding must be interactive and comparative;

 Allow codes to be both descriptive and analytical in nature; and

 Explore and identify meaning within participant direct statements (in-vivo codes).” (pp.

163-164)

In this foundational stages of my data analysis, I called on three strategies as outline in

Charmaz (2006, 2008): (a) word by word coding, (b) line-by-line coding, and (c) incident to incident. These strategies proved to be extensive in nature as reviewing each transcript required a sufficient amount of time, clarity, and dedication.

Focused Coding

Upon completion of the first phase of coding, I had identified initial codes for further investigation. Charmaz (2006) presented this process as “using the most significant and/or earlier codes to sift through larger amounts of data… [requiring] decisions about which initial codes make the most analytic sense to categorize your data incisively and completely” (p. 57).

The selection of focused codes is an emergent process that required critical examination. My end goal was to select focused codes that elucidated or decoded the research phenomenon

(Charmaz, 2008). Focused categories become the source of theoretical sampling and saturation.

Memo-Writing and Reflexivity

Throughout the data collection and analysis process, I honoured the traditional elements of grounded theory: theoretical sampling and saturation through the memo-writing process. I began memo-writing immediately as I initiated the research process. As Charmaz (2006) described, “Memo-writing constitutes a crucial method in grounded theory because it prompts you to analyze your data codes early in the research process” (p. 72). Memos are of significant worth because they are written in narrative from and provide opportunities for reflexive practice when conceptualizing the real world experiences of participants (Lempert, 2007; Richardson,

1998).

The integration of memos and diagrams assisted me in visual depictions and abstract meaning of the data and theory (Lempert, 2007). I used memos to create discourse within all forms of data including the literature and interview transcripts (Charmaz, 2008). I integrated the advice of Lempert and Charmaz (2006) and used researcher memos as a means of documenting factors (i.e., social privilege and life stories). By doing so, I was able to reinforce the reality that research-involving humans can never exist within a neutral and objective space. In essence, the process of memo-writing enabled me to remain actively engaged in the data collection and analysis process by documenting my ideas and questions as the theory in this dissertation emerged (Boychuck-Duchscher, & Morgan, 2004).

Constant Comparison

As identified earlier in this chapter, I called upon the constant comparison analysis process throughout data collection and analysis process (Charmaz, 2006; Glaser & Strauss,

1967). I simultaneously engaged in the process of acknowledging and revisiting data and

62 categories rigorously throughout the development of the theory presented in this dissertation

(Charmaz, 2006).

Theoretical Sensitivity

The process of establishing theoretical sensitivity focuses on a process that assists the researcher in remaining present and engaged with the data. As researchers within constructivist grounded theory have an interpretive role in the presentation of the theory, theoretical sensitivity represents an ability to bring insight to the data collected and analyzed, while bringing forth and incorporating data into theoretical codes and concepts (Charmaz, 2006). As I stated earlier, I bring to this data collection and analysis process, unique insider and outsider perspectives, which played a unique role in my abilities to make significant connections within the development of the final theory within this dissertation. This was of vital importance in my decision regarding adopting a constructivist approach to grounded theory, as my personal life experiences, expertise, and knowledge played an important role in the co-development of the theory. Through a multi-lensed perspective as a gay man and counselling practitioner, I believe I was able to make connections with the data, hypothesize specific possibilities, and critically ask essential questions of the data (Charmaz, 2006).

Theoretical Sampling and Theoretical Saturation

Theoretical sampling and theoretical saturation are essential stages in the development of emergent theory (Charmaz, 2006). Theoretical sampling involves a more detailed analysis of the focused categories, using a diverse range of data sources (people, events, and scholarly research)

(Walker & Myrick, 2006). From my perspective, theoretical sampling enables the researcher to explore the periphery of possibilities within each theoretical category. Charmaz (2008) referred to this process as “seek[ing] comparative data to tease out [the] hidden properties of a category”

(p. 167). The central goal in this process was to fine-tune categories, while exploring theoretical boundaries, relevance, and explanations of the phenomenon (Bryant & Charmaz, 2007). The notion of theoretical saturation should not be confused with “saturation” as assumed in discussions of generalizability, whereas in the case of grounded theory it refers to theoretical development (Charmaz, 2006).

Trustworthiness

When conducting qualitative research, the researcher is encouraged to acknowledge the fundamental strengths and limitations of their research approach and results (Charmaz, 2006).

This begins with an open acknowledgment of research intentions, choice of methodological approach, and the establishment of rigour and trustworthiness of findings. In numerous qualitative studies, poorly constructed objectives and/or intentions have limited the outcomes and quality of findings, as well as stalled the progression of such research efforts (Tong, Sainsbury,

& Craig, 2007). Croteau, Bieschke, Fassinger, and Manning (2008) argued current studies exploring queer experiences must adhere to scholarly requests for rigour, relevance, and complexity. For many, the notion of rigour refers to the overall trustworthiness of a study from start to finish.

Trustworthiness, according to Guba and Lincoln (2005), makes reference to the methods implemented by the researcher to ensure rigour and credibility. In other research paradigms, this is often referred to as validity, reliability, and generalizability. These factors relate to my earlier discussion surrounding the numerous ongoing debates surrounding the credibility of qualitative research methodologies. Patton (2002) argued that trustworthiness is dependent upon rigorous methods, credibility of the researcher, and philosophical belief in the value of qualitative inquiry.

Morrow (2005) identified the following criteria for enhancing trustworthiness: (a) credibility, (b)

64 transferability, (c) dependability, and (d) confirmability. Strategies that I employed to address trustworthiness included triangulation (Buckley & Waring, 2013; Newman, Lim, & Pineda,

2013); use of rich, thick description to convey findings (Creswell, 2013); member checking

(Bowen, 2009; Carlson, 2010); researcher bias (Morse, 2010; Urquhart & Fernandez, 2013); present discrepant information (Creswell, 2013); prolonged time in the field (Timmermans &

Tavory, 2010); and peer debriefing (Hays & Singh, 2011; Sparkes & Smith, 2009).

Ethical Considerations

As a researcher, it is imperative to ensure the ethical treatment of all participants. James and Platzer (1999) argued, “It is rare to find accounts of the difficulties and dilemmas encountered when conducting sensitive research with vulnerable populations” (p. 73). They position the potential areas of concern within three categories: (a) susceptibility to harm

(responding to distress and emotions), (b) the politics of representation (moral obligations versus political influences), and (c) the use of self (researcher bias). Whether one likes it or not, the act of qualitative research is a political endeavour. Within this paradigm exists numerous ethical concerns for human wellness (Christians, 2005). Christians (2005) brings to the ethical table the discussion of competing polarities of the “autonomous self by case the question in terms of hard facts and subjective values” (p. 139). Added to this discussion are four fundamental factors as they relate to current ethical practice: (a) informed consent, (b) deception, (c) privacy and confidentiality, and (d) accuracy.

Conducting research with gay men requires awareness and compassion for their lived experience. As researchers, it is essential to ensure the ethical treatment of all participants.

Increased sensitivity and safeguarding is essential when researching vulnerable populations such as gay fathers. In order to ensure that potential for harm was avoided, during the initial stages of

65 working with participants, I (a) gained verbal consent; (b) described the purpose and significance of the study, interview protocol, and potential benefits of sharing life experiences; and (c) discussed the limits of confidentiality (i.e., disclosure of desire to harm one’s self or another).

Once this conversation occurred and the participant agreed to be interviewed, I asked the participant to sign two copies of the informed consent form (one for the participant and one for me).

In qualitative research, participants are called upon to discuss their experiences and insights. The potential for discomfort or the resurfacing of difficult memories is possible when reflecting upon these life occurrences. In order to prepare for this potential outcome, I conducted a community resource review and developed a list of community-based counselling agencies for all three cities where participants lived. Agency names and contact numbers were integrated into the informed consent form. I contacted each agency to ensure that they engaged in support counselling for gay male clientele. After each interview, I actively debriefed the experience with each participant with the intention to address any potential areas of concern that may have resulted from the interview. Before leaving the interview location, I invited each participant to contact me via email or telephone should any comments or questions arise regarding his participation in the study.

As a counselling practitioner and member of Alberta’s queer community, the potential likelihood of running into research participants in public settings is highly likely. The queer community in Alberta is small in comparison to other major cities in Canada. This fact, in combination with the use of the snowballing phenomenon that occurred in this study, could result in specific participants knowing each other.

The University of Calgary, Conjoint Faculties Research Ethics Board, approved this study.

Conclusion

In this chapter, I presented an overview and discussion of the methodological approached

I employed in this dissertation. I initiated this chapter with a discussion with a methodological rationale for qualitative research in exploring gay fatherhood in Alberta. I then provided an overview of grounded theory, including a rationale for adopting a constructivist grounded theory approach in this study. Within this section, I highlighted my role as the researcher within the constructivist grounded theory approach. I followed this discussion with a detailed outline of the research process. I started by highlighting the participant recruitment and site selection process.

I then described the intricate data collection and analysis process I employed in this study. In this section I discussed how I collected, managed (including three specific phases), and analysed the data. I closed this chapter with a brief overview from which I attended to ethical and trustworthiness concerns.

CHAPTER 4. THEORY AND DISCUSSION

At the onset of this research initiative, I endeavoured to explore the process by which gay men, once married to women with children, experienced the process of gay identity development and subsequently their gay fatherhood expression. Within constructivist grounded theory, the process of theory generation results from an emergent design. In this chapter, I outline the six core categories and subsequent concepts/themes that emerged as a result of the data collection and analysis process discussed in Chapter 3. As the exploration into gay fatherhood in Canada is still in its infancy, this grounded theory is intentioned to create a foundation from which further exploration can occur. I have organized this chapter into the following sections: (a) the grounded theory, (b) summary of grounded theory, and (c) conclusion.

The Grounded Theory

The following grounded theory represents possibilities surrounding the experiences of gay fathers as they embark upon their process of developing an authentic concept of self. The categories and themes that I am about to present have resulted from my data collection and analysis as outlined in Chapter 3. The participants in this study provided their stories and experiences through verbatim accounts of their individual and collective understanding of their journeys into and beyond gay fatherhood. Throughout the entirety of the data collection and analysis process, coupled with direct questioning of the participants’ identification of core milestones, the following key critical incidents were acknowledged: (a) heterosexual marriage with children, (b) coming out, and (c) gay fatherhood identity. However, upon deeper investigation, the grounded theory that emerged addressed the significant impact of participants’ experiences pre-marriage to women with children and post-gay father identity formation.

Within this chapter and the discussion in Chapter 5, the use of “gay fathers” and “gay men” are used to describe and present the experiences of the participants in this study. The use of “gay fathers” should not be misinterpreted as an attempt to generalize the experiences of all gay fathers outside of the scope of this research study. Therefore, these results reflect the experience of 12 gay fathers in Calgary, Edmonton, and Lethbridge, and hence should not be generalized to other gay fathers living in other provinces, in rural areas, or who are either younger or older that the participants represented in this study.

Figure 1: The Transition Model

The language and expression of transition, the course by which gay fathers negotiated their identity development processes, necessitate the ability to return to their foundation roots, question their social learners from this era, and subsequently redefine their concepts of self in order to be the best fathers and role-models possible. The core categories of this grounded theory are as follows: (a) the foundational years, (b) the sexual self, (c) becoming and fatherhood, (d) shifting of identity, (e) protection and place, and (f) the authentic self. The sub- themes embedded within the categories of this grounded theory illustrate the combined

69 challenges and triumphs experienced by gay fathers as they emerge as their authentic selves (See

Table 2).

The quotations taken from the interviews with participants in this chapter were edited.

“Speech fillers” (i.e., “ahs and ums”) were removed, and grammatical errors were corrected to enhance their overall readability. In their review of the exemplars used from their interviews, participants verified that the editorial changes did not change the meaning or the context of their experiences.

Table 2: Categories and Sub-Categories

Categories Sub-Categories

1. Foundational Years a. The nuclear family b. Societal norms c. The pathological other d. The dissonant self

2. The Sexual Self a. Who versus what am I? b. Testing the waters c. Accepting self as gay d. Disclosing to family

3. Becoming and Fatherhood a. Defining “fatherhood” b. Fathers as sons c. Straight fatherhood/gay fatherhood d. Modelling the message

4. Shifting of Identity a. The hegemonic ideal b. Gay father/child relationships c. Blending the family

5. Protection and Place a. Finding place and membership b. Safeguarding our children c. The need for mental health services d. Advocacy

6. The Authentic self

Category 1: The Foundational Years

In their efforts to ascertain the current destination of their experiences as gay fathers, participants routinely call upon the foundational years to establish context. Throughout the interviews, it was evident that the journey into and throughout the gay fatherhood experience could not have occurred without retrospective reflections of early developmental milestones.

The language of growing up appeared to represent developmental milestones experienced in early childhood and adolescence. For gay fathers, growing up was best described as representations of family, masculinity, and fatherhood within their families of origin. Gay fathers routinely revisit such constructs in order to make meaning of the challenges they experienced in the early and later stages of their identity processes. The notion of time and place repetitively entered into the discussion as for many, societal norms and expectations often impacted and shaped their ideas and constructs of what it meant to be both a family and a heterosexual father. Gay fathers acknowledge and highlight an internal awareness of difference, many of whom identified as outcasts in a societal script that defined normalness or in their cases, the pathological other. The awareness of not fitting in resulted in early internal crises of identity fragmentation, or the dissonant self.

If asked within the timeframe of these historical renderings, gay fathers would have likely never been able to contemplate the possibilities of being an openly gay father. When viewed through an historical lens, gay fathers express concerns about the detrimental implications of exploring their current experiences with the historical contexts of their developmental realities.

In essence, to be who they are today would never have been possible [within their perspectives] as it is today for many others. Many participants in this study expressed both envy and frustrations regarding current political and social circumstances that were not available during their pivotal developmental milestones.

Figure 3: Category 1 – The Foundational Years

The dissonant self

The Foundational The nuclear pathological Years family other

Societal norms

The nuclear family. Gay men, both as individuals and as fathers, have fascinating stories and reflections to provide retrospective awareness of their experiences as children and siblings within their families of origin. For many, the ideas and models of family were structured by their own experiences, as well as societal constructs that identified what it meant to be both a family and a son within the family system. Many reflected on the nature of the times and the generational implications of what it was and meant to be a family. Gay men come from diverse families that either reinforced or challenged traditional family values.

I grew up in a family of six children, one of whom did not survive past my age of seven –

so I was the last of five boys. That was the world I grew up in. All of my brothers had

gone before me and gotten married and started having children. I had a very good

childhood from a family perspective – we were a blended family. The six children had

three biological fathers. I was the “product” of my mother’s last husband, but he ended

up adopting all of my other siblings, except the oldest. So we had this really positive

family dynamic during my childhood and adolescence. (Nick, age 59)

For many gay men, their family experiences as children and adolescents represented positive and enlightening exemplifications of feeling included and visible as a family member.

For others, the family system reinforced and maintained traditional family values and placed them, as children, in silent life roles. In many cases, gay fathers reflected on the disempowering discourse and social pressures of being a child in structured environments where children’s experiences and behaviours were direct reflections on the perceived quality of the parenting they received.

My family is the typical straight – perceived to be the perfect family [spoken with

sarcasm]. But in fact, we were not! As children, my siblings and I learned to be seen and

not heard. We also learned to keep up with appearances and never challenge or

publically embarrass our parents. I am not saying that we weren’t a loving family… I am

simply reflecting that to humiliate our parents would result in devastating outcomes. To

have a gay child during the years of my adolescence would have brought shame upon my

family. (Tony, age 38)

In this case, the participant learned to role-play and be what he was expected to be. He further reflected, “When I watched Leave it to Beaver, I often wondered how painful it must have been for Beaver and Theodore to be so perfect… my experience was nothing like the fantasy of the white picket fence!”

For many gay men, the recollection of their first experience violating social norms occurred within their families of origin. For all the participants, such encroachments resulted in

74 emotional punishment, especially shame. For the majority, the reinforcement of traditional masculinities was delivered from the patriarchs of their family systems. Participants in this study reflected on gender constructs that limited their early developmental years, especially while at play or within their educational systems.

Last week I was working on a family scrapbook for my parents’ 50th anniversary. As a

child, I remember fond memories filled with happiness and love. I was taken aback when

I took a closer look at the child I once was…in the pictures I rarely smiled. One event,

my sister’s seventh birthday party, I recalled a moment when my father took one of my

sister’s dolls away from me. These [dolls] are for them [pointing to the girls] not for you.

It was one of the first moments, when I felt like an outsider in my own family. (Francois,

age 49)

Gay men as both children and adults often challenge social scripts of masculinity. What was troubling for many was that they inherently felt as though they had forever changed their fathers’ views of them as sons. In all but one case, participants recalled feelings of embarrassment and ridicule. The exception resulted when one participants’ mother challenged his father about not allowing his son to join gymnastics. According to this participant, “I loved doing cartwheels on the soccer field and my mother identified my talents and resigned me from the soccer team and registered me in gymnastics” (Shane, age 29).

In their development as fathers, gay men consistently revisit their historical and present experiences within their families of origin. For many, the ability to identify, reconcile, and move beyond the suffocating reinforcements of masculinity and fatherhood was essential.

Societal norms. Within the intergenerational experiences of the participants in this study exists a strong commonality between their personal and social identities. For many,

75 experiencing the social acceptance as gay men in Canadian society was not always a shared collective experience. For many, the experience of living in silent suffering was the direct, self- choice of strict adherence to societal norms and expectations. For some, this resulted in living on the down low or completely severing their same-sex attractions and desires from their lives.

Several participants identified feelings of envy for young gay men today. “Society was not ready for gay fatherhood when I was growing up… It was much different than it is today!” (Gene, age

46).

I saw that [passing as straight] as being then – the solution for this struggle I was going

through because I simply wanted to fit in. I wanted to be like everyone else. I wanted to,

like my brother before me, choose to get married and have a family and kids. Growing

up it was quite evident that if I were gay, I would never be a father. (Tony, age 38)

Historically, gay fathers lived the reality of passing for something they were not, in order to fulfill societal prerequisites; historically required to be married with children. Within Canadian culture today, the social climate now challenges the historical script that gay men cannot be fathers.

While gay men are often the recipients of homophobia and heterosexism, internalized homophobia often resulted in name-calling towards others as a means of deflecting potential suspicions of their own same-sex attractions.

There was no room in our world at that time for boys to like boys. It was something that

was shameful and used as a way to degrade a person. To call a boy a faggot or a homo

was a way to hurt others while making me feel better. I recall calling other boys such

names to take the heat off of me being found out. And so I had nobody else in my world

that shared that common feeling or lifestyle. I saw myself as a bit of a freak. And so

what I did was I began to hide that element and live it out in secret. (Nick, age 47)

The negative outcomes of assuming inauthentic roles as straight men was highly impacted by the lack of positive representations of gay male identity. The need to reinforce social norms and the central pillars of hegemonic masculinities felt like a preconditioned response to experience fatherhood. For many, an inherent mismatch exists within current illustrations of gay men with their historical experiences that censured them from positive representations of the experience of being a gay man.

Throughout my education, I believed that same-sex identities such as mine did not exist.

I never had the language to explain who or what I was, or even the nature of my feelings

and emotions. All I knew was that I wasn’t like other boys… and other boys knew I

wasn’t like them. I quickly realized that in order to fit in, I had to emulate and become

them. I was the invisible social pariah, just waiting to be exposed. (Samuel, age 44)

One participant reflected on his identification with music when he referred to himself as

“Eleanor Rigby.” In reference to the Beatles song, Eleanor Rigby, Jay (age, 55) quoted a line from the lyrics, “Eleanor Rigby, waits at the window, wearing the face that she keeps in a jar by the door, who is it for?” For many gay men, the paralyzing fear of not fitting in resulted in juggling their internal self-awareness of same-sex attractions by masking their truths through the emulation of the hegemonic ideal.

The pathological other. Gay men have been pathologized and often mislabelled by the holders of social and institution privilege throughout history. All the participants in this study spoke of the impact religion and how the spiritual values of their family structures impacted their abilities to function in healthy and authentic ways. For many, the act of othering was an ongoing

77 reality as they flew under the radar by hiding and/or suppressing their same-sex attractions.

Several participants spoke of the puzzling constructs of how others defined their hidden identities with their internal understandings of self.

I remember learning in church and through overhearing adult conversations that “those

people” [homosexuals] were child molesters and evil. I recall thinking, I don’t want to

hurt children and everyone seems to like me… I owned this negative sense of who I was

for many years. I hated the fact that I was ill and couldn’t be trusted around children. All

the while, in retrospect, it was society that was sick, not me! (Tony, age 38)

The experience of being labelled and identified in such deleterious ways impacts the internal construct of self for gay fathers. For many participants, attending church and spiritual events represented significant moments of loneliness and helplessness. Shane (age 29) commented, “To this very day, I refuse to attend church and I do not celebrate religious holidays… they are just too painful.”

Before identifying as gay men and gay fathers, participants in this study spoke about how they felt pathologized by others, especially during moments of social change and empowerment.

Dominant culture values often overpowered positive moments of hope in their observations of gay men and social change.

I can recall a moment in the 1970s when the news was reporting the Stonewall Riots in

New York City. I sat quietly in paralyzing fear as my family viewed the television. My

father and brothers cheered as we viewed physical aggression against “the gays.” My

father said, “If any of my boys want to dress as women, I will kill them myself.” In that

moment, I was no longer his son, rather a fucked up faggot destined for a beating.

(Michael, age 52)

Like many other participants, those living through the gay liberation movement and the catastrophic age of HIV/AIDS, combined with battling micro-aggressions within their families of origin, reinforced their early learning about keeping up with appearances.

Viewing the world through the lens of the distant self, gay fathers struggled to find meaning in their individual and collective experiences, often adopting the internalized concept of the pathological other. Many spoke of the desire to engage in sexual orientation change efforts, while others sought assistance from medical and mental health practitioners to understand their same-sex attractions. Sadly, the shared experience was lack of support based on the assumption that “they” as “gay men” had to change, not society. It would appear, for participants that the positive experiences (in the present) may not have been the case when they may have needed it most.

In the early 1980s I remember going to see a therapist because my family was concerned

that I was “depressed.” After a couple sessions, I developed the courage to self-identify

to the counsellor that I was or may be gay. The therapist responded that I should see a

psychiatrist because she lacked the training and desire to work with those individuals. I

left feeling that with the right help, I could become straight – I was wrong. (Samuel, age

44)

The nature of the pathological other represents an ecological construct that appears to exist within intrapersonal, interpersonal, and societal experiences.

The dissonant self. Growing up as gay men through the developmental milestones of childhood and adolescence represents challenging psychosocial realities. Within the realm of the dissonant self exists the experience of the either/or mentality. The notion of the fragmented self

– experiencing authentic moments of self in one space while being subsequently ridiculed within

79 another – represented a significant discord for participants in this study. For many gay men, experimentation followed by the caveat “boys will be boys” echoed a false sense of safety in experiencing the positive and negative outcomes of expressing and/or exploring same-sex desires.

All through high school, I remember fantasizing about giving blowjobs to my friends, but

I never tried to play out these fantasies. I tried once, reaching out to my best friend, when

we were 16 – he was receptive for the moment and then it cost me my friendship because

he felt so ashamed. I felt rejected from the inside out! By the end of grade 12, I was

feeling so… ashamed… of who I was growing up to be, that I reached out for help to a

social group within the Evangelical church. (Shane, age 29)

For gay men experiencing elements of shame, especially following one of their first same-sex experiences, often returns them to the source(s) that initially othered them as pathological. For many of the participants, choosing friends to express and act upon their same- sex desires resulted in loss of friendships, public shaming, and a deepened sense of silent- suffering.

The deepened sense of silent suffering often lead to a continuum of self-questioning to complete denial of any same-sex attractions. The notion of the “sexual identity sabbatical” appeared to be a common distraction for the participants in this study; hence, to identify as a gay man during their childhood and adolescence would have silenced their inherent rights and privileges to become fathers. In a poignant moment, 1 participant recalled the impact of such questioning on his overall concept of self.

Who/or what the fuck am I? I remember mentally shutting out and distracting myself

from any and all same-sex attractions. In a sense, I felt like I was pieces of a puzzle that

would never fit together. I felt a significant mismatch between who I was and who others

thought I should be. (Gene, age 46)

For gay fathers, situating their process of identity formation within the historical context of their childhood and adolescent upbringing was essential to fully comprehend their journeys toward their authentic identity development.

Category 2: The Sexual Self

For gay fathers, an interesting distinction occurred in their identity formations when they shifted their lens from what to who am I? For most participants, the language of sexual identity development was situated upon freeing themselves from the dominant culture perspectives that resulted in their early childhood and adolescent development. The majority of participants never acted on their same-sex desires until they were either married with children, or subsequently separated or divorced from their opposite-sex spouses. The resurrection of the pathological other and the dissonant self appeared to resurface in the participants’ later years. In their sexual identity development process, gay fathers embark on an internal and existential exploration of self. The result of such exploration results in identity confirmation, security, and subsequent disclosures of gay identity to self, family, and others.

Figure 4: Category 2 – The Sexual Self

Disclosing to family

The Who Accepting versus self as gay Sexual What am Self I?

Testing the waters

Who versus what am I? Gay fathers are highly susceptible to pejorative messages regarding sexuality, love, and intimacy. For many, such messages result in continued feelings of isolation and self-denial of same-sex desires. All participants reminisced upon their internal self- concept and the ongoing debate between awareness of same-sex attractions and the need to fit within the mold of the dominant culture.

I created a lot of compartmentalization in my head and consistently tried and just push

the gay thing into a little box... then I would get on with my regular life – getting married,

having kids, that sort of thing. I defined myself as a straight man that had the occasional

gay feeling. I had to be straight because that what was expected. (Ted, age 58)

It is essential to note that all of the participants carried with them internal renderings of negative meanings of homosexuality that were reinforced in their immediate and extended

82 communities. For all but one participant, the identification of potentially being bisexual was used in effort to maintain partial membership to the hegemonic ideal.

Today, being bisexual comes with its own social stigma from both the straight and gay

community. It is really quite sad. In self-exploration, I at one time thought that being

bisexual would be less taboo than being gay. It was amazing how I negotiated this

thought process in my head in my attempt to accept myself as who I am. For many years

I assumed that I needed to be what others wanted me to be, not who I was meant to be.

(Jack, age 47)

I became quite skilled in keeping up with appearances. I probably identified earlier and

went – through typically looking at myself as a bisexual man. So during my married life,

I… I was always curious about that side of myself but hadn't really explored it. After all,

I learned that being bisexual meant that you had to choose one gender over the other.

The decision was obvious at the time… have everything or have nothing! (Peter, age 40)

In their efforts to maintain a sense of belonging and membership to the dominant culture, gay fathers often enter into an internal self-negotiation process that takes into account the potential benefits and consequences of their circumstances.

The trend to focus on homosexuality as a what, meaning a sexual act, played a significant role in gay fathers’ abilities to compartmentalize and distance themselves from what was becoming evidently more about who they authentically were. The transition from what I am, to who am I appeared to represent a key moment of emancipation for gay fathers.

The inner turmoil… I don’t know how else to describe it – that the stress you’re basically

putting yourself under… keeping the fact that you’re gay hidden and oops, did I say

something that they might figure out? I’d had people ask me if I was gay and the back-

pedaling and harbouring you have to do… I just couldn’t – I just couldn’t do it anymore!

(Samuel, age 44)

I felt like a wolf in sheep’s clothing. It became incredibly confusing! At times I would

find myself refusing to make eye contact with other males. I was afraid that my glance

would be prolonged or somehow flirtatious. I somehow felt that being gay was only

about the sexual act – the doing. Overtime, my ability to hide or maintain my secret self

became unbearable. (Shane, age 29)

Several participants spoke of the multi-selves that represented the numerous identities/roles they were playing in their lives. One participant identified his life-long fascination with comic books and fantasy novels as a direct parallel for early adult-sexual identity questioning of himself. “I often felt like a super-hero, not in a heroic way – I was the cowardly lion lacking in courage… a chameleon of sorts, constantly adapting to unfriendly environments” (Tony, age 38).

Gay men, in my situation appear to become very skilled at managing their identities. At

home, work and my leisure activities, I was straight. In my heart and soul, I was

gay. The burden within me began to take its toll. I began living MY life for

others… I became depressed and withdrawn. It was too much to handle. I eventually

forgot the simplest things, like my birthday and middle name. I was in crisis. (Michael,

age 52)

For gay fathers, the wearing of multiple-masks has significant consequences to their physical and mental health well-being.

I found myself in a really strange place where I had a successful career, I had great kids, a

great wife, and I had this one thought in my head (being gay). It’s just a thought, you

know, but it’s threatening to bring all of this down around me. So why would I cave to

this thought... I was basically going down the path... and now I know it was a depression.

(Peter, age 40)

The stress of hiding my sexuality began to show both physically and mentally. Most

troubling was when people would voice their concerns about my significant weight loss

(due to anxiety and depression). For a closeted gay man, to be told this after identifying

with the lifelong historical message that being gay is a sickness… when things are out of

check or out of balance, it’s almost like they’ve figured me out. (Rick, age 59)

Testing the waters. All participants identified significant moments throughout their lifespan development where they explored and/or acted upon their same-sex attractions. Like gay male non-fathers, such explorations resulted in feelings of shame and remorse. While such attention varied from exploring gay porn on the Internet to engaging in sex with other men, all participants expressed internal conflict. In order to accept their initial experiences, many participants remained focused on the physical act of sex while removing any or all-emotional elements of intimacy.

For some reasons, having sex with another man was simply about the act! Growing up, I

heard of bathhouses and other areas for anonymous sex. In hindsight, I really wish that I

had been able to connect (in a non-sexual way) with another guy who was going through

the same thing that I was. The option was the Internet or hook-up sites. In my city, there

were no discussion groups for gay fathers pre-coming out. Sadly, I became quite skilled

at covering my digital tracks on my computer. (Tony, age 38)

For many of the participants, the act of love-making with their opposite sex spouses became significantly impacted by their increased same-sex desires. This showed up in a variety of ways from sexual difficulties, infidelity, and silencing of all sexual desires.

At the age of 31, I was diagnosed with erectile dysfunction with absolutely no medical

symptoms. Even with the assistance of Cialis, I was unable to get or maintain an erection

when having sex with my wife. She took this very personally and we both began to

withdraw from each other emotionally. I loved my wife dearly! I felt like a dual failure

as both a husband and a “straight man.” (Gene, age 46)

The guilt was almost unbearable because I couldn’t perform sexually with my wife. I

would be obsessed with meeting a guy, would meet them and then afterwards I’d be

obsessed with that fact that I caught some disease and how awful it was… after a few

days I’d be right back at it and the whole, just that cycle of wanting to do it, guilt,

blaming yourself, wanting to do it, was a huge weight to bare. (Michael, age 52)

Unlike other gay fathers I know, I never had sex with another man until I was officially

separated from my ex-wife. In no way am I judging, but for me despite being gay, I

chose to acknowledge my same-sex attractions and defer the physical actions until I had

removed myself from the relationship with my wife. To do so, would have further

defined me as the evil person I once thought I was. (Shane, age 29)

Gay fathers carried the internal messages of the pathological other and dissonant self into their initial experiences engaging in same-sex intimacies.

Upon reflection, gay fathers were able to ascertain the difference between sexual acts with evolving abilities to experience intimacy with another human being. The historical script of

86 gay men as highly sex-charged individuals was challenged when experiencing a different expression of intimacy they had never experienced before.

I believe that whom you fuck does not define who you are. I mean I had sex with a

woman for 16 years. It didn’t make me straight. It wasn’t a description of who I was.

As a boy, I experienced a stronger connection with one of my friends than I have never

felt with a woman. I started to reflect and have come to the conclusion that who I am

moves beyond who I am having sex with to who I am in love with. (Jay, age 55)

The courage to explore and accept the possibilities that extend beyond historical scripts in which they once subscribed, gay fathers develop the ability to situate their historical experiences within different time and space.

There was a friend of mine, a boy in the neighbourhood who I, you know, had a crush on

and there was a time when you know um; boys and girls at that age would probably

explore one another physically. He and I did that exploration together and it was so

exhilarating for me. I was connecting with this boy on a level that went beyond just

playing soccer or baseball. It was a very intimate moment. There was no sexual contact

in a sense, it was with clothes on. Years later, we reconnected and took things to the next

level. (Nick, age 59)

Accepting self as gay. Gay fathers experience the process of coming out to self as transformative in nature. The ability to place into context the meaning of their sexual orientations involved normalizing their attractions to other males throughout their lifespan development. Gay fathers enter into a process of deep self-exploration and question the social and familial messages they received about gay men growing up.

Coming out to myself was a unique experience. It started when I was able to view the

world as different from the time when I was growing up. People were coming out of the

closet, left-right-and-centre! I began to question everything I once learned. The more I

explored, the more evidence I found that I was perfectly okay! The moment I came out

was not when I said it to myself, it was when I accepted myself as a gay man. (Samuel,

age 44)

There came a moment when I said to myself, “I’m gay.” It was amazing, yet extremely

confusing! The lump of shame that once occupied my throat was gone – I felt this

intense sense of calm and acceptance. The internal messages that once silenced me with

fear was no longer there. It was a magic moment of being one with myself. (Ted,

age 58)

My spiritual journey was a process or evolution, not that it changed and became

something different, but that it became clear what couldn’t be changed. While I live as a

straight person, I dreamt as a gay person… this catalyst forced me to move toward my

authentic self. (Jay, age 55)

For many gay fathers, the ability to integrate their once fragmented concepts of self represented an intrapersonal self-awareness and self-acceptance. Their once internalized efforts to minimize and silence their same-sex orientations proved unachievable.

Disclosing to family. Disclosing to family and community occurred within 4 months to

3 years for participants in this study. While all the participants identified coming out to self as the most challenging step in their coming out processes, the disclosures of their gay identities to their wives, children, and communities came with their own set of issues and concerns. As one participant reflected, “Accepting myself as a gay man is one thing, dealing with the responses

88 and potential alienation from those I needed in my life the most was another” (Shane, age 29).

One specific shared experience was the fear of loss of their family system and support networks.

I’ve talked to many gay fathers over the years everyone, from all of the stories I’ve been

told relay the same story; where the ex-wife annihilates the gay father, financially,

emotionally, career wise. The kids are taken away – custody is lost. It’s just an absolute

mess. These are the stories that hinder men from coming to terms with their sexuality

and being happy. (Peter, age 40)

After coming out to myself, I decided to join a gay fathers’ chat group online. I spent

hours reading the posts about people’s experiences. I found a tremendous support in the

men who had been where I was about to go. (Michael, age 52)

Despite such trepidation, gay fathers call upon their internal and external resources to move forward in their coming out process. The next steps in their coming out processes involved disclosures to their wives, children and communities.

Disclosures to wives. All of the participants in this study spoke of the emotional experience of disclosing their gay identities to their wives. Despite stories of “being out” or

“cause in the act,” for each participant, their disclosures were under their complete control.

Careful planning and attention was taken to ensure their own safety as well as taking into account the safety of their spouses. While the reactions of their wives ranged from unconditional acceptance to emotionally driven exile from the family home, all relationships with their wives returned to a place of mutual agreement to act in the best interest of the children.

I remember preparing a SWAT analysis exploring the strengths, weaknesses,

opportunities, and threats of telling me wife that I was gay. In my head I had prepared

for the worst possible outcomes. I expected her to freak out and insist that I leave the

house immediately. It took me almost two years to tell her. We cried together and

decided that we would work together to be the best parents for our children. (Francois,

age 49)

Disclosures to children. Gay fathers come out to their children in a variety of ways.

Working with their ex-wives, gay fathers create meaningful and loving ways of disclose their gay identities to their children. The message is twofold: (a) mom and dad are no longer together, and (b) dad is gay. All participants recalled their process that often involved the first message with a time period between moving out of the family home to coming out as gay. After leaving their family homes, gay fathers consulted closely with their ex-wives and devised a plan of action that was in the interest of all family members. One participant recalled, “I couldn't have done it without my wife. Despite causing her unintentional pain, she was able to support both the children and I in this process” (Nick, age 47). In eight of the disclosures to their children, gay fathers told their families (children) at the same time, 3 spoke with each of their children individually, and in one case a letter was written. This participant wrote:

I know that this is all new to you and I have had many years to think this through, but I

promise to give you the time you need to work through this through. I want you to be

comfortable in asking me any questions you want, at any time you want; you will have

my full attention. I also have to accept that you may not be able to agree with my

decision or my life, but I can only hope that you will always let me be your Dad. (Jay,

age 55)

Disclosures to family of origin. Participants in this study followed a very unique process from which to come out to their families of origin. While in some cases, biological parents and siblings were deceased, participants involved their ex-spouses and children in the coming out

90 process to other members of their immediate and extended families. Despite the identification of positive responses in their gay identity disclosures, all participants spoke of the challenges they experienced telling their fathers.

Times are so much different today as they were when I was growing up. Today you see

postings in social media with fathers’ writing letters of love and support to their gay sons.

This was a reality back in the day… Sons were taught to look up to their fathers as role

models. Nobody ever wants to disappoint the person they are expected to reflect the

most. (Ted, age 58)

My father took a long time to come around. We went from ex-communicated to daily

conversations. Everyone in this transition requires time, compassion and support!

(Gene, age 46)

I grew up in a family that was very homophobic. I’ve told everyone except my father.

Having grown up in this world, you learn to live the straight life. I got tired of dealing

with the dualities of my identity. (Peter, age 40)

All of the participants except one eventually came out to their father. They spoke of how they rallied supports from other family members and friends in the event of adverse responses from their fathers.

For several participants, the allies of support came from those that they least expected.

Such allies included their spouses and church communities.

I consider myself to be one of the luckiest men, gay fathers on this planet! After 4 years

of marriage I notified my wife that I was attracted to men and considered myself

bisexual. We believed that our spiritual connection to God and our community would

keep me from sinning. Years later, my wife initiated the conversation and asked if I was

gay. After years of pain, I said yes. We lived in a blended orientation relationship for a

short period of time. We then decided to come out to our spiritual community and we

received what felt as unconditional love and support. (Jay, age 55)

I was quite selective in my coming out to my family and friends. Before getting married,

I informed my wife that I was attracted to men. We decided to get married and live our

lives under the guidance of the church. After coming out to my family and friends, I was

surprised that the church supported me as a man who happened to be gay. (Samuel, age

44)

Coming out as both a gay man and gay father doubles the stress and possible

marginalization in all aspects of our lives. It is almost as though identities represent a

constant negotiation filled with an ongoing assessment of safety, need for acceptance, and

retribution by others that wish that both gay men and gay fathers remained silent and

invisible. I should know: I was once this very person who wished to silence gay men.

This makes me sad to revisit as I once treated others, as I now fear today. (Jack, age 47)

Despite their courageous acts of coming out, the reality that is that from this point forward, coming out represents a family affair.

Category 3: Fatherhood Identity Development

The process of experiencing fatherhood occurs long before gay men become fathers. For all the participants, the experience of fatherhood represented a unique experience in their own roles as sons. What became apparent is that one’s identity development as a father appears to be influenced by the similar constructs that have attempted to define gay identity. The difference in the development of fatherhood identity is that all of the participants had positive and negative role models as fathers. Common to the gay fatherhood experience was the desire to define

92 fatherhood from a reflexive stance of self-awareness. For many gay fathers, the intersection of their gay and father identities represents a significant milestone in their evolution of living as authentic human beings.

Figure 5: Category 3 – Fatherhood Development

Modeling the message

Straight Fatherhood Defining Fatherhood/Gay Development "Fatherhood" Fatherhood

Fathers as sons

Defining “fatherhood.” In my discussions with participants, the concept of fatherhood and the inherent meaning of being a parent were originally limited to an intellectual definition.

For many, the concept of fatherhood was best defined as the act of getting their ex-wives pregnant; however, when placed within an emotional realm, gay fathers were able to identify with a much deeper awareness. The notion of being a father as who they were instead of what they had accomplished was filled with significant meaning beyond the title of “father” worn by many men in society. The what of fatherhood was often reflected based on their experiences and

93 social observers of fatherhood as children. The who required gay fathers to explore processes of presence, positive role-modelling, and caregiving to their children.

Everyone assumes that a father is something that happens when you achieve

insemination. I view the experience of fatherhood as a lifelong process! I remember

when I told my parents that we (my ex-wife and I) were pregnant; my father said, “You

did it!” It was as if, I had achieved one of my fundamental roles as a man. Through

reflection, I see fatherhood as a privilege to be experienced far beyond reproduction.

(Rick, age 59)

I have come to accept and appreciate that being a father is a lifelong process. I used to

think that my role was to raise my children until they were independent adults. I hope

that my role in my children’s lives will continue well beyond my initial expectations.

Fatherhood can be a rewarding experience. (Michael, age 52)

The distinction between fatherhood as an act versus an identity offers insight into who a gay father can be, rather than what he is expected to become. For many, fatherhood in a process that is experienced, not a specific role that one is assigned. The notion of fatherhood as an enduring relationship echoed throughout the experiences of the participants.

Fathers as sons. Gay fathers often enter into an introspective reflection of what it truly means to be a father. In doing so, gay fathers reflect upon their social learning processes of what it means to subsequently be a child of a father. The ability to consider the experiences of their children came from their careful and emotional recollections of the roles their fathers played in their lives. Several of the participants spoke candidly about growing up with fathers that were authoritarian as well as being physically and emotional absent. Several spoke to the inherent lack of connection they experienced with their fathers pre-coming out. All acknowledged their

94 desire to have more meaningful and emotional connections with their fathers, free from traditional definitions of fatherhood and masculinity. For many, the message of failing to meet their fathers’ expectations is still present in their current lives.

It was tremendously difficult being a son to my father. I never connected with him… he

always wanted me to work on projects with him in the workshop and he would grow

increasingly impatient over the years with my talents and interests he identified as “girly”

and “fairy.” At times, to this very day, I feel that I have been a forever disappointment.

(Tony, age 38)

My father never really had the opportunity to know me as the person I really am. We

were quite close and spent most of our free time together – camping, fishing, and hunting.

He died of cancer a year before I came out. I would never label my father as

homophobic, nor as liberally open-minded. Society stole my ability to be who I was

when my father was living. Not being my authentic self with my father represents a very

dark stain on the very fabric of my sole. (Jack, age 47)

Long before I came out, I tried to be the dad that he [my father] wasn’t. He was never, I

mean part of it was generational, but he was never involved in our lives. He went to

work, came home, read the newspaper and went to bed. He was not involved in our lives

at all. (Nick, age 47)

Through their own experiences of self-nurturance during their coming out processes, gay fathers extend their new way of knowing their emotional capacities to their relationships with their children. The essence of being a different father than they had experienced as children provided motivation to bring their concepts of fatherhood into a more modern day representation of their children’s needs. Part of becoming the fathers they wished they had, the participants in

95 this study often adopted non-traditional roles as caregivers. By taking active roles in their children’s lives, participants often experienced fatherhood in ways they could never imagine.

My relationship with my father was one filled with consistent criticism and fear of

consequences for not meeting his expectations. My dad reinforced everyday social

expectations of men. His only emotion was anger. I never saw him cry. When I cried I

became a sissy or disappointment. I lived my life yearning for his acceptance and caring

touch. (Gene, age 46)

Fatherhood today is nothing like my experience as a son in the baby-boomer generation.

Our family completes domestic chores together and we actively challenge gender

stereotypes by simply doing what needs to be done so that we can have as much time

together. I show affection towards my children and never let a day pass without them

hearing that I love them. While I knew my father loved me, I never heard those words

from his mouth. (Ted, age 58)

In becoming a father beyond traditional values, I made the decision to be the opposite of

what I experienced as a child. Each evening, I made time for each of my children and

made a habit of letting them know each evening that they were safe and loved

unconditionally. (Michael, age 52)

Since coming out, participants have experienced marginalization and stigmatization in different ways. With this in mind, participants acknowledged the positive impact such realities have played on their abilities to emotional and spiritually connect with the children and partners.

For many, they live each moment with intention and unconditional love.

I have come to realize that strong male figures, even fathers, have emotions. Yesterday I

I went to the movies with my daughter. I cried during the movie and she put her head on

my shoulder. Not once, not once… did I question the social meaning [tears]… it was a

special moment between the two of us! (Shane, age 29)

Straight fatherhood/gay fatherhood. In their transitions from traditional definitions of fatherhood, identified by participants as “straight fatherhood,” the ability to adopt a new identity within gay fatherhood required experiential learning and self-reflection. In retrospect, gay fathers called upon the social privileges that required them to instil and maintain their straight fatherhood identities. The consequences continued their need to manage multiple identities.

Gay fathers took upon these identities for numerous reasons, protection of self, and family. In a painful recollection, Jay (age, 55) commented: “[tears] My daughter and son (as teens) often reflect on how sad I appeared [before coming out], void of identity. My struggles became theirs, even though I thought I thought I was skilled at masking my pain.” In their numerous discussions with their children throughout the post-coming out years, gay fathers reported that their children were cognizant that their fathers were engaged in internal struggles. As gay fathers are conscious of their need to move beyond traditional definitions of masculinity, it appears that their children are as equipped to support them in accepting ways as well.

I’ve actually had it pretty easy as a gay dad. I’m not sure it will always be that way. My

girls have not asked a lot of questions. They’ve been very accepting. I think they see

that I’m happy. They saw the angry dad before and they see the happy dad now; they

understand why things had to change. (Jack, age 47)

For many gay fathers, the fear of losing their children and subsequent access as a custodial parent is nothing compared to the potential loss of the love of their children.

My identity as a gay man has been an evolution or an understanding and acceptance of

myself and it took place after the birth of my four children. So, from my perspective,

fatherhood came first. My identity as a gay male came second. (Samuel, age 44)

Gay fathers often adopt of the father who is gay over the gay father identity label. They are first and foremost fathers.

Modelling the message. Within the process of exploring the meaning of fatherhood, gay fathers come to realize that being fathers necessitates moving beyond the biological act of fatherhood and committing to the journey of parenting for the rest of their lives. The notion of being genuine required participants to identify and address the impact of social stigma on their internal process; while accepting that being themselves would challenge everything they once learned about fatherhood. Being authentic as gay fathers required gay fathers to accept the inaccuracy of the historical equation that gay + father = not a possibility. Through their recalculation of this one unsolvable equation, gay fathers model the essential to their children and communities: be true to yourself and experience the possibilities that exist beyond the expectations of others.

I don’t think that you can be a good father to your kids if you are living a secret life or a

hidden life. You’re not being true to the life you should be living if you are always

angry… I think you owe it to your kids to be, true. Love who you are, so that you can

love your kids. (Ted, age 58)

By being who I am, despite the hardship and pain, I feel that I am inviting my children to

live their lives with integrity and compassion. My initial fears of losing my children have

been replaced with closer connections that would have never been possible if I hadn’t

accepted myself as a gay man. (Peter, age 40)

Years after coming out to my family, I am always amazed when my children refuse to

censor the fact that I am gay. On one occasion, my daughter corrected a heterosexist

assumption made by a schoolmate’s mother. She said, “Yes, that's right! Our family is

gay! We have a mother who loves us as well, and an amazing father who happens to be

gay!” (Jay, age 55)

Through their modelling of the message, children of gay fathers often carry the message of openness, inclusiveness, and authenticity to their communities at large.

Category 4: Shifting of Identity

The ability to conceptualize and appreciate the importance of their experiences as gay fathers is contingent upon their ability to critically reflect on their relationships with their ex- spouses, children, and present or future same-sex relationships. For many gay fathers, the initial experience of being married to a woman represented the first step in their desires to achieve their goals of fatherhood. The shifting of identity required gay fathers to revisit their experiences of participating in the hegemonic ideal. While their divorces, precipitated by their coming out as gay men, represented emotionally challenging periods of time in their lives, participants identified more meaningful relationships and connections with their children and ex-spouses.

Figure 6: Category 4 – Shifting of Identity

Blending the family

Shifting of Identity

The Gay hegemonic father/child ideal relationships

The hegemonic ideal. As men, gay fathers once achieved the hegemonic ideal by meeting the expectations of others. However, in the shifting of their identities, gay fathers appear to abandon the notions of traditional fatherhood, while still subscribing to elements of the hegemonic ideal. The ability to move forward in their current identities resulted from their ability to name and deconstruct social stigma. In order to do so, gay fathers recalled their mixed feelings on the days that they secured their first step in maintaining the hegemonic ideal: the day they married their ex-wives. While their intentions were innocent in nature, their reflections of the day they secured the approval of others (i.e., their fathers), resulted in mixed feelings of happiness and joy with inauthenticity, regret, and shame.

I can still recall the amazing feelings that I experienced on my wedding day. Everyone

was so happy! I was the eldest son and I was fulfilling an expectation that was assigned

100

to me at birth. I was to get married and produce children to carry on the family name. I

sincerely did not believe that I was doing any wrong. Why? Because I decided that my

feelings toward other men, if acted upon would have more significant consequences than

the alternative. I was fulfilling my duty to my family and community as a whole! (Rick,

age 59)

I remember feeling every emotion imaginable on my wedding day. On one hand, I felt as

though my life was just beginning, while inside the possibility of being someone else

died. I remember the smile on my father’s face – he was proud. For me, marriage was

the only way! It’s not about whether it was right or wrong… it’s what was expected.

(Shane, age 29)

The language of expectation and fulfillment of their social duties placed participants in extremely vulnerable positions. On one hand, they would be in a space to become the biological fathers they desire, while on the other they would continue to silence their same-sex orientations.

In their marriages to their wives, gay fathers experienced true love, intimacy, and relationship satisfaction.

I truly loved my wife and was constantly bombarded with guilt. We created two human

lives together, shared our dreams. Each day as our family grew, a part of me died. We,

my wife and I, became distant and she asked me if I was gay. I cried and she held me

with the loving caress she had always given me. In that moment, we became close. As

our marriage ended, our friendship began. (Gene, age 46)

I have known my wife my entire life. We are best friends. I state to this very day that I

was not aware of my same-sex attractions until after we married at a young age. In our

culture and community, there were no gay couples or openly gay men. I always felt a

101

closeness to other males, but it wasn’t until I was in my early 30s that I met Steve and

experienced a love I never knew was imaginable. My loving wife encouraged me to

explore my feelings and supported me in my subsequent coming out process. (Samuel,

age 44)

Sure it took time, however, we [almost like a married couple] processed the experience

together. We communicated with such clarity and honesty. At one point in time we took

time away from each other to heal. I assumed initially that she would never speak to me

again. Today we speak, not only as co-parents, but also as close friends. (Jay, age 55)

With the exception of one participant in this study, the dissolution of their marriages resulted in more meaningful and emotional connections with their ex-wives.

Gay father/child relationships. As openly gay fathers, participants acknowledged that the transition and acceptance of their children required patience and unconditional love. For many, the once fear of losing their children’s love was overcome by the increased closeness they felt with their children. Based on their recollections of their children’s responses, gay fathers in this study recalled feeling an immediacy of newness in connecting with their children. Children of gay fathers often surprise their parents with their abilities to adapt to change. Having experienced their own identity formations, the transformative nature of their coming out brought their desired roles of fatherhood into place.

It is very hard to explain the moment; it was as if we connected like we had never before.

My son reminded me of myself as a son… distant and disengaged. As I cried, he cried as

well. He hugged me in a way that I never thought possible. To this very day, we are

forever connected on a much deeper level. (Tony, age 38)

102

Gay fathers often recall the specific moment in time when they realized that one day they would have to disclose their gay identities to their children.

I knew the day my eldest daughter was born that someday I would have to explain to her

that her dad was gay. [When coming out to my children] I said to my kids the reason

why I am doing this is because I wanted them to understand the importance of being

authentic… for me being courageous and having the integrity to stand up for who I am,

was a model for my kids. (Samuel, age 44)

I remember one evening, I was sitting with my son and he was quite upset about being

bullied at school. I recall telling him that it was important to be himself and stand up for

himself. In that moment, I realized that one day, I too would need to take my own

advice! (Jay, age 55)

It happened one evening when a television was on in the living room. I believe it was

Will and Grace. The episode depicted a gay male couple as fathers. You have to

understand that this concept was quite foreign to my upbringing and me. I listened with

surprise when my daughter said, “I totally support gay men being fathers. I wish all kids

could have an awesome father like we do!” For me, my relationship with my children, in

this moment represented the beginning of my personal emancipation from societal

expectation. (Gene, age 46)

Being aware of, and trusting in, their authentic parental instincts became focal points in the expression of the gay fatherhood experience.

While originally providing for the basic needs of their children, gay fathers in this study extended their roles to include the peripheral needs of nurturance that they often desired from their own fathers.

103

As a younger boy I promised myself that I would never be like my father. In retrospect, I

am like my father; however, I have opened myself to new ways of being a dad. I have

close relationships with my children, and there is nothing I would ever do to change the

deepness I feel watching them grow into strong, open-minded young adults. (Tony, age

38)

I feel a tremendous sense of connection to my daughters. As they hurt, I hurt. I

understand how it feels to be different and teased by others. I am more active in their

lives. My conceptualization of my role as father has changed from provider to nurturer. I

feel blessed. (Nick, age 39)

The notion of becoming a father, rather than being a father resulted from their individual journeys as gay men. Becoming a father became a process of ongoing connection and nurturance.

Blending the family. Gay fathers enter into relationships with other gay men as they return to the social dating scene. The relationship statuses of participants during this study ranged from single (not dating), single and dating, common-law commitments, and marriage to men. At the time of this study, various political shifts occurred throughout the world that both celebrated and perpetuated ongoing injustices towards same-sex marriage. Six of the 12 participants were in relationships that were either common-law or married. The remaining participants were open to the option and/or possibility of becoming married to another man in the future. Again, the possibility of being openly recognized as a married spouse of another man was a reality that was once deemed impossible in the early stages of their lives. The notion of blending their families involves a collaborative process between gay fathers and their children.

104

For a period of time in my life, I had to take care of myself. I became distanced from my

daughters as I attempted to find myself. Today, my girls come first and this is reinforced

to them through my presence, actions and unconditional love. With my current boyfriend

of three years, we have established a new family and way of being. Commitment to the

safety of all members of our inclusive home comes first. Marriage has been discussed –

consistently reinforced by our children. (Jay, age 55)

In the blending of our family, my current husband and our children live together half-

time in our house. When we originally started dating my children met him, my ex-wife

adored him and we grew as a whole. At our wedding, our ex-wives walked us down the

aisle and our children stood up for us at the altar. (Gene, age 46).

For many gay fathers, the move to same-sex marriage represents a communal decision as they redefine their personal definitions of family and unconditional love.

Category 5: Protection and Place

Beyond the social barriers that exist for all members of LGBT communities in Canada, gay fathers and their families continue to experience significant obstacles in their subsequent roles as fathers and members of a family system. Gay fathers experience stigma from various systems within society. Despite experiencing their own levels of oppression, gay fathers place the concerns of their children and families above their own. For many, experiencing resistance from mainstream and gay cultures is manageable on a personal level, however, when it comes to their children, their safety and wellbeing is prioritized over all else. The shared experience of gay fathers is identifying and confronting homophobia and heterosexism as it impacts their abilities to parent and raise their children as full participants in society.

105

Figure 7: Category 5 – Protection and Place

Advocacy

The need for Challenges Finding place mental health and and resources Barriers membership

Safe-guarding our children

Finding place and membership? One the most concerning moments during the process of identifying as a gay father is the potential multiple marginalization that results from being a gay man and a father. This experience speaks to the notion of “double jeopardy,” the experience of discrimination from two perceived incompatible identity communities. In their attempts to come out as gay men, gay fathers often experience mixed responses from their various community and cultural memberships. This often results in gay fathers lingering in their attempts to find their ‘place’ within their communities. Consistent in the process of maintaining their gay fatherhood identities, gay fathers experience mixed reactions from: (a) gay men who carry the belief that gay men cannot be fathers, (b) mainstream culture where their identities are in direct conflict with the hegemonic ideal, and (c) lack of connection with other gay fathers within a conservative culture. As gay fathers attempt to rebuild their individual and family

106 identities, they often experience a delayed cultural shift that impacts their abilities to find space and membership in communities that have historically been rendered incompatible.

In discussions of their post-coming out experiences in connecting with other gay men, several participants identified with a new form of silent suffering, the withholding of their fatherhood identity from other gay men. For many, this represented a new closeting effect, as they feared rejection from the gay community. In their re-entry into the social scene of dating and meeting other gay men, gay fathers often experience elements of trepidation and fear of potential rejection from others who are unable to identify with their roles as gay fathers.

Several things were quite frightening. First, getting back into the dating scene and

second, dating gay men. I had never been on a date with a guy before. I desperately

wanted to tell him about my daughter; however, he had been out since his early twenties.

I wondered if he would be open to the fact that I had a child or if our date would end on

the spot. Hence, I decided to wait to share my fatherhood identity in order to limit

potential disappointments. (Michael, age 52)

I remember the horror on one guy’s face as I said, “There is something I need to tell you

[pause] I have [pause] children. His response was not positive, stating, “Gay men don’t

have children, why did you adopt?” This was the first time as a gay man that I felt

unaccepted by another gay man. Sadly, it wasn’t the last. (Peter, age 40)

It is difficult to imagine a world where an individual courageously self-identifies as a gay man and subsequently experiences isolation and rejection from the very community he is attempting to become acculturated within. For many gay fathers, rejection based the fact that they have children is a challenging construct to manage. Nick (age 47) stated, “It wasn’t until I joined a gay fathers group that I realized the common experience of rejection by gay men who

107 are not fathers.” For many, silencing their fatherhood identities significantly resembled the closeting effect of withholding their sexual identity orientations.

In their attempts to find space in which they can situate themselves in society, gay fathers continue to find themselves in a delayed transformative state where social and cultural values impact their abilities to successful integrate and/or merge their cultural identities.

We [gay family] feel caught between mainstream culture and the gay community. My

girls have been teased at school and my partner and I have been excluded from social

gatherings with other gay men. I will not allow my family to occupy the closet that

remains vacant in our family development. (Jay, age 55)

In retrospect, if it wasn’t for my ability to draw upon supports from the “straight world”

and the “gay world” I would have never survived. I became quite creative in calling

upon my network for survival. Sadly, there appeared to be no overlap between these two

worlds. I feared that to come out would leave me dangling in an abyss of unsupported

loneliness. (Tony, age 38)

If it weren’t for the gay fathers group and the amazing dads that I have met over the

years, I would not be here talking with you today. In the very moments that I felt I could

not continue, this amazing community of gay fathers help me stay strong and keep my

focus on the bigger picture… my children. (Francois, age 49)

In essence, gay fathers call upon numerous internal and external resources in their attempts to successfully acculturate into two competing cultures that are both slow in moving beyond forced assimilation and negligible accommodation.

Safeguarding our children. As gay fathers discuss their children, they often recall their own fears of losing their children and the love they experience in their privileged roles as straight

108 fathers. Beyond the immediate loss of their children’s love, gay fathers are and continue to experience concerns regarding the physical, emotional, and social wellbeing of their children.

Gay fathers identify fears of bullying and social exclusion as outcomes their children may experience due to having a gay father.

When I was first coming out, I was burdened by the worry of how my children would be

treated because their father is gay. I played out hundreds of scenarios in my head

regarding all the rejections and hatred I experienced… fearing this would also become

their reality as well. (Francois, age 49)

Through the exploration and conscious problem solving associated to their concerns around their children’s safety, gay fathers call upon their extended families and social support systems to protect and advocate on behalf of their children and families. Gay fathers and their allies rally together to minimize any potential harm their children may experience.

For many gay fathers, the strong relationship they maintain with their ex-spouses assist in the continued protection of their children. The extended nature of their families allows them to be present within social institutions such as schools and the education system. For many gay fathers, historically turbulent relationships with their ex-spouses are remedied by the shared love for their children. In several cases, family representation is inclusive of current same-sex partners.

We, my current spouse, and my ex-wife work very hard to support our children and keep

them out of harm’s way. We attend parent[s]-teacher nights together and identify

ourselves with openness and care. Overall, the response from schools and community

organizations has been mostly positive. (Michael, age 52)

109

Through their active modelling of unconditional love and care for their children’s safety, gay fathers often experience the realization that such concerns for them are expressed by their children. The mutuality of unrestricted love between gay fathers and their children reinforces the very essence of the parent-child bond. For gay fathers and their children, wellbeing and safety for all family members presents a shared initiative.

Something deep within my soul changed the day I became a father! Living was no longer

about me, myself and I. It was about the precious souls I brought into this world. For me

it was about creating safety for them… before me. Overtime, I came to realize the very

essence of unconditional love is reciprocity… keeping each other safe from a socially

delayed world. (Rick, age 59)

Armed with the knowledge that prejudice and discrimination are present within all systems of their lives, gay fathers and their children work together to combat and educate others about the unique and culturally relevant aspects of their family systems.

We look forward to the day when the normalcy of family structures include same-sex

parents and their children. Imagine how liberating it would be for a child to draw their

family in a photo without censorship due to fear of being scrutinized by their peers,

teachers and society. We are hopeful that this day will come soon. (Jack, age 47)

The need for mental health resources. In their attempts to navigate their coming out processes as well as accessing services for their nuclear and extended families, gay fathers once again find themselves in need for social and mental health services. In their early stages of identity formation, numerous gay fathers experienced the pathologizing nature of the medical model that deemed them as sick and/or deviant. As the social and political climates shifted within Canadian culture, gay fathers took their chances in seeking out and accessing counselling

110 and other mental health services. For many, the reality of their historical treatment created significant distrust and discomfort with the mental health wellness community. Many were dependent upon referrals from other gay fathers who were lucky to have found gay affirmative counselling practitioners within their immediate communities.

My combined experience and the stories that I have heard from other gay fathers seemed

to echo the reality that the health professions have not been adequately trained and or

prepared to assist gay men, let alone gay fathers. The reality is the experience has often

resulted in gay fathers being shamed and labeled perpetrators in the destruction of their

ex-spouses and children’s lives. (Rick, age 59)

Coming out represented my own personal hell. I felt alone and yearned for connection

with other gay men in my situation. After building my courage to speak to a counsellor, I

was left feeling that I was being judged and that my desire to express my authentic

identity was silenced by accusations of selfishness and emotional infidelity. (Peter, age

40)

Embedded in the disclosures of gay identity to mental health practitioners often existed the assumption that gay men as fathers entered into their marriages with women with the intention of misleading and/or deceiving their wives. The internalization of such values and beliefs often resulted in increased levels of stigmatization and shame. On numerous occasions, one participant recalled thinking, “My God, what have I done to this poor woman and children?”

(Francois, age 49)

Such negative experiences often impacted the decisions of gay fathers, after coming out to their spouses and children, to explore family systems counselling. For many, the historical experiences of once calling upon health practitioners in earlier stages of their identity formations

111 impacted their initial openness to counselling intervention. One participant stated, “Why on

Earth would I expose my ex-wife and children to the negativity I endured in counselling?” (Rick, age 59). For many, the choice to attend counselling was due to the nature of their initial separations and subsequent divorces. “I was shocked to note that there were counsellors who specialized in LGBT mental health needs!” (Tony, age 38). For the majority of participants, accessing counsellors with specializations in their areas of need might have resulted in stronger relationships for gay fathers, their ex-spouses and children.

In speaking with other gay fathers in my social group and online networks, I was able to

successfully identify a counsellor in my community that could fully “understand” and

“appreciate” first hand. He too was a gay father and was able to first assist me, and then

he successfully integrated my family into our therapeutic relationship. We saw him as a

family for over a year! We now consider him to have been a significant contribution to

keeping our family together. (Jack, age 47)

We were fortunate to find a family counsellor that was open to our experience. She

helped us negotiate our family transition. Without her support and openness to our

experience, I fear that our family would have suffered. Many gay men who are fathers

are dependent on the Internet and peer groups for support. Specialists to support gay

fathers, ex-spouses, and most importantly, the children are desperately needed. (Gene,

age 46)

Recognition of gay fathers’ identities and the representation of their families are of vital importance in accessing social and institutional services.

Whether people like it or not, queer families represent Canadian families as well! Our

family chooses to educate through being out and proud about who we are! We don’t

112

have time to experience the discomforts of allied health professionals who cannot

practice outside their limited perspectives…it is time to move beyond old ways of

experiencing and celebrating families. (Tony, age 38)

For many, the historical constructs of traditional family values continue to limit and silence their experiences as functioning queer family systems.

Advocacy. Whether or not they like it or choose to acknowledge it, gay fathers engage in advocacy roles. The notion that the person is political repetitively presented itself through the parallel processes of intrapersonal self-exploration and the historical challenging of belief systems that rendered them as the pathological other. Gay fathers actively engage in various advocacies through their personal identity development. Upon reflecting on their developmental milestones, gay fathers appear to shy away from their historical notions of activism. For many, the burden of silencing gay advocates during their own internal and external oppressions towards the LGBT communities represented significant sources of shame and embarrassment. The process of coming out as a gay man while in the role of father offered a healing experience where participants were able to counter their historical acts of oppression with personal and social empowerment.

I was never the person in the room to acknowledge or challenge social injustice. With

sadness, I fear that I often played passive participant in the acts of discrimination and

prejudice. Having a child, coming out and being a gay father has placed me in an life-

role where I advocate for those who are presently in a space where I once was. My

greatest offering is as an openly gay father. (Rick, age 59)

113

For many, the very act of being an openly, gay, and proud father presents the ultimate in social justice activism. In such positions, gay fathers offer visibility and presence as role models providing to others what was not present for them in their experiences.

The need to assist others and contribute to social change is present in the retrospective and present desires of gay fathers. The inherent desire to evoke change is often frustrated by the delayed evidence of their contributions. In resolving such nuisances, gay fathers often look to historical evidence to fuel their desires to contributors to positive representations of gay fatherhood in Canada.

I remember attending a gay pride parade in Montreal years ago [to support a friend of

mine who was just coming out]. The streets became silent as a flash mod dressed in

wedding garments broke into song, singing “Going to the chapel and we’re gonna get

married…” I remember thinking – this will never happen! Years later, it happened [the

right for same-sex individuals to get married]. Just like when I told myself I could never

be a father and a gay man. Guess what? It happened. My participation in this study is

about helping others through their journey! (Francois, age 49).

For gay fathers, being a part of social change reinforces and validates the challenges and triumphs they experienced in their personal and collective journeys.

Gay fathers experience advocacy and activism through various multigenerational lenses.

The shared experience exists within the awareness that without the activism of others, their abilities to come out and be openly gay fathers may not have been possible. With such awareness, those not in spaces to advocate as others have traditional, identify the areas in which they have greatest influence and impact in assisting others in their own gay fatherhood journeys.

114

To this very day, I have never attended a gay pride event. I have never carried a sign,

banner, or chanted in socially rallies. I have, however, lived by example. In my

professional life, I have opportunities to influence social policy and help shape

legislation. If others hadn’t advocated before me, my contributions would be built on

really shaking grounds. Every action of change and social advocacy creates an energy

waiting to be reenergized. (Nick, age 47)

Through their commitment to social justice, gay fathers ignite and shift social discourse through their very acts of courage and presence in all sectors of society.

Category 6: The Authentic Self

The notion of the authentic self represented a core milestone in which gay fathers situated themselves within their current life situations. Embedded in this concept of self exists increased levels of self-confidence, self-esteem, and self-efficacy. For gay fathers, the courage and resilience to endeavour unchartered waters results in the ability to remain consistent within their identities across time and space. The ability to situate one’s self within one’s own skin requires a deep and empathetic intrapersonal relationship. Such internal connections with one’s self expands gay fathers’ abilities to connect with their children, partners, and community members as genuine human beings.

To be gay is a deeper accurate understanding of who I am on an intimate level. I, for the

first time in my life have a level of intimacy that I have never experienced with any other,

with any woman and so... the clarity comes. Each day I live a new truth that extends

deep into my core. With self-nurturance, I consistently remind myself of the endless path

of opportunities that exist for me as a proud and out gay father! (Rick, age 59)

115

As a process, the authentic self does not occur within a nutshell. Gay fathers bravely engage in shared and unique transitions, which call upon their abilities to revisit, review, renegotiate, and reconstruct their individual concepts of self. For many, they are the architects of their new foundations from which to cement the pillars as their authentic selves. In finding meaning within their identity formations, gay fathers create new meanings of their experiences as fathers and gay men. The process of achieving such a developmental milestone requires active deconstruction of their historical truths.

I used to love a song, I can’t recall the title but it went something like this… “I am what I

am, I am my own special creation.”2 For many years, I lived a recycled sense of self…

reduced and reused to fit a mold of expectation. Today, I am reincarnate, a true

representation of my authentic self, from the inside out. (Francois, age 49)

By attending to and questioning the very core foundations that once pre-defined their concepts of self, gay fathers break free of the social shackles which held them captive for years.

The language of rebirth and subsequent reawakening surfaces as gay fathers merge their identities as gay men and fathers. In the early stages of their process of identity negotiations as gay fathers, the identities of gay men and gay fathers represented two independent concepts of self. In moving towards the authentic self, gay fathers come to discover that the marriage of these once contradicting identities highlights the essential essence of who they have become, not what they once were.

There’s still always that authentic person inside that tends to be the core of who I am. I

think that that’s been my process of discovery. I have to come to a place of

understanding... of inner peace – the authentic me. I said to my sister in law the other

2 The song being referenced is I am What I am by Gloria Gaynor.

116

day; when I pass away, on my tombstone all I want is one word. That word is authentic.

My discovery of who I am, reveals more and more the authentic person I have become.

(Ted, age 58)

As my experience as a gay father continues throughout my lifetime, I look forward to

bringing my experiences to the forefront of social justice. While my experience has

represented some significant hardships, I wouldn’t change who or what I am for the

world. I need to share my processes in an effort to assist others and ease the potential

pain I once endured. (Jack, age 47)

In being part of this... my ultimate, what I would like to see is the ultimate outcome from

my perspective would be to help change societies views of the gay man not or should not

be a parent and to show that we are like any other family, heterosexual family. When

child X, my daughter child X, when she was going through school she was very proud to

go around saying she had three dads. She had no problem with that and in hearing about

the other kids in her classes throughout the years our family was probably the most stable

of the all. (Gene, age 46)

Summary of Grounded Theory

The grounded theory presented in this study presented a preliminary framework from which to revisit previous existing research on gay fatherhood, as well as to continue the discussion of the role counselling practitioners can play in assisting them along this existential identity formation process. Three common milestones were identified by each of the participants and will assist in the summary of the grounded theory: (1) heterosexual marriage with child(ren),

(2) coming out, and (3) gay fatherhood identity. Each will be discussed in turn.

117

Heterosexual Marriage with Children

Long before their actual marriages to women and subsequent rearing of children, gay fathers embark on an identity exploration that was historically plagued by dominant culture discourse and values. Participants in this study consistently called out and reflected upon their experiences as children and adolescents in a world that was lacking in positive gay role models, minimal tolerance and acceptance, and the pathologization of same-sex attractions. For many, the script was prescribed: in order to be a father, one must assume traditional masculine values, get married and have children. For many, the desire to be a father came with significant costs – the greatest being to their sense of self. Years of observing the social, medical and political climates towards homosexuality instilled fear and pain. Like other gay men, the consequences of identifying and disclosing their gay identities would have resulted in their perceived loss of their fatherhood capacities – after all, the social script during their foundation years did not author positive narratives of gay men in general, let alone as fathers.

The impact of role models cannot be overlooked in this discussion. Specifically, the social roles of the traditional family values negatively impacted the identity formation of participants in this study. During childhood and adolescence, gay fathers were consistently bombarded with gender role stereotypes and traditional masculinities. Breaking free of such constructs often resulted in social shaming and other forms of social reparation processes. The very essence of playing the role of family member within the heterosexual construct only reinforced the necessity to adopt the philosophy of keeping up with appearances. The notion of silent suffering was a consistent experience that emerged in the very early gay fatherhood identification process. Silent suffering, or the space from which one adopts a false identity to hide their authentic self, represented both an internal and external pathologization of self. What

118 became clear from the participants was that to be openly gay would have had dire consequences.

The result was participants experiencing significant elements of identity confusion, dissonance, and internal feelings of being incomplete.

For many participants, getting married and having a biological family represented the only means to experience fatherhood. Many participants feared that people would assume that they misled or manipulated their ex-spouses into marriage under false pretences. The reality was for most participants, that their same-sex attractions were only temporary or in need of ongoing censorship. Most interestingly, the men in this study connected their need to accept themselves after having their children. All participants spoke of the role that their fatherhood identities played in their subsequent decisions to accept themselves as gay men and to come out to their spouses and children. Hence, for participants in this study, the foundations years (childhood and adolescence), specifically their participation in their nuclear families, coupled by societal norms reinforced homosexuality as the pathological other, resulted in the internalization and subsequent attempts to silence any and all same-sex desires. The result was feelings of identity fragmentation and the dissonant self.

Coming Out

For gay fathers, the coming out process is both a challenging and rewarding experience.

The coming out process moved beyond an internal self-awareness of same-sex attractions to personal acceptance of self as gay. For many, what was once a distant change of being gay or at least a straight man that had the occasional attraction to men became a reality. What is unique to the coming out experiences of gay fathers in this study is that their disclosures occurred on multiple levels. Coming out to self represented a significant and timely process due to intrapersonal, interpersonal and social influences. Upon coming out to themselves, gay fathers

119 sought diverse support systems to leverage their abilities to remain true to themselves while remaining active participants in their children’s’ lives. For many, the historical stories of their counterparts losing their custodial rights and ability to remain in contact their children instilled fear into the lengthy processes.

Despite the negative possibilities that could result from their disclosures of being gay fathers, participants came out to their ex-wives first. In all cases, the final outcome was a coparenting relationship designed to support their children with minimal pain and distraction.

While the responses of their ex-wives varied, the process of transition from traditional family representation to a family system with a gay father required time, patience and mutual understanding. Disclosures to their children were carefully planned and always involved both parents. All fathers in this study experienced intense levels of emotional pain as they witnessed their children adapt to the parental divorce. Many were surprised that their children were so accepting of their father’s gay identity. With the members of their nuclear family on board, gay fathers, their ex-wives and children began a coming out process together (to extended family, relatives and their communities).

Gay Fatherhood Identity

For all of the participants, gay fatherhood identity continued to evolve throughout and beyond the data collection and analysis process for this dissertation. The dual nature of identity embedded in their roles as gay fathers called upon participants to question their historical and present day appreciation for the experience of fatherhood. For many, they are simply dads who happen to gay. The experience and process of fatherhood represents a lifelong process.

Embedded in the gay fatherhood experience exist ongoing possibilities of marginalization and stigmatization toward gay fathers and those they love. The reality of experiencing prejudice and

120 discrimination from the gay community and mainstream culture remains a current reality. In this case, knowledge is power. Knowledge of such possibilities empowers gay fathers to call upon various systems in their lives for support, mentorship, and community.

In their creation of safe and loving environments, gay fathers represent themselves as openly gay men within the community at large. Gay fathers play significant roles in creating and maintaining presence in their roles as educators and advocates. Children, current spouses, and ex-wives blend together to represent themselves as a family system that represents a different way of experiencing unconditional love and acceptance outside traditional family values. What is clear is that gay fathers and their families navigate themselves through some turbulent social and political waters. Despite such challenges and barriers that attempt to render their individual and family identities invisible, gay fathers and their families refuse to disappear or be isolated within the periphery of the pathological other.

Conclusion

The grounded theory presented in this study offers a preliminary framework from which to revisit previous existing research on gay fatherhood, as well as to continue the discussion of the roles counselling practitioners can play in assisting them along this existential identity formation process. Three common milestones were identified by each of the participants and inform the categories and sub-categories entrenched in this grounded theory: (a) heterosexual marriage with child(ren), (b) coming out, and (c) gay fatherhood identity.

Embedded within these transitionary milestones were six categories, which provide theoretical implications to the process in which gay fathers, once married to women negotiate their gay fatherhood identities. These categories included: (a) foundational years, (b) the sexual self, (c) becoming and fatherhood, (d) shifting of identity, (e) protection and place, and (f) the

121 authentic self. Within each of these categories exist several sub-categories that play a significant role in the contextualization and meaning of this grounded theory. The first category of foundational years contained: the nuclear family, societal norms, the pathological other, and the dissonant self. The second category, the sexual self comprised of: who versus what am I, testing the waters, accepting self as gay, and disclosing to family. The third category, becoming and fatherhood consisted of: defining fatherhood, fathers as sons, straight fatherhood/gay fatherhood, and modelling the message. The fourth category entitled shifting of identity included: the hegemonic ideal, gay father/child relationships, and blending the family. Category five, protection and place encompassed: finding place and membership, safeguarding our children, the need for mental health services, and advocacy. The final category of the grounded theory was a standalone classification of the authentic self.

As I stated in Chapter 3, member-checking played a crucial role in the development of this grounded theory. Upon completion of this theoretical framework, I sent an invitation to all

12 of the participants to review Chapter 4 of this dissertation. In my individual communications with participants, I asked them to provide feedback with regards to the accuracy of my interpretations and the subsequent theorization of their processes of gay fatherhood identity development. Ten of the twelve participants responded to my request. Their responses indicated that they were pleased with the chapter and that the theory itself captured their individual processes in becoming the gay fathers they are today.

122

CHAPTER 5. IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSION

In this chapter, I provide the reader with an overview of the implications and contributions of the grounded theory presented in Chapter 4 to the academic and professional practice literature. I have organized this chapter in a manner that integrates and contextualizes the grounded theory with our current understandings in this area. First, I begin this chapter with a brief discussion of the potential contributions of the grounded theory. Second, I explore the implications of the theory to the field of counselling psychology. Within this section, I discuss the essential need to offer counselling support to gay fathers and family members (esp. ex- spouses and children). Third, I engage in a discussion of counselling approaches and interventions necessary to engage in culturally sensitive counselling relationships with gay fathers and their families. This includes: (a) individual counselling, (b) relationship counselling,

(c) family counselling, (d) group counselling, and (e) community-based psychoeducational interventions. Fourth, I propose an integrated approach for helping gay fathers, including feminist and humanistic approaches to counselling. Fifth, I include a call to action through the social justice and ethical practices. Sixth, I provide a brief discussion of the limitations of this study. Finally, I close this chapter with an overview and conclusion for this dissertation.

Contributions and Implications

In preparation for this chapter, I found myself asking the question: “What value if any does this dissertation have to the current academic literature?” After all, shouldn’t all research offer something new and insightful to historical, present, and future discussions in the area of gay fatherhood? Then I realized that discussions of gay fatherhood in Canada have been negligible at best. Hence, the central contribution this research provides exists within the foundational pillars it establishes within the academic and professional literature. The literature

123 in the field of counselling psychology is rich in history and is largely contingent upon theoretical tenets as defined by dominant cultural discourse (Bedi et al., 2011). As the field of counselling psychology progresses beyond the multicultural millennium, so to must the theoretical perspectives that assist with the competent practices in psychological assessment and intervention. Hence, the central contribution of this research is to the theoretical and practical components of counselling psychology practice.

Contributions to the Literature

As the existence of literature exploring gay fatherhood in Canada is highly underrepresented in the field of counselling psychology, I am excited about the foundational role the grounded theory in this dissertation represents to the current and future practice. I would like to remind the reader that the research question explored in this dissertation was: “What is the process of negotiating gay fatherhood identity for men who were once married to women?” I have organized this discussion of the contributions to the literature based on the key categories identified in the grounded theory.

Category 1: Foundational Years

The sub-categories inherent within the category of the foundational years are consistent with the documented literature exploring the historical contexts and subsequent pathologization of gay men throughout history (Rothblum, 1994). Embedded in our current understanding of gay fatherhood in Canada is the reality that times and perspectives have shifted toward more open or

“out” expressions of gay fatherhood in Canada. Gay fathers in the study experienced various forms of oppression and marginalization on intrapersonal, interpersonal and social levels. Such values reinforced the realities as described in the literature that pathologized and othered gay men as socially lacking in status in comparison to their heterosexual counterparts (Patterson,

124

2009). The reader is reminded that for many participants, the context of their childhood and adolescence occurred between the years 1955 to 1975. To add to this context, same-sex behaviour was illegal in Canada before 1969 and homosexuality was pathologized in DSM before 1973 (Alderson, 2013).

Gay fathers in this study actively call upon their experiences as brothers and sons as they move forward in their experiences as parents. Embedded within their experiences, as child and adolescent males were significant psychosocial stressors impacting their abilities to explore their potential sexual identities. Homophobia and heterosexism, coupled with other forms of social oppression including gender role socialization, significantly impacted participants’ abilities to fulfill their innate desires to parent while subsequently adopting a gay male identity. Giesler

(2012) placed a significant onus on gay fathers to rectify the historical incapability between the gay and father. It is essential to note, for gay fathers in this study, who socially presenting themselves as heterosexual prior to social and political shifts supporting gay men, that such a task would have resulted in negative outcomes.

Several scholars call upon the importance that role models play in the development of a positive gay identity (Alderson, 2000, 2002, 3013; Mezey, 2013). The results of this study also suggest the importance positive father role models are regardless of sexual orientation. For many gay fathers, the script was prescribed: in order to be a father, one must assume traditional masculine values, get married, and have children. This lived reality reinforces the historical scripts of hegemonic masculinities, which reinforce dominant culture values and beliefs (Connell

& Messerschmidt, 2005; Mankowski & Maton, 2010). Perhaps times have changed and this is no longer an equation that requires solving in order to achieve or meet one’s procreative fatherhood desires. What we have learned from this study is that later in life, the contributions of

125 positive gay father role models played a significant role in gay fatherhood identity development.

For many gay fathers, the only role models available were of gay men negatively depicted in social media.

Additionally, gay fathers in this study carried significant feelings of guilt and shame as they too participating in homophobic bullying and teasing through the act of othering. This makes sense on numerous levels as the act of othering exists to reinforce one’s hegemonic masculinity (Bridges, 2013; Renold, 2004). Gay fathers in this study identified such behaviour as reminiscent to their intrapersonal struggles with their same-sex attractions during childhood and adolescence. By acting upon their same-sex attractions, several gay fathers in this study became the othered by those close friends they chose to explore their same-sex desires with.

This awareness adds to our understanding of the early childhood and adolescent experiences of gay fathers. Additionally, the awareness for the historical power of traditional masculinities and family values allows us to gain deeper insights into the decision making processes of gay fathers.

Category 2: The Sexual Self

The sub-categories within the category of the sexual self are consistent within the current understanding of gay identity development (Carroll, 2010). The processes by which gay fathers self-identified as gay men and subsequently disclosed their same-sex attractions are consistent with theories and models identified in the literature (Alderson, 2000, 2003; Cass, 1979, 1996;

Troiden, 1979). Within this study and consistent with the academic literature exists the transformative and existential nature of the exploration of self within the context of one’s sexual orientation. This study in tandem with other research challenges the historical assumption that sexual orientation exploration is an adolescent phenomenon. The exploration of self within the

126 context of this category is often riddled with heteronormative messages expressed through internalized and externalized expressions of homophobia and heterosexism.

Within this process of exploring the sexual self exists an interesting transition from that what I am (the sexual act of being same-sex oriented) to the who am I. This would represent the

“connecting with self” (Alderson, 2003, p. 80) or “awareness and exploration” (Fassinger &

Miller, 1997, p. 56) work required of gay men as identified in the gay identity development literature. During this time, gay fathers adopt an identity management persona wherein the direct their multi-selves through challenging social and cultural experiences. For many, there are significant mental health consequences consistent with those identified in the literature, including social anxiety and depression (Farr & Patterson, 2013b; Szymanski & Ikizler, 2013). Within these significant mental health difficulties existed the subsequent management of a potential marginalized identity with a pre-existing identity influenced by hegemonic masculine ideals and privileges.

Gay fathers in this study skilfully manoeuvre themselves through the traditional stages or phases identified in gay identity development models. The theory presented in this dissertation only skims the intense emotional nature of this experience. Within the literature, the work of

Savin-Williams focused on the impact of coming out to parents as an adolescent (Savin-

Williams, 1988, 1989, 1996, 2011). Research to support adolescents and their parents is copious in nature. In this study, the roles are reversed. It is the parent that is disclosing to their children and spouse. In their movement to disclose their gay identities, fathers in this study entered into a transitionary period of “testing the waters.” While eventually an enlightening processes to the development of their authentic selves, the process of exploring was often filled with feelings of

127 shame, guilt, and isolation. These emotions are consistently identified in the literature as gay men move throughout the coming out process (Greene & Britton, 2013).

It is during the time in which gay fathers accept themselves as gay that they begin to actively challenge the historical hegemonic definitions of masculinity and fatherhood. They shift from the once internal pathological stance, to one that “normalizes” their same-sex orientations.

For many, this is the moment in their lives that they come to terms with the fact being a gay man is a part of their core identity. However, in the acceptance of themselves as gay is only the fundamental first step. Gay fathers understandably carry a burden of fear as to the outcomes of their identity disclosures to their spouses. Afterall, historically, gay fathers have been socially and culturally penalized by the courts due to earlier research that rendered them incompatible as healthy parental role models for their children (Bigner & Bozett, 1989; Holtzman, 2013).

Despite the potential social consequences of coming out disclosures, the participants in this study developed specific plans of action that would help them maintain their fatherhood roles, while being open about their same-sex orientations. The disclosing of one’s sexual orientation and the potential responses of loved-ones has been respectively documented in the literature (Alderson, 2013). However, when a father’s children and his subsequent abilities to remain an active participant in their lives are threatened, the potential consequences add additional stressors to an already emotionally demanding process. Such realities and fears tell us about the intense love gay fathers have for their children and reveal a much more sensitive and caring representation of gay fatherhood in comparison to those scripts identified as reinforcements of traditional family values and hegemonic masculinities (Bryan, 2013).

In supporting themselves in their coming out disclosures, gay fathers call upon various systems (internal and external) to assist in this emotional transition. This strategy speaks to the

128 ecological contexts of the coming out experience as identified in Alderson (2003). By

“connecting with the gay [fatherhood] world”, gay fathers access support from role models that have already experienced the journey of disclosure to their wives and children. Additionally, by branching out and seeking support, gay fathers challenge traditional definitions of masculinity by engaging in help-seeking behaviours (Addis & Mahalik, 2003).

Within their families of origin, gay fathers in this study chose to disclose their gay identities to their wives first. While many gay fathers call upon close friends first, gay fathers felt it necessary to tell their wives first as a means of respect. While the end result of their coming out discussions with their wives was positive, an active process of transition (grief, anger, and acceptance) necessitated a strong alliance between the gay father and his wife when disclosing and coming out to their children. This brings to the surface a new understanding of coming out as a family process (Tasker, 2013). Upon the healing process of the gay father’s coming out, participants in this study identified with challenges with telling their families of origin. The ultimate challenge for gay fathers appears to be disclosing their gay identities to their biological fathers. Of most interest was the positive support experienced by gay fathers with their faith communities.

Category 3: Becoming and Fatherhood

In the development of their fatherhood identities, participants in this study reflected upon their own lived experiences as children in homes with both male and female parents. LaRossa

(1988) suggested that the expression of fatherhood represents “shared norms, values and beliefs surrounding men’s parenting” (p. 451). What is unique about this study is that gay fathers represent a subculture within the culture of fatherhood. Throughout my numerous conversations with gay fathers in this study, an underlying subtext existed in the desire to redefine fatherhood

129 as an expression versus an act. In other words, becoming a father is an experience far beyond the initial reproductive act. As gay fathers adopt new forms of expressing their roles as fathers, they develop a reflexive capacity to revisit their own experiences as sons of fathers. Many participants in this study identified traditional expressions of fatherhood and masculinity as the likely culprits in their emotionally distant relationships with their fathers.

As gay fathers self-nurtured themselves through the coming process, it would appear that they experienced a new form of intrapersonal intimacy that ignited their abilities to parent outside of the once hegemonic ideal. The adoption of non-traditional roles of parenting represented a new way of fatherhood expression. This included adopting closer, emotional intimacy with their children, as previously identified in the literature (Bigner, 2000; Patterson,

2009). Gay fathers in this study have something valuable to teach about their unique perspectives as both “straight-identified” and “gay-identified” fathers. During the years in which gay fathers withheld their gay identities from their families and themselves, they experienced significant emotional disconnects on intrapersonal and interpersonal levels. As authentically gay fathers, participants in this study reported a deeper, more connected sense of self, which resulted in a father-children relationship they never deemed possible.

Gay fathers in this study move beyond the surface level of fatherhood and endeavour to model the message that the fatherhood experience is a lifelong journey. This begins with the acceptance that the once irreconcilable equation of “gay + father = not a possibility” is in fact achievable. While not empirically supported, the modelling of being open about one’s sexual orientation and moving beyond the social and cultural scripts of fatherhood expression, gay fathers model to their children and community that inclusiveness and authenticity can result in closer and meaningful relationships. This is consistent with Bigner (2000) who argued that gay

130 fathers are essentially more aware of their children’s needs and role model in accordance with other non-traditional expressions of masculinity and gender role socialization. Such approaches appear in alignment with the intercultural nature of Canadian society.

Category 4: Shifting of Identity

In their abilities to take their familial relationships to the next level, the shifting of identity necessitates a gay father’s ability to retrospectively review the journeys that lead them to their current experiences as gay fathers. In order to do so, gay fathers revisit their role in the perpetuation of the hegemonic ideal and systematically deconstruct the social and cultural factors that contributed to their decision-making processes. With the gift of hindsight, gay fathers recall conflicting emotions and levels of awareness of discrepancies dating back to their wedding days.

In essence, during these times, significant stressors in the form of expectation appear to have taken precedence over the intrapersonal reality that the gay fathers did not fit the mold of social expectation. Despite their ability to move forward and experience positive and meaningful relationships with their ex-spouses, it appears that gay fathers carry a significant burden of guilt and shame with regards to the impact of their coming out on the life trajectories of their ex- spouses.

For many of the participants in this study, the belief that closer relationships with their children would result from their coming out seemed initially inconceivable. Essentially, the shifting of identity within the context of gay fatherhood resulted from simply being a father, to becoming a dad. The fundamental next step in the shifting of identity exists in a gay father’s ability to engage in dating of other gay men free from the talons of secrecy, passing, and or living the down-low. Essentially, gay fathers actively engage their children in their dating lives.

131

The essential contribution to the literature exists in the familial structure and the roles that all family members in the introduction of new people to the family system.

In Chapter 2 of this dissertation, I briefly identified and discussed models of gay fatherhood identity development (Bozett, 1980, 1981, 1988; Miller, 1979a, 1979b). While these models are not within a Canadian context, they offered insights into the possibilities experienced by gay fathers in their identity formation processes. Miller (1979b) argued four stages in the coming out processes of gay fathers. The findings of this dissertation share numerous similarities with the findings of Miller (1979b). What is essentially different is the assumption that when gay fathers come out to the opposite sex partners, that there is a significant relationship strain. This was not the case in this study. While time may have been required for gay fathers and their ex-spouses to adjust, the majority of participants reported positive relationships with their ex-wives. Additionally, within this dissertation, gay fathers came out to their ex-wives long before meeting a same-sex partner. A major contribution of this dissertation to the literature exists in the possibility that gay fathers and their ex-wives can in fact have positive relations following their disclosures.

The findings of the study are congruent with those identified in the work of Bozett (1980,

1981, 1988). First, the withholding of sexual orientation from children would have had significant consequences to both children and gay fathers in this study. Gay fathers actively reported that their disclosures to children enhanced and strengthened their parental-child bond.

Second, the hiding of one’s sexual orientation reinforced that same-sex attractions were unacceptable. In this study, the hiding of same-sex attractions had significant implications for the intrapersonal and interpersonal relationships in the lives of gay fathers. Through their subsequent disclosures, gay fathers reinforced elements of identity synthesis and pride in their

132 declarations of their gay identities. Like Alderson (2003), Bozett (1980) identified the essential need for gay fathers to being out within mainstream and gay cultures. Gay fathers in this study achieved both.

Category 5: Protection and Place

The category of protection and place brings forth some of the most significant contributions of this grounded theory to the current literature exploring gay fatherhood. It would appear that the coming out process and subsequent disclosures only represent part of the experience of gay fatherhood. In their attempts to openly represent themselves as gay fathers and gay families, participants in this study revealed that hegemonic ideals still limit their capacities to parent free from social stigma and marginalized oppressions. Specifically, several models and theories within the literature call upon gay men and gay fathers to present and reintegrate themselves in gay and mainstream cultures (Alderson, 2000, 2003; Bozett, 1980).

However, in order to do so, first gay fathers often have to combat scepticism and rejection from both the mainstream and gay communities. This reality is consistent with outcomes experienced by others within the guise of multiple marginalizations (Nakamura & Pope, 2013; Warner &

Shields, 2013). Consistent with gay fathers initial beliefs that gay men could not be fathers, it would appear that similar beliefs remain active in all sectors of society.

Another significant learning from this category is that gay fathers adopt a unique sense of protection in their efforts to safeguard their children from the potential of harm. Specifically, gay fathers are keenly aware of the impact homophobia and heterosexism has played in their own individual identity development. Gay fathers within this study counter the historical assumptions that have labelled them as absent, part-time, and disconnected parents (Patterson,

2000, 2005). The warmth and unconditional love they have for their children are evidenced by

133 their abilities to pre-determine potential harm and instil measures to protect their children from harm. Such concerns exist within educational institutions where children of gay parents are recipients of homophobic bullying and micro-aggressions (Clarke, Kitzinger, & Potter, 2004).

Gay fathers in this study have experienced responses from medical and mental health professionals that exist along the extremely positive to exceedingly negative continuum. Despite such realities, gay fathers actively seek out gay affirmative counselling practitioners and other allied health professionals. Experiences as described in this dissertation are consistent with those regularly identified in the global literature on gay men’s experiences in counselling (Alderson,

2012; Israel, Gorcheva, Burns, & Walther, 2008; Mair, 2003; Mair & Izzard, 2001). Despite their abilities to find gay affirmative practitioners, this study raises the awareness that gay fathers still experience barriers to accessing culturally sensitive health and social services. The reality and potential exists to assume that social and political climates that accept gay men into mainstream culture equate to uniform access to culturally response health care.

It is with identity pride that gay fathers in this study actively engage in advocacy.

Historically, such advocacy roles have been placed in the hands of umbrella groups within the queer community (Haider-Markel & Meier, 1996). Numerous scholars argue the role of advocate is essential in the maintenance of healthy self-concept for gay men (Alderson, 2013;

Patterson, 1994; Savage, Harley, & Nowak, 2005). What is most remarkable are the outcomes of the transition process experienced by gay fathers in this study. Specifically, their journeys originally situated in the spaces of silent suffering, the pathological other, and the dissonant self.

Now as their journey continues, they rise to positions where their very identities and representations of self are in fact political.

134

Gay fathers in this study are role models! Gay fathers in Alberta are not the once thought of helpless individuals – rather, they are individually and collectively equipped to act as social agents of change. Counsellors can play a major role in advocating for equality for gay men and gay fathers (Stone, 2003).

Category 6: The Authentic Self

Within our current understanding of gay fatherhood in Canada exist numerous potential ideas and possibilities. Within this study, the language of “authentic” surfaced over 300 times in the interview transcripts. What is clear from this study is that the process of establishing a gay fatherhood identity represents an intense, emotionally transformative experience. Within the literature, language such as consolidation of identity (Alderson, 2003), identity achievement

(Marcia, 1994), and identity pride/synthesis (Cass, 1979, 1996) is used to mirror what gay fathers in this study described as their authentic selves. While still faced with various forms of social stigma and oppression, in their new identities as their authentic selves, gay fathers are better equipped to address and challenge these social realities with confidence and compassion.

In order to achieve the sense of the authentic self, or identity pride/synthesis (Cass, 1979.

1996) or movement “beyond coming out” (Alderson, 2003, p. 80), gay fathers must actively manoeuvre themselves through social and cultural mine storms. Cass (1979) warned, “that over time, changes in social attitudes and expectations will require changes to [her] model” (p. 235).

It is my hope that we are approaching such changes. However, it cannot go unsaid that despite the current changes in our social and political climate, gay fathers in this study endured an emotional journey during times that were particularly unfriendly and socially unjust toward gay men and gay fathers. Gay fathers in this study remind us that we must consistently revisit our theoretical and practical understanding of lived experience and human phenomenon on a regular

135 basis. In essence, the achievement of the authentic selves teaches us that there is hope for gay fathers within a uniquely Canadian context.

Implications for Counselling Psychology Practice

A critical exploration of the findings of this constructivist grounded theory is vital in the provision of services and professional practice with gay fathers in the field of counselling psychology. The practice of affirmative approaches to counselling LGBT individuals has grown exponentially since the early years of pathologizing homosexuality within the scope of the medical model. What is becoming apparent is that with each research endeavour comes new insights that keep the discussion of the unique mental health needs of LGBT individuals within a current scope of competent practice. The literature supports the need for diverse approaches to support gay men and gay fathers as they negotiate their individual and collective experiences

(Isacco, Yullum, & Chromik, 2012; Roughley & Alderson, 2012).

Supporting Gay Fathers

Gay fathers, regardless of the process from which they become fathers, require unique support to assist them in their identity formations as gay men as well as fathers. The literature is abundant with regards to providing affirmative counselling approaches to the LGBT communities; however, the grounded theory identified in this dissertation offers new insights into the eclectic needs of gay fathers. For many gay fathers, the initial introduction to counselling interventions was experienced with significant negativity. For instance, within the category of the foundational years, gay fathers experienced firsthand the pathologizing nature of mental health practitioners. It would be dangerous to assume that this reality was the certainty of the historical times in which these events occurred. While in Canada, gay men are extended fundamental human rights support, the social reality is that on a global level, such rights and

136 privileges are not universal. For example, the current climate in Russian reveals significant efforts to remove children from the care of same-sex parents (Fierstein, 2013).

Consistent with the literature, gay men and gay fathers require significant support on multiple systems levels (Dunne, 1987; Oswald & Holman, 2013). Counselling practitioners can play a vital role in assisting such clients on intrapersonal, interpersonal, and systems levels.

While gay men and gay fathers bring specific individual experiences to counselling, common concerns should not go overlooked. Such common factors, based on this study include, actively assisting gay fathers with the: (a) deconstruction of traditional family values, (b) development of intrapersonal skills to confront and move beyond societal values within current and historical contexts (homophobia and heterosexism), (c) reconstruct a sense of self beyond the historical pathologization of same-sex attractions, and (d) assist in the integration of numerous life roles into an integrated sense of the authentic self.

Traditional assertions of masculinity and gender-role socialization are also areas, which may necessitate close exploration. A review of the literature discussing gay identity development offers initial insights into supporting gay men in their coming out processes. In

Chapter 2, I discussed and identified various theories and models of the coming out. In review, these included stringent and more flexible stage models. The findings of this dissertation suggest viewing gay fathers within the contexts ecological and multiple intersecting identities (Alderson,

2003; Collins, 2010). As discussed earlier in this chapter, gay fathers call upon numerous supports within the process of gay fatherhood identity development. Gay fathers in this study identified with additional stressors unique to their experiences, such as finding other gay fathers to connect with and exclusion from the gay community. Counsellors can also assist in the potential isolation and multiple marginalizations gay fathers experience within their diverse

137 communities. Examples from this study include: internalized fear and external realities of being excluded from religious communities, and exclusion from mainstream and traditional gay male cultures.

Support Family Members

As indicated in Chapter 4, the process of experiencing gay fatherhood identity is not only an interpersonal experience. Rather, it is the nuclear and blended family systems that are also in need on initial and ongoing support. Additional efforts in research and practice are necessary to acknowledge and support the unique and interpersonal needs of the family system. Often overlooked in the discussion of gay fatherhood is the need to support all family members during the coming out transitions of husbands and fathers.

I caution practitioners to view ex-spouses and children of gay fathers as victims.

Adopting the label of victim to these family members places gay fathers in the role of perpetrator. Historically, this has been the narrative of research that has resulted in gay fathers losing their children and often limiting any form of positive relationship with their ex-spouses in the future.

Supporting ex-spouses. This dissertation provided a detailed glimpse into the process from which gay men once married to women with children experience fatherhood. However, it is difficult to imagine the reality of the other side of the experience when it comes to the ex- spouses whose partners now identify as gay men. The literature tells of specific options ranging from mixed orientation relationships (Schwartz, 2012) to unplanned outcomes, which render straight spouses in their own space of silent suffering (Grever, 2012). Counselling practitioners may be called upon to support ex-spouses in their own grief, loss and life transitions that result when their spouse comes out.

138

As identified in this study, gay fathers experienced tremendous feelings of guilt and shame regarding their hidden and exposed same-sex attractions. What is profound in this study is that the majority of participants experienced feelings increased emotional connection with their wives post-coming out. This finding challenges the literature that gay fathers destroy their family systems by self-identifying as gay. Additionally, the compassion and unconditional love gay fathers experienced from their ex-wives challenged the stereotype of the “helpless” and angry ex-spouse. What this study tells us is that there is a possibility of a happy ending when a husband comes out.

Supporting children. A wealth of research indicates that children of gay fathers enter into a transition period where they learn to adapt to their fathers new identity. During the initial stages of this study, I desired the opportunity to include children in the data collection process.

My rationale for this endeavour was to offer a comprehensive discussion of their experiences with a father who comes out as a gay man. However, in focusing on the perspectives of gay fathers, the information shared in their stories offer insights into the impact their coming out had on their individual and collective family systems. Historically, the literature has painted gay fathers in an extremely negative way. The findings of this study indicate that gay fathers go above and beyond traditional frameworks of fatherhood. They move beyond traditional perspectives of fatherhood and engage actively in the social and emotional well-being of their children.

The field of counselling psychology has a vital role to play in supporting children during and after their fathers’ coming out process. Within this study, fathers experienced extremely positive responses from their children. In several of the cases, children openly embraced their fathers’ same-sex orientations.

139

Counselling Approaches and Interventions

As gay fathers experience the various transitions in their journeys, they require specific forms of intervention in the domains of exploration including intrapersonal and interpersonal experiences. Need for such interventions extend beyond the individual needs and extends to the familial and social systems. In terms of counselling approaches and interventions, the findings of this study suggest potential possibilities in the following areas of counselling practice: (a) individual counselling, (b) relationship counselling, (c) family counselling, (d) group counselling, and (e) community-based and psychoeducational interventions. Within each of these interventions exists the importance of the following areas of competence on behalf of the counselling practitioner:

1. Acknowledgement and awareness of the potential roles that ecological and systemic

factors play in the presenting concerns of gay fathers;

2. Exploration and deconstruction of the impact that culture and worldview play in the

identity formations of gay fathers;

3. Assessment and attentiveness of the psychosocial implications of homophobia and

heterosexism;

4. Accommodation of the gay father’s self-concept and the potential need for support in the

negotiation of multiple identities; and

5. Integration and flexibility of infusing culturally and gay affirmative interventions into all

therapeutic alliances. (Roughley, 2006)

Individual counselling. Counsellors call upon diverse intervention strategies to support gay fathers in their numerous life transitions. In order to do so, specific levels of awareness and competence are required on behalf of the counselling practitioner. Within the scope of

140 individual counselling, it would appear that gay fathers come to counselling practitioners at various stages of their identity formation. For many of the participants in this study, the initial experiences with mental health practitioners were fraught with negativity and pathologization.

However, as the social and political climates have shifted within the Canadian counselling context, participants identified the assistance of a gay affirmative counselling practitioner significantly assisted their pre and post coming out experiences later in life.

Relationship counselling. Throughout their transitions, gay fathers experience significant challenges and stressors related to their intimate relationships. The first area identified in this research suggests that gay fathers experience intense emotional realities as experience being in mixed orientation relationships as gay fathers (Hernandez, Schwenke, &

Wilson, 2011; Tornello & Patterson, 2012). Awareness of mixed orientation marriages is vital as gay men already experience feelings of guilt, remorse, and confusion within themselves. While the participants in this study all exited their relationships with their ex-wives, some choose to remain in their relationships. Further stigmatization from counselling practitioners intensifies the already intense process of identity confusion. Gay fathers as well as their opposite sex spouses require support and understanding in the coming out process (Buxton, 2005, 2006; Kays &

Yarhouse, 2010). The findings of this study are in tandem with the current knowledge base in this area.

Additional relationship concerns stem from gay fathers relationships with their same-sex partners. A recent study by Jenkins (2013) suggests that gay men in relationships with the biological father of children experience challenges due to shifting dynamics within the family of origin structure. Within this study, gay fathers once viewed same-sex marriage and openness of

141 their relationships with same-sex partners as never possible. However, shifting social scripts as well as social and political climates has created opportunities never before conceivable.

The research supports that gay men in relationships experience challenges unique to their sexual orientation identities (Knoble & Linville, 2012; Totenhagen, Butler, & Ridley, 2012).

Attention to relationship challenges associated to historical contexts such as internalized heterosexism and gender-role conflict, combined with a culture that has denied gay men the identity of fatherhood places eclectic challenges on same-sex relationships (Rootes, 2013;

Tasker, 2013). While this study focused on biological gay fathers, further research of the experiences of the non-biological father in same-sex relationships is necessary.

Family counselling. As indicated in Chapter 4 of this dissertation, the coming out experience of gay fatherhood is truly a family affair. Counselling initiatives that focus on a family systems perspective is essential to assist in the maintenance of a nuclear family identity.

While the reality of a mixed-orientation is unlikely, most gay fathers leave the family residence and create a new space from which to expand their identities as both gay men and fathers.

Depending on the specific family unit, counselling practitioners can assist the family system throughout and beyond the coming out process.

Group counselling. The findings within this research study suggest that gay fathers often process their experiences individually; however, seek comfort and solace within groups with other gay fathers who have also been on a similar journey. Within their process of negotiating a gay father identity, all participants called upon other gay fathers for support and mentorship. Group counselling interventions have the potential to create opportunities for gay fathers, regardless of their experiences to find social support, connection with others, and the ability to strive toward common goals (Roughley & Claire, 2006). Historically, gay men have

142 accessed group-counselling interventions to address family and society rejections (DeBord &

Perez, 2000). The modality of group processes has the promise to support gay fathers with empowerment to live as their authentic selves, while supporting and nurturing their families to address societal homophobia and heterosexism.

Empirical literature exploring gay fathers and group processing in counselling settings is extremely limited. Potential benefits of group counselling for gay fathers might include: (a) instillation of hope, (b) sharing of information, (c) realizing that others have similar life issues and concerns, (d) opportunities to express feelings, and (e) learning interpersonal skills (Yalom

& Leszcz, 2005). Yalom and Leszcz (2005) argued that interpersonal learning, catharsis, and cohesiveness represent the most important therapeutic factors in-group counselling. As reviewed earlier in this dissertation, gay men experience stigmatization and marginalization in tandem with other forms of oppression. As gay fathers negotiate their authentic identities, group counselling as an intervention has the potential to assist participants in the exploration and resolution of sexual orientation conflicts and psychosocial stress (Beckstead & Israel, 2007).

Additional opportunities may exist within group counselling initiatives for gay fathers to learn strategies to assist their children and other family members in navigating homophobia and heterosexism in community settings.

Community-based and psychoeducational interventions. Community-based interventions are communal efforts to minimize harm and promote social change. Historically, examples of such initiatives have included: coming out discussion groups, gay-straight alliances in schools and the workplace (Brooks & Edwards, 2009; Fisher, 2013), and family support groups. Several studies indicate the positive contributions that peer support play in the lives of gay men, including reductions in the potential for anti-gay violence and microagressions and

143 suicidal ideation and self-harm (Goodenow, Szalacha, & Westheimer, 2006; Kosciw & Diaz,

2006). Significant opportunities exist for gay fathers and their families within psychoeducational and health promotion efforts. Historically, such efforts have assisted in the reduction of harm as well as skills development and coping strategies necessary to manage social stigma (Dwyer &

Niemann, 2002; Schreier & Werden, 2000). Research indicates that psychoeducational and community-based efforts increase social awareness of mental health issues experienced by gay men and reduce negative attitudes toward gay men (Nelson & Krieger, 1997; Safren &

Heimberg, 1999; Vera, Buhun, & Isacco, 2009). The findings of this study indicate the potential benefits for community-based, psychoeducational interventions to support gay fathers and their children in Alberta school systems.

Counselling Gay Fathers: An Integrated Approach

Within the field of counselling psychology, beginning counsellors and seasoned practitioners are often called upon to identify and disclose their theoretical orientations. For many, this involves strict commitment and adherence to traditional models of care. In this section, I propose an integrative approach to counselling gay fathers and their families. For me, the best fit, based on the findings of this dissertation appears to be inline with feminist and client- centred approaches to counselling psychology. I will discuss each of these areas in turn.

Feminist Therapy

Feminist counselling represents lifespan-oriented psychological theory and practice that speaks to the experiences of gay fathers in this study. Essentially, within this practice, emphasis is placed on context and social constructions of gender. Specifically, the impact of gender-role socialization and the development of an individual’s identity cannot go unexplored (Enns, 1997).

I believe that feminist counselling practice can offer a unique lens from which to view a client’s

144 presenting concerns. Embedded within this lens is the opportunity to actively question and deconstruct socio-cultural forms of oppression such as patriarchy and heterosexism. Gay fathers in this study have been the recipients of multiple oppressions. Within the context of feminist therapy, the environment calls for a safe, collaborative, and egalitarian venture, where the reduction of power differentials is a constant goal. The crucial goals of feminist counselling practice are two-fold: first, the empowerment of individual and family members and secondly, the transformation of oppressive acts of society (Hill & Ballou, 2011).

Embedded within the feminist therapy framework exists several assumptions in which I feel are relevant to counselling gay fathers and their families: (a) the person is political, (b) the counselling relationship is egalitarian, (c) women’s [and oppressed individuals’] experiences are honoured, (d) traditional definitions of distress and illness are redefined, and (e) feminist scholarship can act as a means of empowering thought and change in the shadow of dominant cultural discourse (Barrett, 1998). The literature supports the inclusion of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals in the above assumptions (Berstein, 2005; Greenan & Tunnell,

2003).

According to Burstow (1992), “An explicit premise on which feminist counselling is based is that personal problems are both created and exacerbated by social power imbalances”

(p. 140). In terms of adopting a more socially responsible perspective, feminist psychotherapies seek to empower clients to gain the necessary skills and insights to rise above the traditional, biased, stereotypical views place on marginalized individuals (i.e. gay and lesbian Christians;

Bowland, Foster, & Vosler, 2013).

Feminist counselling works with the foundations of individualism and autonomy in encouraging individuals to acknowledge, maintain, and celebrate personal power and to form

145 healthy and meaningful relationships based on equality and mutual respect (Brabeck & Brown,

1997). Through the action of empowerment, counselling practitioners are in a position to support and bear witness to clients removing the shackles of dominant culture discourse, while exploring and implementing newer options for existing in a complex world (Corey & Herlihy,

2001).

Client-Centred Counselling

Client-centred counselling represents “the process of psychotherapy, as we have come to know it from a client-centered orientation, is a unique and dynamic experience, different for each individual, yet exhibiting a lawfulness and order which is astonishing in its generality” (Rogers,

1961, p. 74). The central objective within a person-centred practice is the development of an environment that celebrates an individual’s core constructs, which have remained dormant, underdeveloped or hidden from his or her lived truths. In essence, the fostering of a client’s self- empowerment is at the core of the therapeutic agenda. The process of person-centred counselling calls upon practitioners to emphasize the following in their practices: (a) genuineness, (b) unconditional positive regard, and (c) empathy (Coulter & & Honoré France,

2013; Quinn, 2013; Raskin & Rogers, 2000). When counselling gay fathers, the fostering of an environment based on mutual respect and care is essential to being genuine. Unconditional positive regard (complete acceptance of client) allows the client, or family, to perceive the practitioner as accepting and compassionate. With the addition of empathy to the above two criteria, counsellors provide a counselling environment where the following significant insights may be achieved: self-understanding, self-acceptance, self-growth, self-satisfaction, and self- actualization.

146

Both feminist and client-centred approaches to counselling offer an opportunity to work collaboratively with gay fathers and their families as they move through various transitionary milestones in their lives. The highlight of feminist approaches exists within the “person is political perspective” and the active process of deconstruction hegemonic ideals of masculinity/femininity and traditional family values. Gay clients, including gay fathers, require safe space from which to explore themselves free from judgment and heteronormative scripts that historically and currently remain present in the practice of counselling psychology. While we have moved forward in addressing these significant ethical gaps in practice, gay fathers necessitate genuine and empathetic appreciation for their unique journeys into self-identity.

Social Justice and Ethical Practice

Within the literature and current practice there appears to be a changing focus; from the need to understand and label mental health issues, toward developing a broader landscape of establishing resilience for individuals when faced with adversity. Over the last 20 years, there has been increasing levels of interest to understand and promote resilience through mental health intervention (Rolland & Walsh, 2006). The shift goes beyond the identification of factors that place individuals at risk for harm, to the promotion of life skills and social justice initiatives necessary for life adaptation and cultural-inclusiveness (Saewyc et al., 2009). Such perspectives are necessary to support gay men in their experiences as fathers. The language of past and current literature presents gay fathers and their families as vulnerable and at-risk populations

(Goldberg & Kuvalanka, 2012; Shields et al., 2012; van Eeden-Moorefield, Pasley, Crosbie-

Burnett, & King, 2012). However, the findings of this research project offer a different possibility; that gay men as fathers often call upon diverse internal and external resources to

147 navigate themselves through difficult times in hope of remaining intact with their internal concepts of self.

Walsh, DePaul, and Park-Taylor (2009) call upon allied health professionals to view prevention and intervention as mechanisms of positive identity development within the context of risk. The reality of current social contexts is that both gay fathers and their families are at significant risk for multiple oppressions, social stigmatization, and marginalization. Social justice efforts necessitate a call to action to move beyond their counselling relationship and embrace social change in all sectors of society. While gay fathers may be resourceful in establishing connections with others to effectively cope with internal and external social stressors, children of gay fathers may be recipients of homophobia and other forms of hate-based microaggressions. Mental health practitioners in school settings are called upon to educate all levels of governance within educational settings.

Ethical Practice

While counselling psychologists in Canada face numerous ethical issues and concerns in all areas of practice, the promotion and celebration of sexual orientation and gender identity diversities have risen as important areas of practice. The historical treatment of and toward gay men and gay fathers has been questionable at best. Within historical and present contexts, challenging ethical situations have often led to ethical dilemmas such as conflicts between professional ethics and external demands, as well as the duty to protect individuals from harm

(Werth Jr., Cummings, & Thompson, 2008). Research exploring gay fatherhood has been used to question, stigmatize, and limit the fathering capacities of gay men (Bozett & Sussman, 1989;

Clarke, 2001). Such studies have impacted counselling approaches as well as access to treatment for gay fathers. The preponderance of the literature exploring gay fatherhood focuses on

148

American standards and values. The absence of Canadian-based literature exploring the ethics of counselling gay fathers is extremely problematic.

While the lens of ethical practice is focused on the potential for harm, additional values and concerns are also called into question. Several arguments have been made throughout history that calls into question the ethical implications of providing and/or refusing gay men the right to experience fatherhood. The complexities and intersections of these perspectives represent the multiple threads of a dysfunctional tapestry of dominant culture scripts, traditional masculinities, and gender-role expectations. The Guidelines for Non-Discriminatory Practice

(Canadian Psychological Association [CPA], 2001), in tandem with the Canadian Code of Ethics for Psychologists (CPA, 2000) call upon counselling psychologists to adhere to specific ethical standards of professional practice. Such practices are based on four aspirational goals: (a) respect for the dignity of persons, (b) responsible caring, (c) integrity in relationships, and (d) responsibility to society. To date, CPA has yet to put forth professional practice standards for gay affirmative counselling. I believe it is now time for this to occur, and I offer a few recommendations below that I think should be implemented by CPA:

Recommendation 1: The Canadian Psychological Association needs to become engaged in a discussion with the LGBT community and establish ethical standards that adequately address the needs of this community (including gay fathers and their families).

Recommendation 2: Case studies exploring same-sex parenting and the implications of ethical practice should be included in learning materials developed by the Canadian

Psychological Association.

149

Education and Training

Inherent in the academic and professional literature exist ongoing discussions of the importance of multicultural and/or culture-infused counselling practice (Arthur & Collins, 2010).

Despite requirements to include courses in multicultural counselling practice in graduate and terminal degrees in the allied health professions, the topics of gay fatherhood and same-sex parenting are just beginning to emerge. Coursework and professional development opportunities exploring same-sex parenting are necessary as the field of counselling psychology engages in the practices of social justice and ethical practice.

Recommendation 1: University programs that train counselling practitioners and other allied health professionals should develop more inclusive culture-infused counselling courses that address LGBT families and their specific mental health needs.

Recommendation 2: Culture-infused counselling competencies need to extend beyond the scope of gay fathers as individuals and extend to a systems perspective that address the ecological needs of gay fathers, their partners, and their children.

Gay Fatherhood: The Canadian Context

As I have identified in numerous areas of this dissertation, this study is foundational within a uniquely Canadian context. Now that the discussion was been initiated, it is essential to highlight the context in which this study is Canadian. First, the multicultural context of

Canadian society reflects the need to continuously identify and celebrate cultural diversity as expressed in various sectors of our social communities. The context in which this study occurred speaks to the timely fashion in which the research took place. In Canada, the social and political climates have shifted in favour of gay men openly expressing their same-sex identities as contributing members of Canadian society (i.e., marriage).

150

The majority of participants in this study experienced several of the developmental milestones that have resulted in social change within Canada. Primary milestones have included the decriminalization of homosexuality, same-sex marriage, and the extension of health benefits to same-sex partners. The participants in this study act as social advocates in advancing the rights of gay men in Canada in their roles as fathers. Within Canada, the Charter of Human

Rights and Freedoms is extended on a Federal level. In comparison to their American counterparts, specific states have the current right to deny same-sex marriage. While it might be naïve to assume that gay men can experience fatherhood without social and cultural barriers, the

Canadian context appears to favour providing opportunities for gay men to explore fatherhood without fear of retribution.

The implications of this study for gay fathers in Canada suggest numerous possibilities to expand the findings of this study to a national level. While the implications of this study have been identified in Chapter 1 of this dissertation, it is my position that further research is warranted before further addressing the transferability of findings to the larger Canadian population. I discuss the next steps in research the gay fatherhood experience later in this chapter. In essence, the social advocacy work that has occurred over the past 5 decades has paid off in creating new contexts for cultural expression of same-sex parenting identities. Without such efforts, the social, political, and cultural shifts that encouraged the courageous participants in this study to become their authentic selves would likely have not taken place. Hence, the

Canadian context creates opportunities to expand the past and current landscapes of gay fatherhood in Canada.

151

Limitations and Delimitations of this Study

Within all forms of research exist significant strengths and limitations that may have impact on the overall findings presented by researchers. The fundamental strength of this research exists within its potential contribution to the extremely limited research exploring gay fatherhood in Canada. In this section, I discuss five specific areas of limitation in this study.

These areas include: (a) sample size, (b) pre-existing literature, (c) researcher self-disclosure, (d) cultural diversity, and (e) generalizability. Each is discussed in turn. I conclude this section with a brief discussion of the delimitations of this study.

Sample Population

Throughout the literature on research methodology, the total number of participants or sample size often appears to be an area of concern. Within qualitative research, the size of the sample is often viewed as either too small or too large (Sandelowski, 1995). Within the context of this study, 12 participants represented the final number to achieve theoretical saturation. The perception of limitation may be based on the beliefs of the consumers of this research.

Pre-Existing Literature

Pre-existing literature exploring gay fatherhood in Canada is extremely limited. Within this study, the dependence upon American based literature was unavoidable. The dearth of literature in this area reinforced the importance of the research and the potential for creating a new discourse surrounding gay fatherhood in Canada. Needless to say, theoretical models exploring gay fatherhood identity development within a Western context were also extremely limited. In the early stages of my doctoral training up to the completion of my candidacy examinations, I was exposed to the literature on gay fatherhood within a Western context. In early traditions of grounded theory, early exposure to the literature surrounding a specific

152 phenomenon is deemed as a limitation. With this in mind, I argue that without my prior knowledge of the literature, I would have been unable to identify the significant gaps in the literature that resulted in the completion of this dissertation.

Researcher Self-Disclosure

As I disclosed in Chapter 1 of this dissertation, I brought to this research an insider/outsider perspective. In my interactions with participants, I actively disclosed that I was a gay man, but not a gay father. Due to the interpretive nature of constructivist grounded theory,

I was an active participant in the research process (Charmaz, 2006). I brought to this research both personal and professional experiences and a thorough knowledge base of the counselling gay men research.

Additionally, while I am not a gay father, I did have personal experience with my uncle, who was a gay father. Charmaz (2006) argued that such experiences allow the researcher to immerse him/herself into the research process. Therefore, my previous research endeavours and personal/professional experiences played a significant role in the process and outcomes of this research. Charmaz refers to these potential contributions as theoretical sensitivity. As clearly stated in Chapter 3, I implemented various strategies to protect the collection and subsequent analysis of the data. As I am first and foremost a counselling practitioner, I called upon my skills of establishing rapport with participants through my conscious decision to disclose my gay identity at the onset of the data collection process.

Cultural Diversity

Cultural diversity is always a concern in qualitative research. It is assumed, the more diverse populations that are represented in a sample, the better. Within the context of this study, the majority of potential and actual participants identified as Caucasian. There was one

153 exception, Tony, who identified as a Chinese Canadian. With this in mind, a broader sample of culturally diverse fathers may have resulted in more in-depth appreciation of gay fatherhood in

Alberta. An argument could be made that this grounded theory represents a privileged population of gay men. Readers are advised to exercise cautioned in any attempts to implement this grounded theory with non-Caucasian clients. Future research exploring an intercultural framework of gay fatherhood in Canada may assist in further establishing the generalization of this theory.

Generalizability

Generalizability within qualitative research differs from what quantitative research refers to as external validity (Bloor & Wood, 2006). In essence, the belief of generalizability is that the findings of research can be transferred or applied to other cases outside the research sample

(Creswell, 2013). Due to the purposeful sampling nature of this study, the findings of this study are most likely not transferrable to all gay fathers in Canada. During the commencement of this dissertation, I reported my belief that good theory is educative, not prescriptive in nature. When educated about the potential possibilities that gay fathers may experience in their coming out journeys, counselling practitioners can adopt a curious lens of possibility. Within grounded theory, this is referred to as “hypothetical generalizability.” Without further investigation of the theory presented in this study, any inferences or potential hypothesis by counselling practitioners must remain as educational possibilities.

Delimitations

The central delimitation of this study that makes it different from other studies exploring gay fatherhood is the primary emphasis of gay fatherhood in Alberta. For example, the vast majority of research exploring gay fatherhood takes into account demographics on national

154 levels (i.e., United States, versus within specific geographic locals). Access to gay fathers in rural communities in Alberta was an initial concern in accessing potential participants in this study. The decision amongst my dissertation committee and myself during the proposal stage of this research was to target the three major cities located in Alberta: Calgary, Edmonton, and

Lethbridge. Hence, while this research was able to identify and discuss service concerns and access to competent counselling practitioners in urban settings, further research necessitates the exploration of gay fatherhood in rural and non-urban communities in Alberta.

An additional delimitation of this research is related to the specific criterion for participation in this study. The intention in requiring participants to be openly gay (i.e., identifying as a gay father) and the non-custodial parent was to create a discussion of the specific experiences of these specific expressions of fatherhood. The initial decision to limit the age of the gay father’s children (i.e., between 12-17 years of age) was based on a concern that there would be too many potential participants in the study. However, as the research began, it became apparent that there would be a need to expand the age group from 8 to 19 years of age).

It must therefore be emphasized that these experiences presented in this research do not represent gay fathers with children under and above the ages of requirement for participation. Also, the ages of the participants ranged from 29-59 years of age. Therefore, the experiences of gay fathers (regardless of the means in which they became parents) who are outside the ages of participants of this study are not representative within the findings.

Finally, as indicated in the academic and professional literature, gay men become fathers through various means. This study was exclusively about biological fathers. The intention of this delimitation was the emphasis on the renegotiation of fatherhood identity, when a father

155 once identified as heterosexual. Therefore, the experience of gay fathers who adopt or become parents through other means was not representative within this study.

Researcher as the Reflexive Self

Someone once said to me, “Robert, if you do not take the time to reflect upon significant learning, did the learning actually take place?” In my review of dozens of doctoral dissertations,

I found myself confounded by the inherent absence of intrapersonal reflections by individuals researching vulnerable and under-representing populations. I have found myself asking questions about the impact my research exploring gay fatherhood has had on my concept of self as a gay man, counselling practitioner, and researcher. One thing I know for sure, I am not the same human being I was when I embarked on this journey. Arthur and Collins (2010) reminded counselling practitioners that personal and professional values are influenced by multiple sources throughout our lives and developmental milestones. As a scientist-practitioner and gay man, I have learned to appreciate and be conscious of those who experience the world from different points-of-view. For me, this necessitates the self-creation of equilibrium in a fundamentally unbalanced world.

Throughout this research, I came to realize that I was privileged in having multiple insider perspectives: gay man, counselling practitioner, and researcher. However, I was in fact an outsider in one of the most critical areas of this research – I am not a father. My desire to identify with participants at times created turbulent, yet critical moments for self-exploration and reflexivity. One of the greatest challenges I experienced in conducting this dissertation was experiencing the duality of multiple marginalizations within the experiences of participants, as well as in my own process as a gay man researching this specific area. The historical unpacking of the academic literature consistently revealed contentious discussions around the impact a

156 father’s sexual orientation had on their offspring, while fundamentally alienating the experiences and processes experienced by gay fathers themselves.

Beneath the mask of my own personal and professional identity development exists numerous faces of adversity. My initial and continued response to the inherent lack of culturally responsive Canadian literature exploring gay fatherhood is both personal and political. As I move forward from this research, my agenda is multifaceted and recognizes the impact all stakeholders in society can have in the creation of safe and inclusive environments for gay men and their families. The distancing of one’s personal identity from historical traditions and practice is exhausting and challenging while striving for social justice and anti-oppressive measures. I believe the absence of gay men from the fatherhood literature is fundamentally unjust, not just morally, but physically, emotionally, socially, and spiritually. I continue to believe in and practice the core foundations of ethical and competence through the acts of empathy and compassion. I do not assert privilege in my attempts to empower others; rather, I educate and co-learn within the process of change.

Fundamental Next-Steps in Researching Gay Fatherhood

The landscape of gay fatherhood in Canada remains in need of further attention. In the attempt to expand the current understanding of gay fatherhood in Canada, I recommend the following five areas that necessitate exploration.

First, understanding how gay fatherhood is experienced outside of the parameters of this study is essential. For instance, gay fathers in Canada who choose parenting through adoption, surrogacy, and/or step-parenting may experience similar or unique barriers outside of those experienced in this study.

157

Second, exploring gay fatherhood and/or gay families from an ecological/ systemic perspective may offer eclectic insights into how various systems in the community can assist in addressing social stigma and marginalization. For instance, as an educator, I see a significant value in the pivotal role that schools and education systems can play in creating safe spaces for children of gay fathers to openly identify as members of families with same-sex parents.

Third, identifying and addressing the experiences of spouses whose partners come out as same-sex oriented must be a focus of attention. Specifically, as indicated in this study, what psychosocial factors assist women whose husbands come out?

Fourth, discussing and exploring current practices in counselling psychology to support gay-fathers and their families is necessary. Whether it is empirically driven or evidence-based, careful attention to what works and what doesn’t is essential in offering complete and competent services to gay fathers and their families.

Fifth, exploring the generalizability of this study through evidence-based practice, or direct observations of gay affirmative counselling practitioners, may assist in further developing the overall applicability of this grounded theory to culturally diverse gay fathers in Canada.

Conclusion

Within this dissertation, I asked the question, “What is the process of negotiating gay fatherhood identity for men who were once married to women?” The result of examining this question was a lengthy process involving amazing connections with 12 gay fathers in the province of Alberta. Throughout this dissertation, I provided the reader with an introduction to the topic of gay fatherhood in Alberta. Embedded within this discussion was my personal and professional connection to the phenomenon being studied. I also provided insights into the significance of the study to professional practice, theoretical importance, social implications, and

158 personal impact. I then provided a review of the literature exploring various medical, social, political, and cultural factors that impact the lives of gay men and gay fathers. Afterwards, I provided a detailed overview of the methodological processes I incorporated that resulted in the grounded theory in this study. After presenting the grounded theory, I discussed the contributions of the theory to current academic literature and professional practice.

It is with elements of both excitement and trepidation that I bring this dissertation to a close. The excitement extends to the multiple possibilities the findings of this study have to offering complete and competent counselling services to gay fathers and their children. The trepidation comes from my individual and professional awareness that this dissertation represents only a small start in a discussion that must occur to facilitate change within multiple contexts of

Canadian society. I challenge each and every reader of this study to actively engage in the roles of advocate, educator, and community participant to create safe environments for gay fathers and their families. We must move beyond the social assumption that “It gets better” and work as social agents in exploring and enacting means from which we actively respond to the question,

“How can we make things better now?”

As stated earlier in this dissertation, an information-rich study both educates readers and tells a valued story of the experiences of participants. It is my expressed hope that consumers of this research leave this experience with a more informed appreciation for gay fatherhood in

Alberta. As the landscape of gay fatherhood is only now taking form within a uniquely

Canadian context, it is my hope that future efforts to explore this area will provide an even deeper awareness of this unique phenomenon.

159

References

Abrams, L. S. (2011). Sampling ‘hard to reach’ populations in qualitative research: The case of

incarcerated youth. Qualitative Social Work, 9(4), 536-550.

doi:10.1177/1473325010367821

Addis, M. E., & Mahalik, J. R. (2003). Men, masculinity and the contexts of help seeking.

American Psychologist, 58(1), 5-14.

Alderson, K. G. (2000). Beyond coming out: Experiences of gay identity. Toronto, ON:

Insomniac Press.

Alderson, K. G. (2002). Breaking out: The complete guide to building and enhancing a positive

gay identity for men and women. Toronto, ON: Insomniac Press.

Alderson, K. G. (2003a). The corporate closet: Career challenges of gay and lesbian individuals.

National Consultation on Career Development. Available from

http://www.contactpoint.ca/natcon-conat/2003/pdf/pdf-03-02.pdf

Alderson, K. G. (2003b). The ecological model of gay male identity. Canadian Journal of

Human Sexuality, 12(2), 75-86.

Alderson, K. G. (2004). A different kind of outing: Training counsellors to work with sexual

minority clients. Canadian Journal of Counselling, 38(3), 193-210.

Alderson, K. G. (2004). A phenomenological investigation of same-sex marriage. The Canadian

Journal of Human Sexuality, 13(2), 107-122.

Alderson, K. G. (2010). From madness to mainstream: Working with gay men today. In N.

Arthur & S. Collins (Eds.), Culture-infused counselling (2nd ed., pp. 325-422). Calgary,

AB: Counselling Concepts.

Alderson, K. G. (2013). Counseling LGBTI clients. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

160

Allen, M., & Burrell, N. (1996). Comparing the impact of homosexual and heterosexual parents

on children: A meta-analysis of existing research. Journal of Homosexuality, 32(2), 19-

35. doi:10.1300/J082v32n02_02

American Psychiatric Association. (1952). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders

(1st ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

American Psychiatric Association. (1968). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders

(2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

American Psychiatric Association. (1973). Homosexuality and civil rights: Position statement.

Retrieved October 1, 2009, from http://www.psych.org/Departments/EDU/Library/AP

AOfficialDocumentsandRelated/PositionStatements/197310.aspx

American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders

(4th ed., rev). Washington, DC: Author.

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders

(5th ed.). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Association.

American Psychological Association. (2000). Guidelines for psychotherapy with lesbian,

bisexual, and gay clients. American Psychologist, 55(12), 1440-1451.

doi:10.1037/0003066X.55.12.144

American Psychological Association. (2009). Report on the American Psychological Task Force

on appropriate responses to sexual orientation change efforts. Washington, DC:

American Psychological Association.

Anderson, E. (2002). Openly gay athlete: Contesting hegemonic masculinity in a homophobic

environment. Gender & Society, 16(6), 860-877. doi:10.1177/089124302237892

161

Anderson, E. (2012). Shifting masculinities in AngloAmerican countries. Masculinities and

Social Change, 1(1), 40-60. doi:10.4471/MCS.2012.03

Anfara, V. A., & Mertz, N. T. (2006). Introduction. In V. A. Hertz & N. T. Mertz (Eds.),

Theoretical frameworks in qualitative research (pp. xiii-xxxii). Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

Arnold, J. H., & Brady, S. (2011). Introduction. In J. H. Arnold & S. Brady (Eds.), What is

masculinity? Historical dynamics from Antiquity to the contemporary world (pp. 1-14).

New York, NY: Palgrave.

Arthur, N., & Collins, S. (2010a). Introduction to culture-infused counselling. In N. Arthur & S.

Collins (Eds.), Culture-infused counselling (2nd ed., pp. 3-25). Calgary, AB: Counselling

Concepts.

Arthur, N., & Collins, S. (2010b). Rationale for culture-infused counselling. In N. Arthur & S.

Collins (Eds.), Culture-infused counselling (2nd ed., pp. 27-65). Calgary, AB:

Counselling Concepts.

Arthur, N., & Collins, S. (2010c). Social justice and culture-infused counselling. In N. Arthur &

S. Collins (Eds.), Culture-infused counselling (2nd ed., pp. 139-164). Calgary, AB:

Counselling Concepts.

Arthur, N. A., Merali, N., & Djuraskovic, I. (2010). Facilitating the journey between cultures:

Counselling immigrants and refugees. In N. Arthur & S. Collins (Eds.), Culture-infused

counselling (2nd ed., pp. 285-314). Calgary, AB: Counselling Concepts.

Ashley, K. B. (2013). The science of sexual orientation: A review of the recent literature.

Journal of Gay & Lesbian Mental Health. Advanced online publication.

doi:10.1080/19359705.2013.767179

162

Aster, A. Z. (2005). Double jeopardy: Building strong communities to fight homophobia and

racism. Crosscurrents: The Journal of Addiction and Mental Health, 8(2), 14-15.

Auerbach, C., & Silverstein, L. (2003). Qualitative data: An introduction to coding and analysis.

New York, NY: New York University Press.

Balsam, K., Molina, Y., Beadnell, B., Simoni, J., & Walters, K. (2011). Measuring multiple

minority stress: The LGBT people of color microaggressions scale. Cultural Diversity &

Ethnic Minority Psychology, 17(2), 163-174. doi:10.1037/a0023244

Bancroft, J., & Marks, I. (1968). Electric aversion therapy of sexual deviations. Proceedings of

the Royal Society of Medicine, 6, 796-799.

Banks, C. (2001). The cost of homophobia: Literature review of the economic impact of

homophobia in Canada. Saskatoon, SK: Gay and Lesbian Health Services.

Banks, C. (2003). The cost of homophobia: Literature review on the human impact of

homophobia in Canada. Saskatoon, SK: Gay and Lesbian Health Services.

Barber, J. S., & Mobley, M. (1999). Counseling gay adolescents. In A. M. Horne & M. S.

Kiselica (Eds.), Handbook of counseling boys and adolescent males: A practitioner’s

guide (pp. 161-178). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Barnes, D. M., & Meyer, I. H. (2012). Religious affiliation, internalized homophobia, and mental

health in lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry: Mental

Health & Social Justice, 82(4), 505-515. doi:10.1111/j.1939-0025.2012.01185.x

Barret, R. L., & Robinson, B. E. (2000). Gay fathers. Lexington, MA: DC Health.

Barrett, S. (1998). Contextual identity: A model for therapy and social change. In M. Hill (Ed.),

Feminist therapy as a political act (pp. 51-64). New York, NY: The Haworth Press.

163

Barrett, T. (2013). Friendships between men across sexual orientation: The importance of

(others) being intolerant. The Journal of Men’s Studies, 21(1), 62-77.

doi:10.3149/jms.2101.62

Bearman, M., & Dawson, P. (2013). Qualitative synthesis and systematic review in health

professionals education. Medical Education, 47(3), 252-260. doi:10.1111/medu.12092

Beckstead, L., & Israel, T. (2007). Affirmative counseling and psychotherapy focused on issues

related to sexual orientation conflicts. In K. J. Bieschke, R. M. Perez, & K. A. DeBord

(Eds.), Handbook of psychotherapy with lesbian, gay, and transgender clients (2nd ed.,

pp. 221-244). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Bedi, R. P., Klubben, L. M., & Barker, G. T. (2012). Counselling vs. clinical: A comparison of

psychology doctoral programs in Canada. Canadian Psychology, 53(3), 238-253.

doi:10.1037/a0028558

Berg, M. B., Mimiaga, M. J., & Safren, S. A. (2008). Mental health concerns of gay and bisexual

men seeking mental health services. Journal of Homosexuality, 54(3), 293-306.

doi:10.1080/00918360801982215

Berger, R. M. (1992). Passing and social support among gay men. Journal of Homosexuality,

23(3), 85-98. doi:10.1300/J082v23n03_06

Berkowitz, D. (2013). Gay men and surrogacy. In A. E. Goldberg & K. R. Allen (Eds.), LGBT-

parent families: Innovations in research and implications for practice (pp. 71-85). New

York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-4556-2_5

Berkowitz, D., & Kuvalanka, K. A. (2013). Gay fathers’ involvement in their young children’s

lives. In J. Pattnaik (Ed.), Father involvement in young children’s lives (pp. 89-106). New

York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-5155-2_6

164

Berkowitz, D., & Marsiglio, W. (2007). Gay men: Negotiating procreative, father, and family

identities. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69(2), 366-381.

doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2007.00371.x

Bernstein, R. A. (2005). Families of value: Personal profiles of pioneering lesbian and gay

parents. New York, NY: Marlowe.

Bieschke, K. L., McClanahan, M., Tozer, E., Grzegorek, J. L., & Park, J. (2000). Programmatic

research on the treatment of lesbian, gay, and bisexual clients: The past, the present, and

the course for the future. In R. M. Perez, K. A. DeBord, & K. J. Bieschke (Eds.),

Handbook of counseling and psychotherapy with lesbian, gay, and bisexual clients (pp.

309-335). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Bieschke, K. J., Perez, R. M., & DeBord, K. A. (2007). Introduction: The challenges of

providing affirmative psychotherapy while honoring diverse contexts. In K. J. Bieschke,

R. M. Perez, & K. A. DeBord (Eds.), Handbook of psychotherapy with lesbian, gay,

bisexual, and transgender clients (2nd ed., pp. 3-11). Washington, DC: American

Psychological Association.

Bigner, J. J. (2000). Raising our gay sons: Gay men as fathers. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social

Services, 10(1), 61-77. doi:10.1300/J041v10n01_04

Bigner, J. J., & Bozett, F. W. (1989). Parenting by gay fathers. Marriage & Family Review, 143-

4), 155-175. doi:10.1300/J002v14n03_08

Bigner, J. J. & Jacobsen, R. B. (1989). Parenting behaviors of homosexual and heterosexual

fathers. Journal of Homosexuality, 18(1-2), 73-186.

165

Bilodeau, B. L., & Renn, K. A. (2005). Analysis of LGBT identity development models and

implications for practice. New Directions for Student Services, 111, 25-39.

doi:10.1002/ss.171

Bloor, M., & Wood, F. (2006). Keywords in qualitative research: A vocabulary of research

concepts. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Bordin, E. S., (1979). The generalizability of the psychoanalytic concept of the working alliance.

Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, and Practice, 16(3), 252-260.

Bordin, E. S. (1994). Theory and research on the therapeutic working alliance: New directions.

In A. O. Horvath and L. S. Greenberg (Eds.), The working alliance: Theory, research,

and practice (pp. 13-37). New York: NY: Wiley.

Bowen, G. (2009). Supporting a grounded theory with an audit trail: An illustration.

International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 12(4), 305-316.

doi:10.1080/13645570802156196

Bowland, S. E., Foster, K., & Vosler, A. N. R. (2013). Culturally competent and spiritually

sensitive therapy with lesbian and gay Christians. Social Work, 58(4), 321-332.

doi:10.1093/sw/swt037

Boychuk-Duchscher, J. E., & Morgan, D. (2004). Grounded theory: Reflections on the

emergence vs. forcing debate. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 48(6), 605-612.

doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2004.03249.x

Bozett, F. W. (1980). Gay fathers: How and why they disclose their homosexuality to their

children. Family Relations, 29(2), 173-179. doi:10.2307/584068

Bozett, F. W. (1981). Gay fathers: Evolution of the gay-father identity. American Journal of

Orthopsychiatry: Mental Health & Social Justice, 51(3), 552-559.

166

doi:10.1111/j.1939-0025.1981.tb01404.x

Bozett, F. W. (1985). Gay men as fathers. In S. Hanson & F. W. Bozett (Eds.), Dimensions of

fatherhood (pp. 327-335). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Bozett, F. W. (1988). Gay fatherhood. In P. Bronstein & C. Cowen (Eds.), Fatherhood today:

Men’s changing roles and the family (pp. 137-162). New York, NY: Wiley.

Bozett, F. W. (1989). Gay fathers: A review of the literature. Journal of Homosexuality, 18(1-2),

137-162. doi:10.1300/J082v18n01_07

Bozett, F. W., & Sussman, M. B. (1989). Homosexuality and family relations: Views and

research issues. Marriage & Family Review, 14(3-4), 1-8. doi:10.1300/J002v14n03_01

Brabeck, M., & Brown, L. (1997). Feminist theory and psychological practice. In J. Worell & N.

G. Johnson (Eds.), Shaping the future of feminist psychology: Education, research, and

practice (pp. 15-35). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Braver, S. L., & Lamb, M. E. (2013). Marital dissolution. In G. W. Petersen & K. R. Bush

(Eds.), Handbook of marriage and the family (pp. 487-516). New York, NY: Springer.

Breen, A. B., & Karpinski, A. (2013). Implicit and explicit attitudes toward gay males and

lesbians among heterosexual males and females. The Journal of Social Psychology,

153(3), 351-374. doi:10.1080/00224545.2012.739581

Bridges, T. (2013). A very “gay” straight? Hybrid masculinities, sexual aesthetics, and the

changing relationship between masculinity and homophobia. Gender & Society. Advance

online publication. doi:10.1177/0891243213503901

Bridges, W. (2001). The way of transition: Embracing life’s most difficult moments. Cambridge,

MA: Perseus.

167

Broderick, P. C., & Blewitt, P. (2003). The life span: Human development for helping

professionals. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Brooks, A. K., & Edwards, K. (2009). Allies in the workplace: Including LGBT in HRD.

Advances in Developing Human Resources, 11(1), 136-149.

doi:10.1177/1523422308328500

Brooks, G. R., & Silverstein, L. B. (1995). Understanding the dark side of masculinity: An

integrative systems model. In R. F. Levant & W. S. Pollack (Eds.), A new psychology of

men (pp. 280-333). New York, NY: Basic Books.

Bryan, D. M. (2013). To parent or provide? The effect of the provider role on low-income men’s

decisions about fatherhood and paternal engagement. Fathering: A Journal of Theory,

Research, and Practice about Men as Fathers, 11(1), 71-89. doi:10.3149/fth.1101.71

Bryant, A. (2013). The grounded theory method. In A. A. Trainor & E. Graue (Eds.), Reviewing

qualitative research in the social sciences (pp. 108-124). New York, NY: Routledge.

Bryant, A., & Charmaz, K. (2007). Introduction: Grounded theory research: Methods and

practice. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The Sage handbook of grounded theory (pp.

1-28). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Buchanan, M., Dzelme, K., Harris, D., & Hecker, L. (2001). Challenges of being simultaneously

gay or lesbian and spiritual and/or religious: A narrative perspective. American Journal

of Family Therapy, 29(5), 435-449. doi:10.1080/01926180127629

Buckley, C. A., & Waring, M. J. (2013). Using diagrams to support the research process:

Examples from grounded theory. Qualitative Research, 13(1), 1-25.

doi:10.1177/1468794112472280

168

Burstow, B. (1992). Radical feminist therapy: Working with clients in the context of violence.

Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Bushwell, L., Zabriskle, R. B., Lundberg, N., & Hawkins, A. J. (2012). The relationship between

father involvement in family leisure and family functioning: The importance of daily

family leisure. Leisure Sciences: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 34(2), 172-190.

doi:10.1080/01490400.2012.652510

Butler-Kisber, L. (2010). Qualitative inquiry: Thematic, narrative and arts-informed

perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Buxton, A. P. (2005). A family matter: When a spouse comes out as gay, lesbian, or bisexual.

Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 1(2), 49-70. doi:10.1300/J461v01n02_04

Buxton, A. P. (2006). When a spouse comes out: Impact on the heterosexual partner. Sexual

Addiction & Compulsivity: The Journal of Treatment & Prevention, 13(2-3), 317-332.

doi:10.1080/10720160600897599

Bybee, J. A., Sullivan, E. L., Zielonka, E., & Moes, E. (2009). Are gay men in worse mental

health than heterosexual men? The role of age, shame and guilt, and coming out. Journal

of Adult Development, 16(3), 144-154. doi:10.1007/s10804-009-9059-x

Canadian Psychological Association (1996/2001). Guidelines for non-discriminatory practice.

Ottawa, ON: Author.

Canadian Psychological Association (2000). Canadian code of ethics for psychologists (3rd ed.).

Ottawa, ON: Author.

Carlson, D. L., & Knoester, C. (2011). Family structure and the intergenerational transmission of

gender ideology. Journal of Family Issues, 32(6), 709-734.

doi:10.1177/0192513X10396662

169

Carlson, J. A. (2010). Avoiding traps in member checking. The Qualitative Report, 15(5), 1102-

1113.

Carroll, L. (2010). Counseling sexual and gender minorities. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.

Case, K. A., Luzzini, J., & Hopkins, M. (2012). Systems of privilege: Intersections, awareness,

and applications. Journal of Social Issues, 68(1), 1-10.

doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2011.01732.x

Casey, M. (2009). Addressing key theoretical approaches to gay male sexual identity: Issues and

insights for practitioners of mental health. Critical Public Health, 19(3-4), 293-305.

doi:10.1080/09581590902951613

Cass, V. C. (1979). Homosexual identity formation: A theoretical model. Journal of

Homosexuality, 4(3), 219-235. doi:10.1300/J082v04n03_01

Cass, V. C. (1984). Homosexual identity formation: Testing a theoretical model. Journal of Sex

Research, 20(2), 143-167.

Cass, V. C. (1996). Sexual orientation identity formation: A western phenomenon. In R. P. Cabaj

& T. S. Stein (Eds.), Textbook of homosexuality and mental health (pp. 227-251).

Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press.

Catlett, B. S., & McKenry, P. C. (2007). Class-based masculinities: Divorce, fatherhood, and the

hegemonic ideal. Fathering: A Journal of Theory, Research, and Practice about Men as

Fathers, 2(2), 165-190. doi:10.3149/fth.0202.165

Charmaz, K. (2000). Constructivist and objectivist grounded theory. In N. K. Denzin & Y.

Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., p. 509-535). Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.

170

Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative

analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Charmaz, K. (2008). Grounded theory as an emergent method. In S. N. Hesse-Bibler & P. Leavy

(Eds.), Handbook of emergent methods (pp. 155-170). New York, NY: Guildford.

Chen, E. C., Stracuzzi, T. I., & Ruckdeschel, D. E. (2004). Affirmative counseling with gay men.

In D. R. Atkinson & G. Hackett (Eds.), Counseling diverse populations (3rd ed., pp. 388-

411). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Cheng, C. (1999). Marginalized masculinities and hegemonic masculinity: An introduction.

Journal of Men’s Studies, 7(3), 295-315. doi:10.3149/jms.0703.295

Cheng, Z. (2004). Hate crimes, posttraumatic stress disorder and implications for counseling

lesbians and gay men. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling, 35(4), 8-16.

Chernin, J. N., & Johnson, M. R. (2003). Affirmative psychotherapy and counseling for lesbians

and gay men. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Christians, C. (2005). Ethics and politics in qualitative research. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln

(Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 139-164). Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Clarke, V. (2001). What about the children? Arguments against lesbian and gay parenting.

Women’s Studies International Forum, 24(5), 555-570.

doi:10.1016/S0277-5395(01)00193-5

Clarke, V., Kitzinger, C., & Potter, J. (2004). ‘Kids are just cruel anyway’: Lesbian and gay

parents’ talk about homophobic bullying. British Journal of Social Psychology, 43(4),

531-550.

171

Claxton-Oldfield, S., & O'Neil, S. (2007). Perceptions of gay and lesbian stepfamilies. Journal of

Divorce & Remarriage, 46(3-4), 1-8. doi:10.1300/J087v46n03_01

Coleman, E. (1981-1982). Developmental stages of the coming out process. Journal of

Homosexuality, 7(2-3), 31-43. doi:10.1300/J082v07n02_06

Collins, S. (2010). The complexity of identity: Appreciating multiplicity and intersectionality. In

N. Arthur & S. Collins (Eds.), Culture-infused counselling (2nd ed., pp. 247-258).

Calgary, AB: Counselling Concepts.

Collins, S., & Arthur, N. (2010). Culturally sensitive working alliance. In N. Arthur & S. Collins

(Eds.), Culture-infused counselling (2nd ed., pp. 103-138). Calgary, AB: Counselling

Concepts.

Connell, R. W. (1995). Masculinities. Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.

Connell, R. W. (2005). Masculinities (2nd ed.). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Connell, R. W., & Messerschmidt, J. W. (2005). Hegemonic masculinity. Gender & Society,

19(6), 829-859. doi:10.1177/08912432052786369

Corcoran, M. P. (2005). Portrait of the ‘absent’ father: The impact of non-residency on

developing and maintaining a fathering role. Irish Journal of Sociology, 14(2), 134-154.

Corey, G., & Herlihy, B. (2001). Feminist therapy. In G. Corey (Ed.), Theory and practice of

counselling and psychotherapy (pp. 340-381). New York, NY: Wadsworth.

Corrigan, P. W., Kosyluk, K. A., & Rusch, N. (2013). Reducing self-stigma by coming out

proud. American Journal of Public Health. Advance online publication.

doi:10.2105/AJPH.2012.301037

172

Coston, B. M., & Kimmel, M. (2012). Seeing privilege where it isn’t: Marginalized masculinities

and the intersectionality of privilege. Journal of Social Issues, 68(1), 97-111.

doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2011.01738.x

Coulter, T., & Honoré France, M. (2013). The counselling profession and the GLBTQI

community. In M. Honoré France, M. del Carmen Rodríguez, & G. G. Hett (Eds.),

Diversity, culture and counselling: A Canadian perspective (2nd ed., pp. 262-289).

Calgary, AB: Brush Education.

Courtenay, W. H. (2000). Constructions of masculinity and their influence on men’s well-being:

A theory of gender and health. Social Science and Medicine, 50(10), 1385-1401.

doi:10.1016/S0277-9536(99)00390-1

Covan, E. K. (2007). The discovery of grounded theory in practice: The legacy of multiple

mentors. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The Sage handbook of grounded theory (pp.

58-74). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cox, S., & Gallois, C. (1996). Gay and lesbian identity development: A social identity

perspective. Journal of Homosexuality, 30(4), 1-30. doi:10.1300/J082v30n04_01

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches

(3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Crosby, R. A., Salazar, L. F., & DiClemente, R. J. (2011). Principles of sampling. In R. A.

Crosby, R. J. DiClemente, & L. F. Salazar (Eds.), Research methods in health promotion.

San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Croteau, J. M., Bieschke, K. J., Fassinger, R. E., & Manning, J. L. (2008). Counseling

psychology and sexual orientation: History, selective trends, and future directions. In R.

173

D. Brown & R. W. Lent (Eds.), Handbook of counseling psychology (4th ed., pp. 194-

211). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

D’Augelli, A. R. (1994). Identity development and sexual orientation: Toward a model of

lesbian, gay, and bisexual development. In E. J. Trickett, R. J. Watts, & D. Birman

(Eds.), Human diversity: Perspectives on people in context (pp. 312-333). San Francisco,

CA: Jossey-Bass.

D’Augelli, A. R. (2003). Foreword: Toward the future of research on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and

transgender populations. In W. Meezan & J. I. Martin (Eds.), Research methods with gay,

lesbian, bisexual, and transgender populations (pp. xix-xxii). New York: The Haworth

Press.

Dahl, A., & Galliher, R. V. (2012). The interplay of sexual and religious identity development in

LGBTQ adolescents and young adults: A qualitative inquiry. Identity: An International

Journal of Theory and Research, 12(3), 217-246. doi:10.1080/15283488.2012.691255

Daly, K. (1993). Reshaping fatherhood: Find the models. Journal of Family Issues, 14(4), 510-

530. doi:10.1177/019251393014004003

Davison, G. C. (2001). Conceptual and ethical issues in therapy for the psychological problems

of gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals. JCLP/In Session: Psychotherapy in Practice, 57(5),

695-704.

DeBord, K. A., & Perez, R. M. (2000). Group counseling theory and practice with lesbian, gay,

and bisexual clients. In R. M. Perez, K. A. DeBord, & K. J. Bieschke (Eds.), Handbook

of counseling and psychotherapy with lesbian, gay, and bisexual clients (1st ed., pp. 183-

206). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

174

DePalma, R., & Atkinson, E. (2010). The nature of institutional heteronormativity in primary

schools and practice-based responses. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(8), 1669-

1676. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2010.06.018

Dearnley, C. (2005). A reflection on the use of semi-structured interviews. Nurse Researcher,

13(1), 19-28.

Dempsey, D. (2013). Surrogacy, gay male couples and the significance of biogenetic paternity.

New Genetics and Society, 32(1), 37-53. doi:10.1080/14636778.2012.735859

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2005). The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd

ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Dowsett, G. W. (2007). Researching gay men’s health: The promise of qualitative methodology.

In I. H. Meyer & M. E. Northridge (Eds.), The health of sexual minorities: Public health

perspectives on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender populations (pp. 419-441). New

York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.

Drescher, J. (2002). Causes and becauses: On etiological theories of homosexuality. Annual of

Psychoanalysis, 30(1), 57-68.

Drescher, J. (2008). A history of homosexuality and organized psychoanalysis. Journal of the

American Academy of Psychoanalysis and Dynamic Psychiatry, 36(3), 443-460.

Dubé, E. M., & Savin-Williams , R. C. (1999). Sexual identity development among ethnic

sexual-minority male youths. Developmental Psychology, 35(6), 1389-1398.

Dundas, S., & Kaufman, M. (2000). The Toronto lesbian family study. Journal of

Homosexuality, 40(2), 65-79. doi:10.1300/J082v40n02_05

175

Dunne, C. (2011). The place of the literature review in grounded theory research. International

Journal of Social Research Methodology, 14(2), 111-124.

doi:10.1080/13645579.2010.494930

Dunne, E. J. (1987). Helping gay fathers come out to their children. Journal of Homosexuality,

14(1-2), 213-222. doi:10.1300/J082v14n01_16

Dwyer, T. F., & Niemann, S. H. (2002). Counseling and sexually transmitted diseases. In L. D.

Burlew & D. Capuzzi (Eds.), Sexuality counseling (pp. 373-394). New York, NY: Nova

Science.

Eccles, J. S., Jacobs, J. E., & Harold, R. D. (1990). Gender role stereotypes, expectancy effects,

and parents’ socialization of gender differences. Journal of Social Issues, 46(2), 183-201.

doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1990.tb01929.x

Edwards, K. E., & Jones, S. R. (2009). “Putting my man face on”: A grounded theory of college

men’s gender identity development. Journal of College Student Development, 50(2), 210-

228. doi:10.1353/csd.0.0063

Edwards, T. (2005). Queering the pitch? Gay masculinities. In M. S. Kimmel, J. Hearn, & R. W.

Connell (Eds.), Handbook of studies on men & masculinities (pp. 51-68). Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Eggebeen, D. J., Knoester, C., & McDaniel, B. (2013). The implications of fatherhood for men.

In N. J. Cabrera & C. S. Tamis-LeMonda (Eds.), Handbook of father involvement:

Multidisciplinary perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 338-358 ). New York, NY: Routledge.

Eisler, R. M. (1995). The relationship between masculine gender role stress and men’s health

risk: The validation of a construct. In R. F. Levant & W. S. Pollack (Eds.), A new

psychology of men (pp. 207-225). New York, NY: Basic Books.

176

Elkin, & Handel (1989). The child and society: The process of socialization. New York, NY:

McGraw-Hill.

Enns, C. A. (1997). Feminist theories and feminist psychotherapies: Origins, themes, and

variations. New York, NY: The Harrington Park Press.

Estefan, A., & Roughley, R. A. (2013). Composing self on narrative landscapes of sexual

difference: A story of wisdom and resilience. Canadian Journal of Counselling and

Psychotherapy, 47(1), 29-48. ISSN 0826-3893

Fairtlough, A. (2008). Growing up with a lesbian or gay parent: Young people's perspectives.

Health & Social Care in the Community, 16(5), 521-528.

doi:10.1111/j.1365-2524.2008.00774.x

Farr, R. H., & Patterson, C. J. (2013a). Coparenting among lesbian, gay, and heterosexual

couples: Associations with adopted children’s outcomes. Child Development. Advance

online publication. doi:10.1111/cdev.12046

Farr, R. H., & Patterson, C. J. (2013b). Lesbian and gay adoptive parents and their children. In

A. E. Goldberg & K. R. Allen (Eds.), LGBT-parent families: Innovations in research and

implications for practice (pp. 39-55). New York, NY: Springer.

Fassinger, R. E. (1991). The hidden minority: Issues and challenges in working with lesbian

women and gay men. The Counseling Psychologist, 19(2), 157-176.

doi:10.1177/0011000091192003

Fassinger, R. E., & Arseneau, J. R. (2007). “I’d rather get wet than be under that umbrella”:

Differentiating the experiences of identities of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender

people. In K. J. Bieschke, R. M. Perez, & K. A. DeBord (Eds.), Handbook of counselling

177

and psychotherapy with lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender clients (2nd ed., pp. 19-

49). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/11482-001

Fassinger, R. E., & Miller, B. A. (1997). Validation of a model of sexual identity development

for a sample of gay men. Journal of Homosexuality, 32(2), 53-78.

doi:10.1300/J082v32n02_04

Fierstein, H. (July 21, 2013). Russia’s anti-gay crackdown. The New York Times. Retrieved from

http://www.thestranger.com/images/blogimages/2013/07/24/1374708988-

dump_russian_vodka_flyer_lo_res.pdf

Filax, G. (2006). Queer youth in the province of the “severely normal”. Vancouver, BC: UBC

Press.

Fisher, E. S. (2013). Supporting lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning students and

family. In E. S. Fisher & K. Komosa-Hawkins (Eds.), Creating safe and supportive

learning environments: A guide for working with lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and

questioning youth and families (pp. 3-9). New York, NY: Routledge.

Floyd, F. J., & Bakeman, R. (2006). Coming out across the life course: Implications of age and

historical context. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 35(3), 287-296.

doi:10.1007/s10508-006-9022-x

Ford, C. S., & Beach, F. A. (1951). Patterns of sexual behavior. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

Foster, M. L., Arnold, E., Rebchook, G., & Kegeles, S. M. (2011). “It's my inner strength’:

Spirituality, religion and HIV in the lives of young African American men who have sex

with men. Culture, Health & Sexuality: An International Journal of Research,

Intervention and Care, 13(9), 1103-1117. doi:10.1080/13691058.2011.600460

Freud, S. (1905). “Three essays on the theory of sexuality”. In J. Strachey (Ed.), The standard

178

edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 7, pp. 123-246).

London: Hogarth.

Freud, S. (1908). “Civilized sexual morality and modern mental illness. In J. Strachey (Ed.), The

standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 9, pp. 177-

204). London: Hogarth.

Frost, D. M., & Meyer, I. H. (2009). Internalized homophobia and relationship quality among

lesbian, gay men, and bisexuals. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 56(1), 97-109.

doi:10.1037/a0012844

Fruhauf, C. A., Orel, N. A., & Jenkins, D. A. (2009). The coming out process of gay

grandfathers: Perceptions of their adult children’s influence. Journal of GLBT Family

Studies, 5(1-2), 99-118. doi:10.1080/15504280802595402

Fukuyama, M. A., & Ferguson, A. D. (2000). Lesbian, gay, and bisexual people of color:

Understanding cultural complexity and managing multiple oppressions. In R. Perez, K.

DeBord, & K. Bieschke (Eds.), Handbook of counselling and psychotherapy with lesbian,

gay, and bisexual clients (pp. 81-105). Washington, DC: American Psychological

Association. doi:10.1037/10339-004

Gibbs, J. M., & Jones, B. E. (2013). The black community and its LGBT members: The role of

the behavioral scientist. Journal of Gay & lesbian Mental Health. Advanced online

publication. doi:10.1080/19359705.2013.766563

Giesler, M. (2012). Gay fathers’ negotiation of gender role strain: A qualitative inquiry.

Fathering: A Journal of Theory, Research, and Practice about Men as Fathers, 10(2),

119-139. doi:10.3149/fth.1002.119

179

Gillis, J. R. (2000). Marginalization of fatherhood in Western countries. Childhood, 7(2), 225-

238. doi:10.1177/0907568200007002007

Gilmore, D. D. (1990). Manhood in the making: Cultural concepts of masculinity. New Haven,

CT: Yale University Press.

Glaser. B. G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity. Mill Valley, CA: The Sociology Press.

Glaser, B. G. (1992). Basics of grounded theory analysis: Emergence vs. forcing. Mill Valley,

CA: Sociology Press.

Glaser, B. G. (2001). The grounded theory perspective: Conceptualization contrasted with

description. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for

qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine.

Glense, C. (1999). Becoming qualitative researchers (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Longman.

Goldberg, A. E. (2010). Lesbian and gay parents and their children: Research on the family life

cycle. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/12055-000

Goldberg, A. E., Downing, J. B., & Moyer, A. M. (2012). Why parenthood, and why now? Gay

men’s motivations for pursuing parenthood. Family Relations, 61(1), 157-174.

doi:10.1111/j.1741-3729.2011.00687.x

Goldberg, A. E., & Kuvalanka, K. A. (2012). Marriage (in)equality: The perspectives of

adolescents and emerging adults with lesbian, gay, and bisexual parents. Journal of

Marriage and Family, 74(1), 34-52. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2011.00876.x

Gonsiorek, J. C. (2004). Reflections for the conversion therapy battlefield. The Counseling

Psychologist, 32(5), 750-759. doi:10.1177/0011000004267621

180

Good, G. E., & Brooks, G. R. (2005). Introduction. In G. E. Good & G. R. Brooks (Eds.), The

new handbook of psychotherapy and counseling with men: A comprehensive guide to

settings, problems, and treatment approaches (pp. 1-13). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-

Bass.

Goodenow, C., Szalacha, L., & Westheimer, K. (2006). School support groups, other school

factors, and the safety of sexual minority adolescents. Psychology in the Schools, 43(5),

573-589. doi:10.1002/pits.20173

Goodman, J., Schlossberg, N. K., & Anderson, M. L. (2006). Counselling adults in transition:

Linking practice with theory (3rd ed.). New York: Springer Publishing Company.

Green, J., & Thorogood, N. (2011). Qualitative methods for health research (2nd ed.). Los

Angeles, CA: Sage.

Greenan, D. E., & Tunnell, G. (2003). Couple therapy with gay men. New York, NY: Guilford.

Greene, D. C., & Britton, P. J. (2013). The influence of forgiveness on lesbian, gay, bisexual,

transgender, and questioning individuals’ shame and self-esteem. Journal of Counseling

& Development, 91(2), 195-205. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6676.2013.00086.x

Grever, C. (2012). Unintended consequences: Unique issues of female straight spouses. Journal

of GLBT Family Studies, 8(1), 67-84. doi:10.1080/1550428X.2012.641372

Grove, J., Peel, E., & Owen-Pugh, V. (2013). Client disclosures on the process of seeking same-

sex couple counselling. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling. Advance online

publication. doi:10.1080/03069885.2013.778388

Habib, C. (2012). The transition to fatherhood: A literature review exploring paternal

involvement with identity theory. Journal of Family Studies, 18(2-3), 103-120.

doi:10.5172/jfs.2012.18.2-3.103

181

Haig, B. D. (1995). Grounded theory as scientific method. In A. Neiman (Ed.), The philosophy of

education’s 1995 yearbook. Champaign, IL: Philosophy of Education Society.

Haldeman, D. (2004). When sexual and religious orientation collide: Considerations in working

with conflicted same-sex attracted male clients. The Counseling Psychologist, 32(5), 691-

715. doi:10.1177/0011000004267560

Haldeman, D. (2008). Therapeutic antidotes: Helping gay and bisexual men recover from

conversion therapies. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Psychotherapy, 5(3-4), 117-130.

doi:10.1300/J236v05n03_08

Hall, J., & LaFrance, B. (2012). “That’s gay”: Sexual prejudice, gender identity norms, and

homophobic communication. Communication Quarterly, 60(1), 35-58.

doi:10.1080/01463373.2012.641833

Hamilton, C. J., & Mahalik, J. R. (2009). Minority stress, masculinity, and social norms

predicting gay men’s health risk behaviors. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 56(1),

132-141. doi:10.1037/a0014440

Haverkamp, B. E. (2005). Ethical perspectives on qualitative research in applied psychology.

Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(2), 146-155. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.52.2.146

Haverkamp, B. E., & Young, R. A. (2007). Paradigms, purpose, and the role of the literature:

Formulating a rationale for qualitative investigations. The Counseling Psychologist,

35(2), 265-294. doi:10.1177/0011000006292597

Hays, D. G., & Singh, A. A. (2011). Qualitative inquiry in clinical and educational settings.

New York, NY: Guilford.

182

Heck, N. C., Flentje, A., & Cochran, B. N. (2012). Intake interviewing with lesbian, gay,

bisexual, and transgender clients: Starting from a place of affirmation. Journal of

Contemporary Psychotherapy, 43(1), 23-32. doi:10.1007/s10879-012-9220-x

Henehan, D., Rothblum, E. D., Solomon, S. E., & Balsam, K. F. (2007). Social and demographic

characteristics of gay, lesbian, and heterosexual adults with and without children. Journal

of GLBT Family Studies, 3(2-3), 35-79. doi:10.1300/J461v03n02_03

Herek, G. M. (1986). On heterosexual masculinity: Some psychical consequences of the social

construction of gender and sexuality. American Behavioral Scientist, 29(5), 563-577.

Herek, G. M. (2006). Legal recognition of same-sex relationships in the United States: A social

science perspective. American Psychologist, 61(6), 607-621.

Herek, G. M., Gillis, J. R., & Cogan, J. C. (2009). Internalized stigma among sexual minority

adults: Insights from a social psychological perspective. Journal of Counseling

Psychology, 56(1), 32-43. doi:10.1037/a0014672

Hernandez, B. C., Schwenke, N. J., & Wilson, C. M. (2011). Spouses in mixed-orientation

marriage: A 20-year review of empirical studies. Journal of Marital & Family Therapy,

37(3), 307-318. doi:10.1111/j.1752-0606.2010.00202.x

Hesse-Bibler, S. N., & Leavy, P. (2011). The practice of qualitative research (2nd ed.).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hicks, S. (2013). Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender parents and the question of gender. In

A. E. Goldberg & K. R. Allen (Eds.), LGBT-parent families: Innovations in research and

implications for practice (pp. 149-162). New York, NY: Springer.

doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-4556-2_10

183

Hill, M., & Ballou, M. (Eds.). (2011). The foundations and future of feminist therapy.

Binghamton, NY: Haworth Press.

Hill, N. L. (2009). Affirmative practice and alternate sexual orientations: Helping clients

navigate the coming out process. Clinical Social Work Journal, 37(4), 346-356.

doi:10.1007/s10615-009-0240-2

Hohmann-Marriott, B. (2011). Coparenting and father involvement in married and unmarried

coresident couples. Journal of Marriage and Family, 73(1), 296-309.

doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00805.x

Holland, L., Matthews, T. L., & Schott, M. R. (2013). “That’s so gay!” Exploring college

students’ attitudes toward the LGBT population. Journal of Homosexuality, 60(4), 575-

595. doi:10.1080/00918369.2013.760321

Holter, O. G. (2005). Social theories for researching men and masculinities: Direct gender

hierarchy and structural inequality. In M. S. Kimmel, J. Hearn, & R. W. Connell (Eds.),

Handbook of studies on men & masculinities (pp. 15-34). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Holtzman, M. (2013). GLBT parents’ rights during custody decision making: The influence of

doctrine, statute, and societal factors in the United States. Journal of GLBT Family

Studies, 9(4), 364-392. doi:10.1080/1550428X.2013.803346

Hood, J. C. (2007). Orthodoxy vs. power: The defining traits of grounded theory. In A. Bryant &

K. Charmaz (Eds.), The Sage handbook of grounded theory (pp. 151-164). Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hooker, E. A. (1957). The adjustment of the male overt homosexual. Journal of Projection

Techniques, 21, 18-31.

184

Hooker, E. A. (1969). Parental relations and male homosexuality in patient and nonpatient

populations. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 33(2), 140-142.

Hopkins, J. J., Sorensen, A., & Taylor, V. (2013). Same-sex couples, families, and marriage:

Embracing and resisting heteronormativity. Sociology Compass, 7(2), 97-110.

doi:10.1111/soc4.12016

Horvath, A. O. (2000). The therapeutic relationship: From transference to alliance. JCLP/In

Session: Psychotherapy in Practice, 56(2), 163-173.

Hu, E., Jones, K., & Bruce, S. E. (2013). Child maltreatment and bullying: Examining the

experiences of LGB children and adolescents. Journal of Traumatic Stress Disorders &

Treatment, 2(1), 1-2. doi:10.4172/2324-8947.1000e106

Hunt, C. J., Gonsalkorale, K., & Murray, S. B. (2013). Threatened masculinity and muscularity:

An examination of multiple aspects of muscularity in men. Body Image. Advance online

publication. doi:10.1016/j.bodyim.2013.02.007

Isacco, A., Yallum, N., & Chromik, L. (2012). A review of gay men’s health: Challenges,

strengths, and interventions. American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine, 6(1), 45-62.

doi:10.1177/1559827611402580

Israel, T., Gorcheva, R., Burnes, T. R., & Walther, W. A. (2008). Helpful and unhelpful therapy

experiences of LGBT clients. Psychotherapy Research, 18(3), 294-305.

doi:10.1080/10503300701506920

James, T., & Platzer, H. (1999). Ethical considerations in qualitative research with vulnerable

groups: Exploring lesbians’ and gay men’s experiences of health care — A personal

perspective. Nursing Ethics, 6(1), 73-81. PMID:10067558

185

Jenkins, D. A. (2013). Boundary ambiguity in gay stepfamilies: Perspectives of gay biological

fathers and their same-sex partners. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 54(4), 329-348.

doi:10.1080/10502556.2013.780501

Johnson, S. D. (2012). Gay affirmative psychotherapy with lesbian, gay, and bisexual

individuals: Implications for contemporary psychotherapy research. American Journal of

Orthopsychiatry, 82(4), 516-522. doi:10.1111/j.1939-0025.2012.01180.x

Johnston, L. B., Moore, B. A., & Judd, R. (2010). Gay and lesbian households’ perceptions of

their family functioning: Strengths and resiliency. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 6(3),

315-325. doi:10.1080/1550428X.2010.490901

Kay, T. (2009). The landscape of fathering. In. T. Kay (Ed.), Fathering through sport and

leisure. New York, NY: Routledge.

Kays, J. L., & Yarhouse, M. A. (2010). Resilient factors in mixed orientation couples: Current

state of the research. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 38(4), 334-343.

doi:10.1080/01926187.2010.493464

Kendall, J. (1999). Axial coding and the grounded theory controversy. Western Journal of

Nursing Research, 21(6), 743-757. doi:10.1177/019394599902100603

Kenny, M. E., & Romano, J. L. (2009). Promoting positive development and social justice

through prevention: A legacy for the future. In M. E. Kenny, A. M. Horne, P. Orpinas, &

L. E. Reese (Eds.), Realizing social justice: The challenge of prevention interventions

(pp. 17-36). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Kertzner, R. M., Meyer, I. H., Frost, D. M., & Stirratt, M. J. (2009). Social and psychological

well-being in lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals: The effects of race, gender, age, and

186

sexual identity. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry: Mental Health & Social Justice,

79(4), 500-510. doi:10.1037/a0016848

Killewalda, A. (2013). A reconsideration of the fatherhood premium. American Sociological

Review, 78(1), 96-116. doi:10.1177/0003122412469204

King, E. B., Huffman, A. H., & Peddie, C. I. (2013). LGBT parents and the workplace. In A. E.

Goldberg & K. R. Allen (Eds.), LGBT-Parent Families (pp. 225-237). New York, NY:

Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-4556-2_15

King, N., & Horrocks, C. (2010). Interviews in qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., & Martin, C. E. (1948). Sexual behavior in the human male.

Philadelphia, PA: W. B. Saunders.

Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., Martin, C. E., & Gebhard, P. (1953). Sexual behavior in the

human female. Philadelphia, PA: W. B. Saunders.

Knoble, N. B., & Linville, D. (2012). Outness and relationship satisfaction in same-gender

couples. Journal of Marital & Family Therapy, 38(2), 330-339.

doi:10.1111/j.1752-0606.2010.00206.x

Korzenowski, G. (1996). A qualitative examination of obstacles to therapy for gay men and

lesbians. Dissertation Abstracts International 56 (09), 5174B. (UMI No. 9602186)

Kosciw, J. G., & Diaz, E. M. (2006). The 2005 national school climate survey: The experiences

of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth in our schools. New York, NY: GLSEN.

Kralik, D., Visentin, K., & Van Loon, A. (2006). Transition: A literature review. Journal of

Advanced Nursing, 55(3), 320-329. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2006.03899.x

LaRossa, R. (1988). Fatherhood and social change. Family Relations, 37(4), 451-457.

187

LaSala, M. C. (2003). When interviewing “family”: Maximizing the insider advantage in the

qualitative study of lesbians and gay men. In W. Meezan & J. I. Martin (Eds.), Research

methods with gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender populations (pp. 15-30). New York,

NY: The Haworth Press.

Lamb, M. E. (2000). The history of research on father involvement: An overview. Marriage &

Family Review, 29(2-3), 23-42. doi:10.1300/J002v29n02_03

Langdridge, D. (2007). Gay affirmative therapy: A theoretical framework. Journal of Gay &

Lesbian Psychotherapy, 11(1-2), 27-43. doi:10.1300/J236v11n01_03

Langdridge, D. (2008). Are you angry or are you heterosexual? A queer critique of lesbian and

gay models of identity development. In L. Moon (Ed.), Feeling queer or queer feelings?:

Radical approaches to counselling sex, sexualities, and genders (pp. 23-35). New York,

NY: Routledge.

LeBeau, R. T., & Jellison, W. A. (2009). Why get involved? Exploring gay and bisexual men’s

experience of the gay community. Journal of Homosexuality, 56(1), 56-76.

doi:10.1080/00918360802551522

Leedy, P. D., & Ormrod, J. E. (2005). Practical research: Planning and designing (8th ed.).

Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Legate, N., Ryan, R. M., & Weinstein, N. (2012). Is coming out always a “good thing”?

Exploring the relations of autonomy, support, outness, and wellness for lesbian, gay, and

bisexual individuals. Social Psychological & Personality Science, 3(2), 145-152.

doi:10.1177/1948550611411929

188

Lempert, L. B. (2007). Asking questions of the data: Memo writing in the grounded theory

tradition. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The Sage handbook of grounded theory (pp.

245-264). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Levy, D. L., & Reeves, P. (2011). Resolving identity conflict: Gay, lesbian, and queer

individuals with a Christian upbringing. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 23(1),

53-68. doi:10.1080/10538720.2010.530193

Lichtanski, K. (2004). A comparison of adoptive gay and adoptive heterosexual fathers:

Differences in their perception of parenting abilities, levels of parental stress, style of

parenting, and available social support. Dissertations Abstracts International, 65(05),

2635. (UMI No. 3132743).

Lichtenberg, J. W., Goodyear, R. K., & Genther, D. Y. (2008). The changing landscape of

professional practice in counseling psychology. In S. D. Brown & R. W. Lent (Eds.),

Handbook of counseling psychology (4th ed., pp. 21-37). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Liddle, B. J. (2008). The challenge of understanding LGBTQ lives and experiences. In V. Clarke

& E. Peel (Eds.), Out in psychology: Lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans and queer perspectives

(pp. 120-124). West Sussex, England: Wiley.

Lillemor, R., & Hallberg, R. (2010). Some thoughts about the literature review in grounded

theory studies. International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-being,

5(3), 1. doi:10.3402/qhw.v5i3.5387

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Lovasz, N., & Clarke, J. (2007). Life beyond depression: The experience of gays and lesbians

who self-identify as depressed. Journal of LGBT Health Research, 3(4), 53-73.

doi:10.1080/15574090802226600

189

Lusher, D., & Robins, G. (2009). Hegemonic and other masculinities in local social contexts.

Men and Masculinities, 11(4), 387-423. doi:10.1177/1097184X06298776

McAndrews, S., & Warne, T. (2012). Gay children and suicidality: The importance of

professional nurturance. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 33(6), 348-354.

doi:10.3109/01612840.2012.656821

McLeod, A. C., Crawford, I., Zechmeister, J. (1999). Heterosexual undergraduates’ attitudes

toward gay fathers and their children. Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 11(1),

43-62. doi:10.1300/J056v11n01_03

McLeod, J. (1996). Qualitative approaches to research in counselling and psychotherapy: Issues

and challenges. British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 24(3), 309-316.

doi:10.1080/03069889608253015

Mahalik, J. R., Good, G. E., & Englar-Carlson, M. (2010). Masculinity scripts, presenting

concerns, and help seeking: Implications for practice and training. In S. R. Harper & F.

Harris III (Eds.), College men and masculinities: Theory, research, and implications for

practice (pp. 77-96). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Mair, D. (2003). Gay men’s experiences of therapy. Counselling and Psychotherapy Research,

3(1), 33-41. doi:10.1080/14733140312331384608

Mair, D., & Izzard, S. (2001). Grasping at the nettle: gay men’s experiences in therapy.

Psychodynamic Counselling, 7(4), 475-490. doi:10.1080/13533330110087723

Malebranche, D. J., Gvetadze, R., Millett, G. A., & Sutton, M. Y. (2012). The relationship

between gender role conflict and condom use among black MSM. AIDS and Behavior,

16(7), 2051-2061. doi:10.1007/s10461-011-0055-3

190

Mankowski, E. S., & Maton, K. I. (2010). A community psychology review of men and

masculinity: Historical and conceptual review. American Journal of Community

Psychology, 45(1-2), 73-86. doi:10.1007/s10464-009-9288-y

Marcia, J. E. (1994). The empirical study of ego identity. In H. A. Bosma, T. L. G. Graffsma, H.

D. Grotevant, & D. J. de Levita (Eds.), Identity and development: An interdisciplinary

approach (pp. 67-80). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Markus, H., & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves. American Psychologist, 41(9), 954-969.

Marsiglio, W., Day, R. D., Lamb, M. E. (2000). Exploring fatherhood diversity: Implications for

conceptualizing father involvement. Marriage & Family Review, 29(4), 269-293.

doi:10.1300/J002v29n04_03

Marsiglio, W., & Pleck, J. H. (2005). Fatherhood and masculinities. In M. S. Kimmel, J. Hearn,

& R. Connell (Eds.), Handbook on men & masculinities (pp. 249-269). Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.

Marsiglio, W., & Roy, K. (2012). Nurturing dads: Social initiatives for contemporary

fatherhood. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

McFarland-Piazza, L., Hazen, N., Jacobvitz, D., & Boyd-Solsson, E. (2012). The development of

father-child attachment: Associations between adult attachment representations,

recollections of childhood experiences and caregiving. Early Child Development and

Care, 182(6), 701-721. doi:10.1080/03004430.2011.573071

McGarry, K. (2003). Fatherhood for gay men: An emotional and practical guide to becoming a

gay dad. New York, NY: Harrington Park.

191

McGene, J., & King, V. (2012). Implications of new marriages and children for coparenting and

nonresident father families. Journal of Family Issues, 33(12), 1619-1641.

doi:10.1177/0192513X12437150

Mertens, D. M. (2010). Research and evaluation in education and psychology: Integrating

diversity with quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.

Messner, M. A. (2013). Becoming 100 percent straight. In M. Hobbs & C. Rice (Eds.), Gender

and women’s studies in Canada (pp. 190-196). Toronto, ON: Women’s Press.

Mezey, N. J. (2013). How lesbians and gay men decide to become parents or remain childfree. In

A. E. Goldberg & K. R. Allen (Eds.), LGBT-parent families: Innovations in research and

implications for practice (pp. 59-70). New York, NY: Springer.

Meyer, I. H. (2010). Identity, stress, and resilience in lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals of color.

The Counseling Psychologist, 38(3), 442-454. doi:10.1177/0011000009351601

Miller, B. (1979a). Gay fathers and their children. The Family Coordinator, 28(4), 544-552.

doi:10.2307/583517

Miller, B. (1979b). Unpromised paternity: The lifestyles of gay fathers. In M. Levine (Ed.), Gay

men: The sociology of male homosexuality (pp. 239-252). New York, NY: Harper &

Row.

Miller, W., & Maiter, S. (2008). Fatherhood and culture: Moving beyond stereotypical

understandings. Journal of Ethnic & Cultural Diversity in Social Work, 17(3), 279-300.

doi:10.1080/15313200802258216

192

Minton, H. L., & McDonald, G. J. (1983-1984). Homosexual identity formation as a

developmental process. Journal of Homosexuality, 9(2-3), 91-104.

doi:10.1300/J082v09n02_06

Mohr, J. J., Chopp, R. M., & Wong, S. J. (2013). Psychotherapists’ stereotypes of heterosexual,

gay, and bisexual men. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 25(1), 37-55.

doi:10.1080/10538720.2013.751885

Mohr, J. J., & Kendra, M. S. (2011). Revision and extension of a multidimensional measure of

sexual minority identity: The lesbian, gay, and bisexual identity scale. Journal of

Counseling Psychology, 58(2), 234-245. doi:10.1037/a0022858

Moore, T. M., & Stuart, G. L. (2005). A review of the literature on masculinity and partner

violence. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 6(1), 46-61.

Morales, E. S. (1989). Ethnic minority families and minority gays and lesbians. Marriage and

Family Review, 14(3-4), 217-239. doi:10.1300/J002v14n03_11

Morrow, S, L. (2005). Quality and trustworthiness in qualitative research in counseling

psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(2), 250-260.

doi:10.1037/0022-0167.52.2.250

Morrow, S. L. (2007). Qualitative research in counseling psychology: Conceptual foundations.

The Counseling Psychologist, 35(2), 209-235. doi:10.1177/0011000006286990

Morrow, S. L., & Beckstead, A. L. (2004). Conversion therapies for same-sex attracted clients in

religious conflict: Context, predisposing factors, experiences, and implications for

therapy. The Counseling Psychologist, 32(5), 641-650. doi:10.1177/0011000004268877

Morse, J. M. (2010). Sampling in grounded theory. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The Sage

handbook of grounded theory (pp. 229-244). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

193

Mumby, D. K. (1998). Organizing men: Power, discourse, and the social constructions of

masculinity(s) in the workplace. Communication Theory, 8(2), 164-183.

doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.1998.tb00216.x

Murdock, N. L., Duan, C., & Nilsson, J. E. (2012). Emerging approaches to counselling

intervention. The Counseling Psychologist, 40(7), 966-975.

doi:10.1177/0011000012460663

Murgia, A., & Poggio, B. (2012). Fathers’ stories of resistance and hegemony in organizational

cultures. Gender, Work & Organization. Advance online publication.

doi:10.1111/j.1468-0432.2012.00592.x

Nakamura, N., & Pope, M. (2013). Borders and margins: Giving voice to lesbian, gay, bisexual,

and transgender immigrant experiences [Special issue]. Journal of LGBT Issues in

Counseling, 7(2), 122-124. doi:10.1080/15538605.2013.785235

Nayar, S. (2012). Grounded theory: A research methodology for occupational science. Journal of

Occupational Science, 19(1), 76-82. doi:10.1080/14427591.2011.581626

Nelson, E. S., & Krieger, S. (1997). Changes in attitudes toward homosexuality in college

students: Implementation of a gay and lesbian peer panel. Journal of Homosexuality,

33(2), 63-81. doi:10.1300/J082v33n02_04

Nelson, F. (1999). Lesbian families: Achieving motherhood. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social

Services: Issues in Practice, Policy & Research, 10(1), 27-46.

doi:10.1300/J041v10n01_02

Newman, I., Lim, J., & Pineda, F. (2013). Content validity using a mixed methods approach: Its

application and development through the use of a table of specifications methodology.

Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 7(3), 243-260. doi:10.1177/1558689813476922

194

Oswald, R. F., & Holman, E. G. (2013). Place matters: LGB families in community context. In

A. E. Goldberg & K. R. Allen (Eds.), LGBT-Parent Families (pp. 193-208). New York,

NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-4556-2_13

Ovesey, L. (1969). Homosexuality and pseudohomosexuality. New York, NY: Science House.

Owen-Pugh, V., & Baines, L. (2013). Exploring the clinical experiences of novice counsellors

working with LGBT clients: Implications for training. Counselling and Psychotherapy

Research: Linking Research with Practice. Advanced online publication.

doi:10.1080/14733145.2013.782055

Parnell, M. K., Lease, S. H., & Green, M. L. (2012). Perceived career barriers for gay, lesbian,

and bisexual individuals. Journal of Career Development, 39(3), 248-268.

doi:10.1177/0894845310386730

Parrott, D. J., Peterson, J. L., Vincent, W., & Bakeman, R. (2008). Correlates of anger in

response to gay men: Effects of male gender role beliefs, sexual prejudice, and masculine

gender role stress. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 9(3), 167-178.

doi:10.1037/1524-9220.9.3.167

Patterson, C. J. (1994). Lesbian and gay couples considering parenthood: An agenda for

research, service, and advocacy. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 1(2), 33-55.

doi:10.1300/J041v01n02_03

Patterson, C. J. (2000). Family relationships of lesbians and gay men. Journal of Marriage and

the Family, 62(4), 1052-1069. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.01052.x

Patterson, C. J. (2004). Gay fathers. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The roles of the father in child

development (4th ed., pp. 397-416). New York, NY: Wiley.

195

Patterson, C. J. (2005). Lesbian and gay parents and their children: Summary of research

findings. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Patterson, C. J. (2009). Children of lesbian and gay parents: Psychology, law, and policy.

American Psychologist, 64(8), 727-736. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.64.8.727

Patterson, C. J. (2010). To be a parent: Issues in family formation among gay and lesbian adults.

Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 6(3), 326-340. doi:10.1080/1550428X.2010.490902

Patterson, C. J., & Hastings, P. (2007). Socialization in context of family diversity. In J. Grusee

& P. D. Hastings (Eds.), Handbook of socialization (pp. 328-352). New York, NY:

Guilford.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.

Pawlicki, P. & Larson, P. (2011). The dynamics and conceptualizations of non-exclusive

relationships in gay male couples. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 26(1), 48-60.

doi:10.1080/14681994.2010.516247

Penrod, J., Preston, D., Cain, R., & Starks, M. (2003). A discussion of chain referral as a method

of sampling hard-to-read populations. Journal of Transcultural Nursing, 14(2), 100-107.

doi:10.1177/1043659602250614

Pettifor, J. (2010). Ethics, diversity, and respect in multicultural counselling. In N. Arthur & S.

Collins (Eds.), Culture-infused counselling (2nd ed., pp. 167-188). Calgary, AB:

Counselling Concepts.

Pixton, A. (2003). Experiencing gay affirmative therapy: An exploration of clients’ views of

what is helpful. Counselling and Psychotherapy Research, 3(3), 211-215.

doi:10.1080/14733140312331384372

196

Platzer, H., & James, T. (1997). Methodological issues conducting sensitive research on lesbian

and gay men’s experiences of nursing care. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 25(3), 626-

633. PMID: 9080291

Pleck, J. H. (1981). The myth of masculinity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Pleck, J. H. (1995). The gender role strain paradigm: An update. In R. F. Levant & W. S. Pollack

(Eds.), A new psychology of men (pp. 11-32). New York, NY: Basic Books.

Ponterotto, J. G. (2005). Qualitative research in counseling psychology: A primer on research

paradigms and philosophy of science. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(2), 126-136.

doi:10.1037/0022-0167.52.2.126

Pope, M., & Barret, B. (2002). Counseling gay men toward an integrated sexuality. In L. D.

Burlew & D. Capuzzi (Eds.), Sexuality counseling (pp. 149-175). Hauppauge, NJ: Nova

Science.

Potter, J., & Hepburn, A. (2005). Qualitative interviews in psychology: Problems and

possibilities. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 2(4), 281-307.

doi:10.1191/1478088705qp045oa

Powell Sears, K. (2012). Improving cultural competence education: The utility of an

intersectional framework. Medical Education, 46(6), 545-551.

doi:10.1111/j.1365-2923.2011.04199.x

Quinn, A. (2013). A person-centered approach to multicultural counseling competence. Journal

of Humanistic Psychology, 53(2), 202-251. doi:10.1177/0022167812458452

Rabun, C., & Oswald, R. F. (2009). Upholding and expanding the normal family: Future

fatherhood through the eyes of gay male emerging adults. Fathering: A Journal of

197

Theory, Research, and Practice about Men as Fathers, 7(3), 269-285.

doi:10.3149/fth.0703.269

Rado, S. (1940). A critical examination of the concept of bisexuality. Psychosomatic Medicine,

2(4), 459-467.

Raskin, N. J., & Rogers, C. R. (2000). Person-centered therapy. In R. J. Corsini & D. Wedding

(Eds.), Current psychotherapies (6th ed., pp. 133-167). Itasca, IL: R. E. Peacock.

Renn, K. A. (2010). LGBT and queer research in higher education: The state and status of the

field. Educational Researcher, 39(2), 132-141. doi:10.3102/0013189X10362579

Rennie, D., Watson, K., & Monteiro, A. (2002). The rise of qualitative research in psychology.

Canadian Psychology, 43(3), 179-189.

Renold, E. (2004). ‘Other’ boys: Negotiating non-hegemonic masculinities in the primary

school. Gender & Education, 16(2), 247-265. doi:10.1080/09540250310001690609

Rice, T., & Nakamura, N. (2008). Bridging the margins: Exploring sexual orientation and

multiple heritage identities. In R. C. Henriksen, & D. A. Paladino (Eds.), Counseling

multiple heritage individuals, couples, and families (157-175). Alexandria, VA:

American Counseling Association.

Richardson, L. (1998). Writing: A method of inquiry. In N. K. Denzin & S. Y. Lincoln (Eds),

Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials (pp. 345-371). Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

Risman, B. (1989). Can men “mother”? Life as a single father. In B. J. Risman & P. Schwartz

(Eds.), Gender in intimate relationships: A microstructural approach (pp. 155-164).

Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

198

Ritter, K. Y., & Terndrup, A. I. (2002). Handbook of affirmative psychotherapy with lesbians

and gay men. New York, NY: Guilford.

Robb, M. (2004). Exploring fatherhood: Masculinity and intersubjectivity in the research

process. Journal of Social Work Practice, 18(3), 395-406.

doi:10.1080/0265053042000314456

Roberts, C. (2013). Ethics in qualitative research: Controversies and contexts. Action Learning:

Research and Practice, 10(1), 98-103. doi:10.1080/14767333.2012.759390

Roberts, S. (2012). Boys will be boys…won’t they? Change and continuities in contemporary

young working-class masculinities. Sociology. Advance online publication.

doi:10.1177/0038038512453791

Robertson, A. E. (1998). The mental health experiences of gay men: A research study exploring

gay men’s health needs. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing, 5(1), 33-40.

doi:10.1046/j.1365-2850.1998.00097.x

Robinson, M., & Brewster, M. E. (2013). Motivations for fatherhood: Examining internalized

heterosexism and gender-role conflict with childless gay and bisexual men. Psychology of

Men & Masculinity, 14(2), 1-11. doi:10.1037/a0031142

Robitaille, C., & Saint-Jacques, M. C. (2009). Social stigma and the situation of young people in

lesbian and gay stepfamilies. Journal of Homosexuality, 56(4), 421-442.

doi:10.1080/00918360902821429

Rogers, C. R. (1961). On becoming a person: A therapist’s view of psychotherapy. Boston, MA:

Houghton Mifflin Company.

Rolland, J. S., & Walsh, F. (2006). Facilitating family resilience with childhood illness and

disability. Current Opinions in Pediatric Psychiatry, 18, 527-538.

199

Rollins, L. (1997). A client perspective on therapist self-disclosure. Journal of Gay & Lesbian

Social Services, 6(4), 71-82. doi:10.1300/J041v06n04_07

Rootes, K. M. H. (2013). Wanted fathers: Understanding gay father families through contextual

family therapy. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 9(1), 43-64.

doi:10.1080/1550428X.2013.746055

Rostosky, S. S., Riggle, E. D., Gray, B., & Hatton, R. (2007). Minority stress experience in

committed same-sex couple relationships. Professional Psychology: Research and

Practice, 38(4), 392-400. doi:10.1037/0735-7028.38.4.392

Rothblum, E. D. (1994). “I only read about myself on bathroom walls”: The need for research on

the mental health of lesbians and gay men. Journal of Consulting and Clinical

Psychology, 62(2), 213-220. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.62.2.213

Roughley, R. A. (2006). An exploratory investigation into the experiences of young gay men who

have attended a post-secondary institution (Unpublished master’s project). Campus

Alberta Applied Psychology: Counselling Initiative, Calgary, Canada.

Roughley, R. A., & Alderson, K. G. (2012). A phenomenological investigation of gay fatherhood

in Alberta. In T. G. Morrison, M. A. Morrison, M. A. Carrigan, & D. T. McDermott

(Eds.), Sexual minority research in the new millennium (pp. 67- 92). New York, NY:

Nova Science Publishers.

Roughley, R. A., & Claire, C. (2006). Group project: Supporting gay fathers in transition.

Unpublished manuscript, Division of Applied Psychology, University of Calgary,

Canada.

200

Roughley, R. A., & Morrison, T. G. (2013). Introduction to the special issue on sexual

orientation and gender identity in counselling psychology. Canadian Journal of

Counselling and Psychotherapy, 47(1), 1-3.

Rumens, N., & Broomfield, J. (2012). Gay men in the police: Identity disclosure and

management issues. Human Resource Management Journal, 22(3), 283-298.

doi:10.1111/j.1748-8583.2011.00179.x

Ryan, M., & Berkowitz, D. (2009). Constructing gay and lesbian parent families “beyond the

closet”. Qualitative Sociology, 32(2), 153-172. doi:10.1007/s11133-009-9124-6

Saewyc, E. M., Homma, Y., Skay, C. L., Bearinger, L. H., Resnick, M. D., & Reis, E. (2009).

Protective factors in the lives of bisexual adolescents in North America. American

Journal of Public Health, 99(1), 110-117. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2007.123109

Sandelowski, M. (1995). Sample size in qualitative research. Research in Nursing & Health,

18(2), 179-183. doi:10.1002/nur.4770180211

Saliha, F. B., & Jayan, C. (2013). Role of father in the cognitive development of the child: An

exploration. Guru Journal of Behavioral and Social Sciences, 1(1), 40-46.

Safren, S. A., & Heimberg, R. G. (1999). Depression, hopelessness, suicidality, and related

factors in sexual minority and heterosexual adolescents. Journal of Consulting and

Clinical Psychology, 67(6), 859-866.

Sauntson, H. (2012). Sexual diversity and illocutionary silencing in the English national

curriculum. Sex Education: Sexuality, Society and Learning. Advance online publication.

doi:10.1080/14681811.2012.745809

201

Savage, T. A., Harley, D. A., & Nowak, T. M. (2005). Applying social empowerment strategies

as tools for self-advocacy in counseling lesbian and gay male clients. Journal of

Counseling & Development, 83(2), 131-137.

doi:10.1002/j.1556-6678.2005.tb00589.x

Savage, T. A., & Schanding, G. T. (2013). Creating and maintaining safe and responsive schools

for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer youths: Introduction to the special

issue. Journal of School Violence, 12(1), 1-6. doi:10.1080/15388220.2012.724357

Savin-Williams, R. C. (1988). Theoretical perspectives accounting for adolescent homosexuality.

Journal of Adolescent Health Care, 9(2), 95-104. doi:10.1016/0197-0070(88)90055-1

Savin-Williams, R. C. (1989). Gay and lesbian adolescents. Marriage and Family Review, 14(3),

197-216. doi:10.1300/J002v14n03_10

Savin-Williams, R. C. (1996). Ethnic- and sexual-minority youth. In R. C. Savin-Williams & K.

M. Cohen (Eds.), The lives of lesbians, gays, and bisexuals: Children to adults (pp. 393-

415). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.

Savin-Williams, R. C. (2011). Identity development among sexual-minority youth. In S. J.

Schwartz, K. Luyckx, & V. L. Vignoles (Eds.), Handbook of identity theory and research

(pp. 671-689). New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-7988-9_28

Schacher, S. J., Auerbach, C. F., & Silverstein, L. B. (2005). Gay fathers expanding the

possibilities for us all. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 1(3), 31-52.

doi:10.1300/J461v01n03_02

Schope, R. D. (2004). Practitioners need to ask: Culturally competent practice requires knowing

where the gay male client is in the coming out process. Smith-College-Studies-in-Social

Work, 74(2), 257-270.

202

Schreier, B. A., & Werden, D. L. (2000). Psychoeducational programming: Creating context of

mental health for people who are lesbian, gay, or bisexual. In R. M. Perez, K. A. DeBord,

& K. J. Bieschke (Eds,), Handbook of counseling and psychotherapy with lesbian, gay,

and bisexual clients (1st ed., pp. 359-382). Washington, DC: American Psychological

Association.

Schrimshaw, E. W., Siegel, K., Downing Jr., M. J., Parsons, J. T. (2013). Disclosure and

concealment of sexual orientation and the mental health of non-gay-identified,

behaviourally bisexual men. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 81(1), 141-

153. doi:10.1037/a0031272

Schwartz, L. B. (2012). Mixed-orientation marriages: Coming out, staying together. Journal of

GLBT Family Studies, 8(1), 121-136. doi:10.1080/1550428x.2012.641375

Shields, L., Zappia, T., Blackwood, D., Watkins, R., Wardrop, J., & Chapman, R. (2012).

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender parents seeking health care for their children: A

systematic review of the literature. Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, 9(4), 200-

209. doi:10.1111/j.1741-6787.2012.00251.x

Shirani, F., Henwood, K., & Coltart, C. (2011). Meeting the challenges of intensive parenting

culture: Gender, risk management and the moral parent. Sociology, 46(1), 25-40.

doi:10.1177/0038038511416169

Signorielli, N. (2013). Gender-role socialization in the Twenty-First century. The International

Encyclopedia of Media Studies. Advanced online publication.

doi:10.1002/9781444361506.wbiems116

Silverstein, C. (1996). History of treatment. In R. P. Cabaj & T. S. Stein (Eds.), Textbook of

homosexual and mental health (pp. 17-31). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press.

203

Simpson, R. (2005). Men in non-traditional occupations: Career entry, career orientation and

experience of role strain. Gender, Work & Organization, 12(4), 363-380.

doi:10.1111/j.1468-0432.2005.00278.x

Smith, I., Oades, L. G., & McCarthy, G. (2012). Homophobia to heterosexism: Constructs in

need of re-visitation. Gay and Lesbian Issues and Psychology Review, 8(1), 34-44.

Retrieved from http://www.groups.psychology.org.au/GroupContent.aspx?ID=4498

Smith, J. (1985). Treatment of ego-dystonic homosexuality: Individual and group

psychotherapies. Journal of the American Academy of Psychoanalysis and Dynamic

Psychiatry, 13, 399-412.

Smith, J. A. (2003). Validity and qualitative psychology. In J. A. Smith (Ed.), Qualitative

psychology: A practical guide to research methods (pp. 232-235). Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

Smith, L. C., Shin, R. Q., & Officer, L. M. (2012). Moving counseling forward on LGB and

transgender issues: Speaking queerly on discourses and microaggressions. The

Counseling Psychologist, 40(3), 385-408. doi:10.1177/0011000011403165

Sparkes, A. C., & Smith, B. (2009). Judging the quality of qualitative inquiry: Criteriology and

relativism in action. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 10(5), 491-497.

doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2009.02.006

Speight, S. L., & Vera, E. M. (2008). Social justice and counseling psychology: A challenge to

the profession. In S. D. Brown & R. W. Lent (Eds.), Handbook of counseling psychology

(4th ed., pp. 54-67). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Speziale, S. H., & Carpenter, D. (2007). Qualitative research in nursing (4th ed.). Philadelphia,

PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.

204

Stacuzzi, T. I., Johr, J. J., & Fuertes, J. N. (2011). Gay and bisexual clients’ perceptions of

counseling: The role of perceived sexual orientation similarity and counselor universal-

diverse orientation. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 58(3), 299-309.

doi:10.1037/a0023603

Stevens, R. A. (2004). Understanding gay identity development within the college environment.

Journal of College Student Development, 45(2), 185-206. doi:10.1353/csd.2004.0028

Stone, C. B. (2003). Counselors as advocates for gay, lesbian, and bisexual youth: A call for

equity and action. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 31(2), 143-155.

doi:10.1002/j.2161-1912.2003.tb00539.x

Stotzer, R. L., Silverschanz, P., & Wilson, A. (2013). Gender identity and social services:

Barriers to care. Journal of Social Service Research, 39(1), 63-77.

doi:10.1080/01488376.2011.637858

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1994). Grounded theory methodology: An overview. In N. K. Denzin

& Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 273-285). Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for

developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Strong, T., & Zeman, D. (2005). ‘Othering’ and ‘selving’ in therapeutic dialogue. European

Journal of Psychotherapy & Counselling, 7(4), 245-261.

doi:10.1080/03052150500367812

Suttleworth, R., Wedgwood, N., & Wilson, N. J. (2012). The dilemma of disabled masculinity.

Men and Masculinity, 15(2), 174-194. doi:10.1177/1097184X12439879

205

Sutton, L. B., Erlen, J. A., Glad, J. M., & Siminoff, L. A. (2003). Recruiting vulnerable

populations for research: Revisiting the ethical issues. Journal of Professional Nursing,

19(2), 106-112. doi:10.1053/jpnu.2003.16

Szymanski, D. M., & Ikizler, A. S. (2013). Internalized heterosexism as a mediator in the

relationship between gender role conflict, heterosexist discrimination, and depression

among sexual minority men. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 14(2), 211-219.

doi:10.1037/a0027787

Tanner, B. (1973). Show intensity and fear of shock in the modification of homosexual behavior

in males by avoidance learning. Behavior Research and Therapy, 11(2), 213-218.

doi:10.1016/S0005-7967(73)80008-7

Tanner, B. (1975). Avoidance training with and without booster sessions to modify homosexual

behavior in males. Behavior Therapy, 6(5), 649-653.

doi:10.1016/S0005-7894(75)80187-0

Tasker, F. (2005). Lesbian mothers, gay fathers, and their children: A review. Journal of

Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics, 26(3), 224-240.

Tasker, F. (2010). Same-sex parenting and child development: Reviewing the contribution of

parental gender. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72(1), 35-40.

doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2009.00681.x

Tasker, F. (2013). Lesbian and gay parenting post-heterosexual divorce and separation. In A. E.

Goldberg & K. R. Allen (Eds.), LGBT-parent families: Innovations in research and

implications for practice (pp. 3-20). New York, NY: Springer.

doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-4556-2_1

206

Teachman, B. A., Drabick, D. A. G., Hershenberg, R., Vivian, D., Wolfe, B. E., & Goldfried, M.

R. (2012). Bridging the gap between clinical research and clinical practice: Introduction

to the special section. Psychotherapy, 49(2), 97-100. doi:10.1037/a0027346

Telingator, C. J., & Patterson, C. (2008). Children and adolescents of lesbian and gay parents.

Journal of the American Academy of Children and Adolescent Psychiatry, 47(12), 1364-

1368. doi:10.1097/CHI.0b013e31818960bc.

Thoits, P. A. (2013). Self, identity, stress, and mental health. In C. S. Aneshensel, J. C. Phelan, &

A. Bierman (Eds.), Handbook of the sociology of mental health (pp. 357-377). New

York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-4276-5_18

Thomson, E., Winker-Dworak, M., & Kennedy, S. (2013). The standard family life course: An

assessment of variability in life course pathways. In A. Evans & J. Baxter (Eds.),

Negotiating the life course: Stability and Change in Life Pathways (pp. 35-52). New

York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-90-481-8912-0_3

Timmerman, S., & Tavory, I. (2010). Advancing ethnographic research through grounded theory

practice. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The Sage handbook of grounded theory (pp.

493-512). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Tong, A., Sainsbury, P., & Craig, J. (2007). Consolidation criteria for reporting qualitative

research (COREQ): A 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. International

Journal of Quality in Health Care, 19(6), 349-357. doi:10.1093/intqhc/mzm042

Tornello, S. L., & Patterson, C. J. (2012). Gay fathers in mixed-orientation relationships:

Experiences of those who stay in their marriages and of those who leave [Special issue].

Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 8(1), 85-98. doi:10.1080/1550428X.2012.641373

207

Tosh, J. (2011). The history of masculinity: An outdated concept. In J. H. Arnold & S. Brady

(Eds.), What is masculinity? Historical dynamics from Antiquity to the contemporary

world (pp. 17-34). New York, NY: Palgrave.

Totenhagen, C. J., Butler, E. A., & Ridley, C. A. (2012). Daily stress, closeness, and satisfaction

in gay and lesbian couples. Personal Relationships, 19(2), 219-233.

doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2011.01349.x

Troiden, R. R. (1979). The formation of homosexual identities. Journal of Homosexuality, 17(1-

2), 43-73. doi:10.1300/J082v17n01_02

Urquhart, C., & Fernandez, W. (2013). Using grounded theory method in information systems:

The researcher as blank slate and other myths. Journal of Information Technology, 28,

224-236. doi:10.1057/jit.2012.34

UyBico, S. J., Pavel, S., & Gross, C. P. (2007). Recruiting vulnerable populations into research:

A systematic review of recruitment interventions. Journal of General Internal Medicine,

22(6), 852-863. doi:10.1007/s11606-007-0126-3 van den Aardweg, G. (2011). On the psychogenesis of homosexuality. The Linacre Quarterly, 3,

330-345. van Eeden-Moorefield, B., Pasley, K., Crosbie-Burnett, M., & King, E. (2012). Explaining

couple cohesion in different types of families. Journal of Family Issues, 33(2), 182-201.

doi:10.1177/0192513X11418180

Vargo, M. (1998). Acts of disclosure: The coming out process of contemporary gay men. New

York, NY: Harrington Park Press.

Vera, E. M., Buhin, L., & Isacco, A. (2009). The role of prevention in psychology’s social justice

agenda. In M. E. Kenny, A. M. Horne, P. Orpinas, & L. E. Resse (Eds.), Realizing social

208

justice: The challenges of prevention interventions (pp. 79-96). Washington, DC:

American Psychological Association.

Vescio, T. K., & Biernat, M. (2003). Family values and antipathy toward gay men. Journal of

Applied Social Psychology, 33(4), 833-847. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2003.tb01927.x

Vuori, J. (2009). Men’s choices and masculine duties: Fathers in expert discussions. Men and

Masculinities, 12(1), 45-72. doi:10.1177/1097184X07306720

Walker, D., & Myrick, F. (2006). Grounded theory: An exploration of process and procedure.

Qualitative Health Research, 16(4), 547-559. doi:10.1177/1049732305285972

Walsh, M., DePaul, J., & Park-Taylor, J. (2009). Prevention as a mechanism for promoting

positive development in the context of risk: Principles of best practice. In M. E. Kennedy,

A. M. Horne, P. Orpinas, & L. E. Reese (Eds.), Realizing social justice: The challenge of

prevention interventions (pp. 57-78). Washington, DC: American Psychological

Association.

Warner, L. R., & Shields, S. A. (2013). The intersections of sexuality, gender, and race: Identity

research at the crossroads. Sex Roles, 68(11-12), 803-810.

doi:10.1007/s11199-013-0281-4

Williamson, I. R. (2000). Internalized homophobia and health issues affecting lesbians and gay

men. Health Education Research, 15(1), 97-107. doi:10.1093/her/15.1.97

Willis, P. (2012). Witnesses on the periphery: Young lesbian, gay, bisexual and queer employees

witnessing homophobic exchanges in Australian workplaces. Human Relations, 65(12),

1589-1610). doi:10.1177/0018726712457795

Woodford, M. R., Howell, M. L., Kulick, A., & Silverschanz, P. (2013). “That’s so gay”

Heterosexual male undergraduates and the perpetuation of sexual orientation

209

microagressions on campus. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 28(2), 416-435.

doi:10.1177/0886260512454719

Yalom, I. D., & Leszcz, M. (2005). The theory and practice of group psychotherapy (5th ed.).

New York, NY: Basic.

210

APPENDIX A: RECRUITMENT POSTER ARE YOU A GAY FATHER LIVING IN ALBERTA?

You are invited to participate if you:  Are a man who is a gay father currently living in Alberta  Were formally in a marriage with a woman (of at least one year) and had children  Have at least one child between the ages 8-19  Are not the custodial parent

If you agree to participate in this study, you will be asked to:  Share your experiences as a father  Complete a questionnaire  Participant in one or two face-to-face interviews  Review interview documents and findings for accuracy and relevance to your experience

Participants are needed in a University of Calgary study exploring gay fatherhood in

Alberta. This research is part of a PhD program in the Division of Applied Psychology. All information will be kept confidential If you are interested in participating or would like more information, please contact Robert Roughley (PhD Student) at (403)-220-3452 or by email at [email protected]

211

APPENDIX B: INFORMED CONSENT FORM

Faculty of Education Division of Applied Psychology

Name of Researcher, Faculty, Department, Telephone & Email Robert A. Roughley, PhD Student, Division of Applied Psychology, Faculty of Education, 403-220-3452, [email protected]

Supervisor: Dr. Kevin Alderson, Division of Applied Psychology, Faculty of Education, 403-220-6758, [email protected]

Title of Project: Gay Fatherhood in Alberta

This consent form, a copy of which has been given to you, is only part of the process of informed consent. If you want more details about something mentioned here, or information not included here, you should feel free to ask. Please take the time to read this carefully and to understand any accompanying information.

The University of Calgary Conjoint Faculties Research Ethics Board has approved this research study.

Purpose of the study The purpose of this study is to understand the experience of gay fatherhood. If you choose to participate your contribution will be a highly valued component in answering an important research question.

What will I be asked to do? Your participation will entail: (a) the completion of a personal history questionnaire; and (b) one to two interviews regarding your own experiences of being a father and the processes involved in your gay identity development. You will be asked to recall specific events in your life that describe the essence of your journey as an openly gay father. The interviews will take approximately one to two hours of your time and will be digitally recorded and then transcribed into text documents. At the end of each interview, you may be asked additional questions in order to clarify specific information. You are free to not answer any question during the interview and you may choose to withdraw from the project at any time for any reason.

Once each interview has been transcribed, you will be asked to review these documents (which will be emailed to you). The reason for your review is to make sure that the documents are accurate and reflect the central themes and processes of your experience. You will be asked to respond to this material within a two week timeframe. When the study is near completion, you will be asked to review the findings.

212

What type of personal information will be collected? Should you agree to participate, you will be asked to provide a vivid recollection of your gay identity development, including thoughts, feelings, and behaviours, as well as people, events, and situations associated with these experiences. Your anonymity is guaranteed, as your name will not appear in any transcript or report of the results.

The pseudonym that I choose for myself is: ______

Are there risks or benefits if I participate?

Talking about the journey of being a gay father may bring up some painful memories for you. If you experience distress as a result of your participation in this study there a number of organizations in Calgary, Edmonton, and Lethbridge that provide counselling for free or on a sliding scale. A listing of these follows:

Calgary Bow West Community Resource Centre – 403-216-5348 (free) Calgary Communities Against Sexual Abuse – 403-237-5888 (free) Calgary Family Services – 403-233-2360 (sliding scale) Catholic Family Services – 403-233-2360 (sliding scale) Distress Centre – 403-266-1605 (counselling and a 24 hour telephone crisis line, both free) Eastside Family Centre – 403-299-9696 (free) Jewish Family Services – 403-287-3510 (sliding scale) The Calgary Counselling Centre – 403-265-4980 (sliding scale) Westside Family Centre – 403-288-3313 (free)

Edmonton Community Mental Health Clinic – 780-427-4444 (free) Community Services – 780-496-4777 (free) The Crisis Centre – 780-340-1120 (free 24 hour telephone crisis line) The Family Centre of Northern Alberta – 780-424-5580 (sliding scale) The Support Network – 780-482-0198 (free)

Lethbridge Crossroads Counselling Centre – 403-327-7080 Lethbridge Crisis Centre – 403-327-7905

Benefits of taking part in this study may include a feeling of validation in telling your story and contributing to a unique area of research.

What happens to the personal information I provide? Participation is voluntary and your anonymity is guaranteed. You are free to withdraw at any time. If you decide to withdraw before the first interview concludes, all information gathered to that point will be destroyed or erased and will not be used in the study. If you withdraw from the study at any later date, the material provided before the point of withdrawal may be used in the completion of this research and any resulting publication. If you choose to participate, another

213 name chosen by you will be used in the transcripts and final draft. No one except the researcher and his supervisor will have access to the interview tapes and transcripts, which will be stored in a locked cabinet. A summary will be made of the information you provide and it will be compared with other participants’ information in order to describe common themes and issues. Details of your interview will be left out or modified if it is felt that these details could reveal your identity. The anonymous data will be stored for five years on a computer disk, at which time it will be permanently erased. Tapes of the interview will be recorded over at this time and any paper information such as transcripts will be shredded. If you choose to participate you will have an opportunity to review the information you provided during the second interview and after this via email. The information that you provide may be used in future publications resulting from this research.

Signatures (written consent) Your signature on this form indicates that you: 1) understand to your satisfaction the information provided to you about your participation in this research project, and 2) agree to participate as a research subject.

I grant permission for the data to be used in the process of completing a PhD degree, including a thesis and any other future publication. Permission is also granted to use quotes and stories in published articles, books, and presentations.

In no way does this waive your legal rights nor release the investigators, sponsors, or involved institutions from their legal and professional responsibilities. You are free to withdraw from this research project at any time. You should feel free to ask for clarification or new information throughout your participation.

Participant’s Name (please print): ______

Participant’s Signature:______Date: ______

Researcher’s Name (please print): ______

Researcher’s Signature: ______Date: ______

Questions/Concerns If you have any further questions or want clarification regarding this research and/or your participation, please contact: Robert Roughley M.Ed., MC., Division of Applied Psychology, Faculty of Education [email protected] or phone 403-220-3452 OR Dr. Kevin Alderson, Supervisor, Division of Applied Psychology [email protected], or phone 403-220-6758

If you have any concerns about the way you’ve been treated as a participant, please contact Bonnie Scherrer, Ethics Resource Officer, Research Services Office, University at 403-220- 3782; email [email protected].

214

A copy of this consent form has been given to you to keep for your records and reference. The investigator has kept a copy of the consent form.

215

APPENDIX C: DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE

The following questionnaire will provide me with specific information about your personal history and life experiences. Some of the questions are very personal and will remain confidential. I will be the only person with access to the information collected herein.

Date: ______Pseudonym: ______

General Information

Age: ______Occupation: ______

Education (highest grade or credential earned): ______

Current Living Arrangement (Who lives with you?): ______

Relationship Status (i.e. dating or single?): ______

Personal and Social History

Place of birth: ______

Where have you lived throughout your life? Please list areas in chronological order.

Who were (was) your primary caregivers in childhood (Who raised you)?

Mother Father Both Other (please specify): ______How would you rate the quality of the relationship (i.e. excellent, good, fair, or poor) you had with your caregiver(s) during the following periods of your life:

Caregiver One: (Who?) ______

Excellent Good Fair Poor As a child? As a teenager? As a young adult? Currently? Caregiver Two: (Who?) ______

216

Excellent Good Fair Poor As a child? As a teenager? As a young adult? Currently?

Caregiver Three: (Who?) ______

Excellent Good Fair Poor As a child? As a teenager? As a young adult? Currently?

Additional Comments:

Siblings: Please identify all brothers and sisters in your family. Please include their ages and gender, and also rate the quality of the relationship you presently have with them (i.e., excellent, good, fair, or poor):

# Age Gender Quality of Relationship Excellent Good Fair Poor 1

Additional Comments:

Romantic/Sexual Relationships

217

Please list the significant intimate relationships (with men and women) you have had throughout your life. Please begin with your most recent relationship.

# Gender Length of Quality of Relationship Relationship Excellent Good Fair Poor 1

Additional Comments:

Former Wife/Wives

Please list any previous marriages that you have had to women that have also included biological children. # Length of Quality of Relationship Relationship Excellent Good Fair Poor 1

To what extent do you still have contact with the biological mother(s)?:

Additional Comments:

Children

218

Please list the number of children you have in the chart below. For privacy purposes, please identify each child by their gender and age only. Please rate the quality of your current relationship with your child(ren).

# Gender Age Biological Adoptive Quality of Relationship Father Father Excellent Good Fair Poor 1

Additional Comments:

Emotional Wellness

Over the course of your life, have you experienced emotional problems due to your sexual orientation? YES NO

If yes, please use the space below to provide additional information.

Using the scale below, how would you rate your current level of happiness?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Very Low Moderate Very High

Identity

At what age did you first sense that you might be gay? ______

219

At what age did you first have sex (oral/vaginal) with a woman? ______

At what age did you first have sex (oral/anal) with a man? ______

At what age did you come out to yourself as a gay man? ______

At what ages did you come out to your family members? ______

What term(s) are you most comfortable with to describe yourself in terms of your sexual orientation and your role as a father? ______

Please take a moment to write your own definition of what it means to be a gay father…

Thank you for completing this questionnaire. Again, the information within this document will be held in the strictest confidence.

______Robert A. Roughley (PhD Student) Dr. Kevin Alderson (Supervisor)

220

APPENDIX D: SAMPLE QUESTIONS

The interview will begin with the initial question, followed by unstructured probes from the participant’s response.

Initial Question

1. Tell me about your experience of being a heterosexually-married father who now identifies as gay.

Past Focus

2. Describe the bad times you experienced before and after coming out as gay. What feelings and body sensations are associated with these memories? 3. Describe the good times you experienced before and after coming out as gay. What feelings and body sensations are associated with these memories? 4. What precipitated your coming out experience? 5. What have you gone through to get to where you are now as a gay father? 6. How have you integrated your gay identity into your other identities (e.g., career identity, religious beliefs and/or personal values, family of origin identity, identity disclosed to heterosexual friends) – (especially focus on fatherhood identity). 7. What was the reaction of your family and friends when you disclosed your gayness to them (if applicable)? 8. How did your spouse react? 9. How did your children react? 10. Did you (or do you) have a gay role model? Who taught you how to behave as a gay father?

Intermediate Questions 11. What criteria do you use in defining yourself as gay (affect, behaviour, or cognition primarily)? 12. Are there any issues (thoughts, feelings, conflicts, fears, problems, aspirations, and so forth) that are new to you where you are at now in your development as a gay father? 13. Has your experience of raising your children changed since coming out? If yes, how so? Do others comment on this change? 14. Do you experience stigma as a consequence of being a gay father? How do you manage it? 15. What advantages do you see in being a gay father? 16. What disadvantages do you see in being a gay father? 17. What advice would you give to other men who come out as gay fathers? 18. What is most important to you presently about being a gay father? 19. What meaning does being a gay father have for you? 20. Upon reflection, is there a metaphor, image, movie, or piece of music that really speaks to your identity as a gay father?

221

Ending Questions 21. In order to continue developing a positive identity as a gay father, what steps do you need to take? What still needs to develop or happen for you? or What will you be like when you are functioning optimally as a gay father? What steps will you need to take to get you there? 22. What is either slowing you down or holding you back from taking the next step? 23. What gives you hope and keeps you going? 24. What would you put in a “hope box” for gay fathers? What needs to happen within the gay community regarding gay fatherhood? What changes need to happen to mainstream society?

Last Question 25. Do you think that we have dealt with this topic thoroughly? Is there anything missing?