Identity Meaning-Making Among Polyamorous Students in Postsecondary Educational Contexts: a Constructivist Queer Theory Case Study

IDENTITY MEANING-MAKING AMONG POLYAMOROUS STUDENTS IN POSTSECONDARY EDUCATIONAL CONTEXTS: A CONSTRUCTIVIST QUEER THEORY CASE STUDY

Liane D. Ortis

A Dissertation

Submitted to the Graduate College of Bowling Green State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

August 2018

Committee:

Dafina-Lazarus Stewart, Advisor

Sarah Smith Rainey Graduate Faculty Representative

Christina Lunceford, Advisor

Liane D. Ortis

Dafina-Lazarus Stewart & Christina J. Lunceford, Advisors

In this study, I centered the experiences of individuals who identify as polyamorous or ethically non-monogamous. My purpose was to explore how polyamorous students at one institution made meaning of their polyamorous identity and how they described the relationship between the postsecondary environment and their meaning-making.

The philosophical perspectives of constructivism and queer theory were blended to acknowledge the subjective experiences of the participants while also recognizing the systemic oppression surrounding identities like polyamory. Through these frameworks, I applied Baxter

Magolda’s theory of self-authorship (2001) and Bronfenbrenner’s developmental ecology model

(2005).

Using collective case study methodology, I recruited seven participants who each consented to participate in two open ended, semi-structured individual interviews. At the time of data collection, six of the seven participants were graduate students; one was an undergraduate student. I utilized journaling, memoing, epoché, bracketing, and holistic and embedded analysis throughout the study design, implementation, and data analysis.

Several themes emerged from the data, each with multiple subthemes. Primary themes included: misrepresentation/misconceptions stemming from heteronormative constructs in society; coming out which all participants had to constantly navigate, support including the lack thereof as well as some supportive individuals; and multiple dimensions of identity as participants shared that their meaning-making was related to other identities they also hold. iv Five recommendations for policy and practice emerged from the findings. First, student affairs practitioners should consider polyamory when claiming to focus on inclusion and holistic identity development. Second, student affairs units should sponsor programming focused on polyamory and other family and relationship structures. Third, relevant academic units should include polyamory when discussing identities, relationships, and families. Fourth, universities need to include family composition, including polyamory, in non-discrimination policies.

Finally, university administrators should revise family leave policies that are exclude non- normative family compositions, including poly families.

Seven implications emerged for future research. First, I recommend research on poly individuals who identified as heterosexual or with the BDSM/Kink community as they were not represented in this study. Also, research is needed to understand the experiences of many identities that were underrepresented in this study including disability, race, socioeconomic status, as well as undergraduate students. Second, I recommend investigating polyamorous graduate students who work at their institution as this overlap is a unique experience. Third, further information on what polyamorous students want from their campuses is needed as this study did not specifically focus on their recommendations. Fourth, researchers should explore whether or not postsecondary spaces are ideal for understanding minoritized student experiences.

Fifth, I recommend longitudinal research to better understand self-authorship and polyamorous identity meaning-making. Sixth, additional research on adult development is needed, particularly focused on minoritized individuals who are above 25 years of age. Finally, research on utilizing third wave theories to better represent the experiences of those with minoritized identities and problematize the concept of identity development is recommended. v

To all the polyamorous, queer, and queering families out there:

May we embrace becoming: unfolding identity without endpoint (Jones, Torres, & Arminio,

2014) as we help each other and the world expand to welcome the beauty in boundless love.

To my family for believing in me. vi ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

First, I would like to thank my dissertation Co-Chairs Dr. Dafina-Lazarus (D-L) Stewart

& Dr. Christy Lunceford. D-L, you have not only been a chair and advisor to me, but also a mentor and inspiration. You are not simply one of the “great minds” in our field, you are one of the great hearts. Your passion for research, teaching, and the human condition inspire me every day. I am so grateful for your guidance and support. To Christy, you are the embodiment of your often-used phrase “good people.” The space you create for students to feel challenged, heard, and supported is unparalleled. Your teaching, research, and passion for people is uplifting and unforgettable. Thank you for giving me the space to fail, question, grow, and believe in myself.

Thank you to my participants and to the poly communities I have had the privilege of engaging with as a researcher and person. I am forever grateful to all of you for your willingness to share of your love, your challenges, and your triumphs. Your stories speak to the exceptionally beautiful power in human connection.

I also offer my sincere gratitude to my other committee members Dr. Sarah Smith Rainey and Dr. Kenneth Borland. Your insights and investment in my process were so significant to this long anticipated final product. Thank you both for sticking with me through this!

Thank you to the other incredible faculty I had to opportunity to learn from while at

Bowling Green State University: Dr. Carney Strange, Dr. Ellen Broido, Dr. Maureen Wilson, Dr.

Mike Coomes, and Dr. Nick Bowman. The foundation each faculty member provided has not only made me a better scholar and practitioner, but I whole-heatedly believe your teachings and wisdom have made me a better human being. A special thank you to Dr. Mike Coomes for being the first of many HESA faculty members to take me on as a co-teacher. You helped me start living my dream to be a faculty member in student affairs. One day I can only hope to be half of the teacher you were to so many BGSU alumni and student affairs professionals. vii To my colleagues at BGSU, my cohort, and the HIED and CSP cohorts I shared space with: it is an honor to have learned with and from each of you. The classroom conversations, assignments, and connections are moments I still cherish. To Jude and Vivienne, thank you for being the most incredible late night (and early morning) writing buddies and each other’s cheer leaders throughout the process. Our focused and unfocused conversations invigorated my mind and my spirit, thank you! Judith and Elizabeth, there are not enough words to thank you both for being the most incredible friends and for engaging in true, deep, and meaningful dialogue with me about faith, life, and friendship. To Holly for helping me normalize the inherent challenges in the doctoral journey and having the most incredibly independent pup who also knew just when

I needed a snuggle. Bryan, I have never met someone who was smart enough to figure out hockey goaltending as an adult and be so great at it! Thanks for getting me reconnected to the game and helping me take time for myself. Kirsten Brown, you showed up in my life after your time in BG and have become such an important and incredible friend. Thank you for your guidance and support on so many things, most recently this journey of parenting! To Katie, my program bestie, we both know I never would have made it without you helping me with quant! I love and appreciate you so much.

To all the students and colleagues I have worked with throughout my years in student affairs at Manhattanville College, Wagner College, BGSU, and the University of Northern

Colorado: all of you have challenged me to become a better professional and person, I will always be grateful for the opportunity to have known you “because I knew you, I have been changed for good” (Wicked). Also, thank you to the first mentors and supervisors I had in student affairs: Angie, Elizabeth, Rocco, and Sara; each of you saw something in me that I did not see in myself. Thank you for pointing me in the direction of student affairs and graduate viii work, I honestly do not know where I would be without you planting those seeds for my current path.

To Heather Sinclair and Claire Broome, both of you believed in me when I was a lost, angry, and hopeless teenager. Thank you for constantly encouraging me and reminding me it would get better: it did! You are the teachers I have always aspired to be. I can only hope I will come close to influencing as many young minds and hearts as each of you do in your classrooms.

To some of my oldest and dearest friends: Marcy, Kirsten, Melissa, Lisa, Rocco, Jen,

Katie, Paola, Suzanne, Jeannine, Noushin, Sash, Candice, Shiva, and Dana. Each of you knows so much of my story and reminds me how my roots matter. Old friends are good for the soul, thank you for ever expanding and healing mine. Thank you to Emily and to Sam for being my editors, I am so grateful for the time you put into helping me finish this! And to Talia, you have been my biggest motivator in these final years, months, and days of my journey. The only way I can think to demonstrate my gratitude is to help you finish your journey to Dr. Carroll. Thank you, my friend, for the breaths of fresh air, laughter, tears, and incredibly wonderful company.

Finally, thank you to my family. To my parents for their emotional (and financial) support; for straddling two worlds as the children of immigrants and trying to help me find my way between tradition, transgression, and transformation; and for helping me see the light when

I’ve been lost in the dark. Thank you to my queer families across the globe; there is power in presence, in resistance, and persistence; thank you for showing me that love wins. Thank you to my incredible wife, Caitlin: you have evolved with me on this spiritual, emotional, and intellectual journey. Thank you for being my editor, my biggest fan, my partner in life, and the most incredible mother to our newborn twins. Thank you to Veda and Atwell. In the few short weeks since your birth, my world has shifted in the most incredible and unimaginable ways. I look forward to how you will inspire and challenge me to be my best self. vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION OF THE PROBLEM ...... 1

Postsecondary Education ...... 2

Statement of the Problem ...... 4

Purpose of the Study ...... 5

Research Questions ...... 7

Significance of the Study ...... 7

Definition of Terms...... 10

Bisexual...... 11

Ecology ...... 11

Ecology Model (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, 1993, 2005) ...... 12

Environment ...... 12

Gender, Romantic, and Sexual Diversity (GRSD) ...... 12

Gender-fluid, Gender-queer, Gender-fuck ...... 12

Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer (LGBTQ) ...... 13

Meaning-Making...... 13

Monogamist ...... 13

New Relationship Energy (NRE)...... 13

Open Relationship ...... 13

Polyfidelity ...... 14

Polyamory ...... 14

Queer ...... 14 vii

Sex-Positive ...... 15

Swinging ...... 15

Triad/Quad/Tribe ...... 15

Study Delimitations ...... 16

Overview of the Study ...... 17

CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ...... 18

Polyamory ...... 19

Poly Language ...... 20

Intricacies of Polyamory ...... 20

Polyamory in Society ...... 22

Postsecondary Education Purpose and Environment ...... 23

Student Development Theory ...... 25

Theory of Self-Authorship ...... 27

Developmental Ecology Model ...... 29

Theoretical Perspectives ...... 32

Feminist and Queer Theory ...... 32

Summary ...... 34

CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY ...... 36

Research Design...... 36

Review of Research Questions ...... 36

Philosophical Frameworks ...... 37

Methodology ...... 38

Case Study ...... 39 viii

Context for the Study ...... 40

Study Participants ...... 40

Data Collection Methods ...... 41

Data Analysis ...... 42

Provisions of Trustworthiness...... 43

Positionality ...... 45

Ethical Issues & Reflexivity ...... 46

Summary ...... 49

CHAPTER IV: FINDINGS ...... 51

Misrepresentation/Misconceptions ...... 52

Lack of Societal Acceptance ...... 52

Heterosexist Society...... 53

Polyamory is Not Cheating, Polygamy, Swinging ...... 56

Not cheating ...... 56

Not polygamy...... 58

Not swinging ...... 59

Sexualized ...... 59

Additional Misconceptions ...... 62

Coming Out ...... 62

Confusion/Dissonance ...... 63

Internalized Negative Messages ...... 65

Societal Messages ...... 66

Safety Fear ...... 68 ix

Emotional Labor of Coming Out ...... 72

Support ...... 80

People ...... 80

Places ...... 82

Representation...... 85

Multiple Dimensions of Identity ...... 86

Queer + ...... 87

Disability ...... 90

Race/Ethnicity ...... 91

Spirituality/Worldview ...... 93

Further Unfolding Identities ...... 97

CHAPTER V: DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS ...... 101

Summary of the Findings ...... 101

Understanding Polyamory ...... 102

Coming Out as Polyamorous ...... 104

Relationships ...... 109

Media Representations ...... 111

Identity Convergences ...... 112

Surviving sexual assault ...... 113

Spirituality or worldview ...... 114

Other social identities ...... 115

The Postsecondary Setting ...... 117

Campus offices and programming ...... 118 x

Educating the campus ...... 119

Making sense of the campus environment ...... 120

Recommendations for Practice ...... 120

Recommendations for Future Research ...... 124

Conclusion ...... 128

REFERENCES ...... 129

APPENDIX A: HUMAN SUBJECTS REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL LETTER ...... 146

APPENDIX B: PRELIMINARY RECRUITMENT EMAIL/POST ...... 147

APPENDIX C: LETTER OF INTEREST ...... 148

APPENDIX D: PARTICIPANT QUESTIONNAIRE...... 149

APPENDIX E: INFORMED CONSENT ...... 150

APPENDIX F: INTERVIEW PROTOCOLS ...... 152

APPENDIX G: FOLLOW-UP EMAIL ...... 153

APPENDIX H: TRANSCRIPT VERIFICATION ...... 154

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION OF THE PROBLEM

The environment of the postsecondary institution impacts dimensions of student interpersonal development, academic success, and self-authorship (Baxter Magolda, 2001;

Strange & Banning, 2001). Student relationships are integral to development and social bonds

(Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005), and romantic relationships are frequent and affect students to varying degrees of healthy or unhealthy attachment behavior (Campa, 2007). How students navigate and develop romantic and sexual relationships is particularly complex for students whose relationships fall outside the heteronormative culture of the United States of America.

Heteronormativity refers to the overarching societal norms and expectations regarding gender and sexuality (Warner, 1999). Essentially, heteronormativity is based in the gender binaries that only opposite, binary gender couples should marry and that each partner should fit their gendered roles. The expectation that romantic partners should be married and monogamous also reflects heteronormative relationship structures (Easton & Hardy, 2009). Polyamory, a relationship structure that is currently receiving more attention within popular culture, is defined as intentional, ethical non-monogamy (Billinkoff, 2005; Easton & Hardy, 2009) and is not analogous to polygamy. Individuals in polyamorous relationships challenge heterosexist expectations and queer heteronormative relationships. Polyamorous – also referred to as poly – individuals believe that love, sex, and kinship (social/familial relationships) should not be bound by the societal expectation of monogamy, and that any individual or group of individuals can engage in multiple relationships simultaneously (Aviram, 2010; Billinkoff, 2005; Easton &

Hardy, 2009; Ravenscroft, 2004). A foundation of these relationships is open and frequent communication surrounding how an individual and group of individuals will navigate their relationship(s) (Aviram, 2010; Billinkoff, 2005; Easton & Hardy, 2009; Ravenscroft, 2004). 2

Without conclusive data, it is difficult to classify polyamory as an identity, a community, a practice, or all three. Carey (2013) spoke to the complexity of the nature/nurture binary surrounding polyamory. Carey drew a parallel in the research between the understanding of same-gender or same-sex relationships and polyamory. The implication is that studies regarding these identities are either non-existent or inconclusive. Additionally,

Karnaze (2009) directly addressed the lack of research surrounding polyamory and monogamy by stating “there is not sufficient research to show that either style is more natural or fitting for humans—who are very much shaped by their cultural systems” (para. 7). Although there is a distinctly small but growing body of literature surrounding polyamory, it is based mostly in the media and popular literature, is not primarily scholarly or empirical, and is not focused on students in postsecondary education. In this literature, polyamory is referred to primarily as an identity and community. For the purposes of this study, I considered polyamory an identity and community as well. Furthermore, I considered polyamory a queer identity as it exists well outside of heteronormative frameworks for relationships (Warner, 1999). The aim of this study was to discover how one group of polyamorous students makes meaning of polyamory as a salient identity. This study was situated within the postsecondary educational environment through a constructivist queer theory case study. To situate this study further, in this chapter I provide a background regarding the postsecondary environment, the purpose of the study, and definitions of key terms.

Postsecondary Education

There are numerous, conflicting pressures regarding priorities at postsecondary institutions. Increased accountability for graduation rates and transferable skills are coupled with shrinking budgets. These challenges make prioritization of resources difficult and at times are contradictory to a central purpose of postsecondary education: to develop more civically minded 3 contributors to society (Edgerton, 1997). Those who work within postsecondary institutions must balance external pressures while still providing the best educational experience for all students. This would also mean providing safe and inclusive spaces for ALL students to thrive, inclusive of their social group identities, not just students who have historically had access to postsecondary education and felt welcomed in postsecondary spaces (e.g., men, White individuals, individuals of higher socioeconomic status, etc.) (Haley, Jaeger, & Levin, 2014).

Since the early 1990s, there has been an influx of documents crafted for and by the postsecondary education community with recommendations for successful practice (AAC&U,

2002, 2005, 2007, 2008; AAUP, 2014, 2015; ACPA, 1996, 2006; ACPA & NASPA, 1997;

Evans & Reason, 2001; NASPA, 1990; NCPPHE, 2008). These recommendations are grounded in historical reviews; surveys of faculty, administrators, students, and industry partners; and years of experience from scholars and practitioners. Many of these documents are strikingly similar. Evans and Reason (2001) completed a summary and historical review of these documents. They also presented some common themes in the values and guiding principles of the profession of student affairs: a holistic view of student development, the role of the campus environment, and responsibility to society (Evans & Reason, 2001). These values, however, are commonly espoused but not enacted. The redundant but at times empty themes guiding the profession of student affairs should remind practitioners that it is a responsibility to provide students with opportunities and experiences that consider their holistic needs.

The most common expressed goals of postsecondary education include these three as authored by the AAC&U (2005): “knowledge of human culture and the natural world; intellectual and practical skills; and individual and social responsibility” (p. 20). Understanding and supporting differing identities and communities (such as polyamory) is directly related to goals of knowledge of human culture and individual and social responsibility. Knowledge of 4 human cultures focuses on understanding others, and social responsibility encompasses intercultural knowledge and actions (AAC&U, 2005). Without willingness to learn about and understand how to interact with those different from oneself, these postsecondary outcomes are not being met.

As Strange and King (1990) noted, in the profession of student affairs and higher education administration, theory and practice should be informed by research. This is well intended but difficult when there is limited or no research on an identity. The lack of both research and a theoretical basis limits the grounding of practice. Furthermore, having little or no information about an identity such as polyamory does not provide scholars and practitioners the necessary resources to support poly students. Campuses should provide spaces and experiences that positively impact students’ interpersonal, intrapersonal, and cognitive development. As

Lewin (1936) offered, behavior (B), is a function (f) of the interaction of the person (P) and the environment (E): B=f(PxE). Therefore, all aspects of the person, including their experiences, identities, and choices, must be considered along with their environment to understand how they develop and feel supported in their development. This holistic perspective is reinforced as an ethical standard within the higher education administration and student affairs professions

(ACPA, 2006; ACPA & NASPA, 1997; NASPA, 1990). Research is necessary to create awareness and understanding regarding polyamorous identity, how students make meaning of their identity, and how the campus environment relates to student meaning-making.

Statement of the Problem

The pressure to fit into societal expectations can be challenging for any individual, particularly for an individual from a marginalized identity. Individuals can be marginalized for their race, socioeconomic status, gender, sexuality, relationship structure, or varying other reasons that set them apart from dominant groups in society. Warner (1999) spoke to the 5 significance of marginalization: “The world’s pseudo-morality is a phobic and inauthentic way of life. The stigmaphobe world is the dominant culture, where conformity is ensured through fear of stigma” (p. 43). For polyamorous individuals, this stigma can make it difficult to establish a coherent and authentic identity. On a postsecondary campus, campus climate affects the academic development and participation of students who are sexual minorities (Rankin,

2005). So, an oppressive, silencing, or outwardly discriminatory campus can negatively affect the experience and development of a polyamorous student.

Recognizing and moving beyond expectations within normative monogamy is a distinct challenge for polyamorous individuals, particularly postsecondary students who are attempting to learn, develop, and grow in their polyamorous identity within a historically monogamous and moralistic religious country. Easton and Hardy (2009) have attributed polyamory’s counter-cultural status, many misconceptions regarding it, and its limited acceptance to the heteronormative, hegemonic, and neo-liberal foundations of U.S. society. It is in reconstructing our notions of relationship structures beyond the monogamous lens that we can create space for polyamorous students and individuals to lead open and affirming lives.

Purpose of the Study

This research is meant to challenge cultural views regarding love, sex, family, and heteronormativity, adding to Warner’s (1999) point: “When you begin interacting with people in queer culture . . . you learn that everyone deviates from the norm in some context or another and that the statistical norm has no moral value” (p. 70). Through this study, I aimed to provide some understanding of this identity, particularly how poly students at one institution make meaning of their polyamorous identity and how they describe the relationship between the postsecondary environment and their meaning-making. This research is an initial step to better support polyamorous students in the postsecondary environment. Postsecondary 6 educators are critical partners in fostering student development both academically and personally (ACE, 1937, 1949; Baxter Magolda & King, 2004; Chickering & Reisser, 1993;

Parker, 1977). Further, scholars have studied the ways in which students develop identity through relationships with others in living and learning communities (Abes, Jones, & McEwen,

2007; Baxter Magolda, 1992, 2001, 2008a, 2008b; Chickering & Reisser, 1993; Parks, 2000).

This research has implications for programs focused on developing mature interpersonal relationships (Chickering & Reisser, 1993) and espousing an open and affirming stance toward family and kin relationships.

Baxter Magolda’s (2001) theory of self-authorship and Bronfenbrenner’s (1993) developmental ecology model were selected as theoretical frameworks. Coupling these particular theories intends to create an understanding of how one becomes self-authored in their polyamorous identity development, situated within the environment of a postsecondary institution. I selected qualitative methodology because it aligns better with learning more about polyamory, how I wanted to collect these data on poly students, and my personal and professional ontology and epistemology. Quantitative research is hypothesis driven, controlled, and based in explaining, predicting, or controlling knowable, objective truths (Patton, 2002). It has a greater emphasis on the etic, revealing value-neutral information (Creswell, 2013).

Quantitative research tends to align with positivist or post-positivist paradigms which seek objective truths (Creswell, 2013). Qualitative research is meant to provide a deep understanding of how a phenomenon is viewed or experienced by individuals, generally in the participants’ natural social settings (Patton, 2002). Moreover, it emphasizes the emic perspective, focused on individual subjective experiences (Creswell, 2013). Constructivist and interpretivist paradigms align with qualitative data collection procedures, specifically case 7 study. Further details about methodology and methods of data collection and analysis are discussed in Chapter Three.

Research Questions

The aim of this study was to discover how one sample of polyamorous students makes meaning of their polyamorous identity within a postsecondary educational environment, through a constructivist queer theory case study. The two research questions selected include:

1. How do college students (undergraduate and/or graduate level) who embrace a

polyamorous identity describe how they make meaning of, internalize, and articulate

that identity for themselves and others?

2. How do college students (undergraduate and/or graduate) who embrace a

polyamorous identity describe the relationship between their identity meaning-

making and the postsecondary campus environment?

Significance of the Study

Through this study, I provided a space to amplify the voices of polyamorous students, a community of individuals who believe intimacy can occur outside the bounds of heteronormative, monogamous expectations (Warner, 1999). My reflection on Warner’s question, “What would a world look like in which all these links between sexuality and people’s ideals were suddenly severed?” (p. 47), sparks consideration of a variety of societal norms regarding sex, sexuality, monogamy, marriage, and values or morality-based judgments and expectations held by the dominant society. Many of these judgments can limit and dictate behaviors regarding human connection. Through this study, I challenge the postsecondary education community, particularly the profession of student affairs, to reconsider how we understand human connection, interpersonal development, and love in relation to student development. 8

In the last few decades, polyamory has been relevant to how many individuals form relationships. Weitzman (2006) summarized some of the studies focused on numerical representation of polyamorous or non-monogamous individuals:

Page (2004) found that 33% of her bisexual sample of 217 participants were involved in

a polyamorous relationship, and 54% considered this type of relationship ideal. West

(1996) reported that 20% of her lesbian respondents were polyamorous, while

Blumstein and Schwartz (1983) found that 28% of the lesbian couples in their sample

were. Blumstein and Schwartz found that 65% of the gay male couples in their study

were polyamorous, and that 15-28% of their heterosexual couples had ‘an

understanding that allows non-monogamy under some circumstances.’ (p. 312)

The data from Page (2004) and Blumstein and Schwartz (1983) concerning gay, lesbian and bisexual people across a twenty-year span demonstrated that a high percentage of these populations also identify as polyamorous or engage in polyamorous relationships. Generally, many people are non-monogamous in some sense (Blumstein & Schwartz, 1983), but this may not come from the same philosophical framework or underpinnings as polyamory: love being limitless; intimacy being encouraged in many forms; open and frequent communication with one’s partner(s) about intimacy with others (Aviram, 2010; Billinkoff, 2005; Easton & Hardy,

2009; Ravenscroft, 2004). Despite this philosophical ambiguity, non-monogamy is prevalent in

U.S. society. This prevalence encourages me to conduct further research to better understand this identity and form of human connection.

The work of student affairs practitioners involves providing services and programs to

“assist students in navigating their journey through tertiary education landscape and add to their repertoire of educational and lifetime learning experiences” (“About student affairs and services,” n.d.). Since 1937, the profession of student affairs has been formalizing support for 9 professionals and the first statement from the profession emerged: the “Student Personnel Point of View” (SPPV, 1937). Decades later,

The USA student affairs domain has generated a significant and rigorous body of

research, has developed seminal theories, established a recognised discipline, managed

to professionalise itself and form broad and inclusive associations which reflect the

texture and depth of student affairs in the USA (Dean, 2006; Keeling, 2004; Nuss,

2003; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005; Schuh, 2003; Strayhorn, 2006). (as cited in

Schreiber, 2014, p. 20)

As summarized by Schreiber (2014), the profession of student affairs has a deep, rich research and theory basis. To date, I have found few research studies focused on polyamory within postsecondary campus environments. According to Dr. Kris Renn (personal communication,

November 15, 2013), researchers have only included “polyamorous” or “non-monogamous” as survey options within the last decade. Omitting polyamorous students in surveys demonstrates a wider historical gap in the literature regarding student identity development and polyamorous students. The lack of research also contributes to the concern that individuals with identities outside of the majority heteronormative lens may not feel safe on campus (Rankin, 2005).

Perceptions of safety in the campus climate for queer-identified students impacts processes of identity development like coming out and feeling self-authored in one’s identity (Baxter

Magolda, 2001; Rankin, 2005). Without an adequate awareness of how to support polyamorous student identity development, student affairs professionals are failing to support all students as they engage in critical self-reflection regarding their relationships. Supporting polyamorous students is attendant to perpetuating the ethics of student affairs professionals in supporting all students (ACPA, 2006; ACPA & NASPA, 1997; NASPA, 1990). Supporting all students expands beyond polyamory or monogamy to foster relationship communication skills 10 and open and honest communication about all aspects of one’s relationships, not simply intimacy regarding love and/or sex. Through this study, I call on student affairs professionals to consider their support of polyamorous student identity development within the postsecondary environment by providing an understanding of how polyamorous students make meaning of their polyamorous identity within the postsecondary campus environment.

Definition of Terms

The use of queer theory as a theoretical framework has implications for how I understand and articulate all aspects of this study. Employing queer theory involves viewing identity as a social construction, based in normative ideas about biological sex, gender, and sexual orientation and then critiquing power structures that support these constructs (Broido & Manning, 2002;

Gamson, 2000; Jones & Abes, 2013). This critique commonly involves deconstructing norms, and can be applied to writing in a more general sense by not only demonstrating what is but also what is not (Sullivan, 2003). Employing queer theory can assist readers in recognizing societal norms and expectations.

The following terms are significant for understanding some of the language used within the polyamorous community as well as the larger queer community. I present these terms with a disclaimer: these definitions represent generally used or common understandings. Polyamorous individuals might define a word somewhat differently or employ a term differently than another poly person. This disclaimer also supports two underlying foundations of my scholarship. The first is that individuals interpret terminology and labels to subjectively construct their identity.

The definitions provided, and my use of each term, attempts to broker common understanding, but is not meant to discount the individual meaning and understanding. The second foundation of my scholarship is a queer theory approach to language. Many individuals in the poly community hesitate to use labels or definitions regarding polyamory, as this practice undermines 11 their attempt to escape the rigidity of heteronormativity by embracing fluid identity constructs

(Aviram, 2010; Easton & Hardy, 2009). Feminist theorists also faced this same dichotomy of labeling terms for praxis, as labels were necessary for pragmatic reasons to engage in theory debates (Kreps, 1972). However, providing labels inherently limits the fluidity of gender and expression for women (Kreps, 1972) as it does for polyamorous individuals. Following Kreps

(1972), I operationalize these terms to allow for understanding and common language. However,

I also acknowledge the limitations of language on the inherent fluidity experienced by many polyamorous individuals. I will refer to participants using the terms preferred by participants.

Otherwise, I will use the term queer to represent any non-normative references to sexuality or gender and will use binary terms (man/woman, gay/straight) when they most closely align with the meaning intended by my participants or me.

Bisexual

A term that has shifted in meaning over time to be less binary and more focused on one’s attraction to more than one gender (Horowitz & Newcomb, 2002).

An androphilic bisexual is someone primarily attracted to men/male bodies (Auer, Fuss,

Höhne, Stalla, & Sievers, 2014).

Ecology

Haeckel (1869) defined ecology as “the entire science of the relations of the organism to the surrounding exterior world, to which relations we can count in the broader sense all the conditions of existence. These are partly of organic, partly of inorganic nature” (as cited by

Friederichs, 1958, p. 154). Different ecological perspectives have emerged, but essentially ecology is “the science of the interrelationships of organisms and their environment” (Eggleton,

1939, as cited by Friederichs, 1958, p. 154). 12

Ecology Model (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, 1993, 2005)

Bronfenbrenner (1979) offered:

a new theoretical perspective for research in human development. The perspective is new

in its conception of the developing person, of the environment, and especially of the

evolving interaction between the two. Thus development is defined in this work as a

lasting change in the way in which a person perceives and deals with his environment.

The ecological environment is conceived as a set of nested structures, each inside the

next, like a set of Russian dolls. (p. 3)

Environment

My definition of the campus environment is informed by the work of Bronfenbrenner

(1993, 2005) that includes an institution’s physical spaces, the relationship between people and the institution, and institutional ideologies, cultures, and subcultures.

Gender, Romantic, and Sexual Diversity (GRSD)

A term intended to be more inclusive, to replace the acronym LGBTQ, which stands for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer as the only included sexualities and genders

(“About Bi Pride UK,” n.d.). Utilizing GRSD allows space for identities like polyamory or asexuality not usually represented in the acronym (“About Bi Pride UK,” n.d.). Other researchers have also adopted the terminology of minoritized identities of sexuality and gender

(Stewart, Renn, & Brazelton, 2015). Use of GRSD also avoids the possible offensive connotations of adding the plus sign to the standard LGBTQ acronym, as in LGBTQ+.

Gender-fluid, Gender-queer, Gender-fuck

These terms represent identities outside common sex and gender binaries of man/woman, male/female, and masculine/feminine. Most gender-fluid/queer/fuck individuals feel their gender is not fixed and/or is a blend of gender expressions (Easton & Hardy, 2009). 13

Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer (LGBTQ)

LGBTQ is the most commonly referenced identities found within the queer umbrella and the acronym used to identify those identities (Warner, 1999).

Meaning-Making

In this study, I define meaning-making as how an individual comes to understand themselves and any experiences relevant to their development. This definition is heavily framed by Baxter Magolda’s work on self-authorship (2001, 2008). In this study, my focus is on how poly students make meaning of their identities and developmental experiences within the context of the postsecondary environment.

Monogamist

A term that can be used to describe an individual, their perspective or the larger societal implication of practicing monogamy as the societal default for romantic, and/or sexual relationships (Easton & Hardy, 2009; Sheff, 2014).

New Relationship Energy (NRE)

A term used within the poly community to describe the power of initial attraction in human connections. This can be compared to the concept of the commonly referred to honeymoon phase of a new relationship where a match appears to be strong and positive due to the new energy created between partners but is not necessarily sustained over time (Easton &

Hardy, 2009; Ravenscroft, 2004).

Open Relationship

Partners in an open relationship agree to sexual and/or romantic relationships with others but do not necessarily openly communicate their other relationships with their primary partner.

Open relationships do not share the same philosophical underpinnings of polyamory as many loves. They tend to be missing the intentional reduction of jealousy and movement toward 14 compersion (happiness for your partner’s partner) (Easton & Hardy, 2009; Ravenscroft, 2004).

Polyfidelity (also sometimes called Polyexclusivity)

A form of polyamory where all members are considered equal partners and agree to be sexually active with all other members of the group, but generally no one outside the group. The term originated in the Kerista Village commune in San Francisco which practiced polyfidelity from 1971 to 1991. The community expected all of its members, within bounds of sexual orientation and gender identities, to be sexually active with all other members, and for exclusive relationships not to be formed. However, restrictions around having exclusive relationships, is not always enforced today (Easton & Hardy, 2009).

Polyamory

Polyamory is a hybrid word: poly is Greek for many (or multiple) and amor is Latin for love. The article entitled “A Bouquet of Lovers,” written by Morning Glory Zell-Ravenheart and first published in Green Egg Magazine (Zell, 1990), a publication founded by her husband

Oberon Zell-Ravenheart, is widely cited as the original source of the word. To be polyamorous involves the belief that love is not finite and does not need to be confined to two people.

Multiple relationships can occur simultaneously with open communication which many poly people view as an ethical approach to multiple romantic and/or sexual partners.

Poly/Polies: Common abbreviated term for a polyamorous person(s) (Easton & Hardy,

2009; Ravenscroft, 2004).

Queer

In some research and common language, queer has been considered the umbrella term for diverse gender, romantic, and sexual identities. Other researchers, allies, and queer individuals use the term to intentionally move beyond identity labels. Queer is the most common term used by some individuals in response to heteronormative expectations regarding their gender or 15 sexuality (or both) that distinguishes them as outside or beyond societal expectations regarding sex, gender, and sexuality (Warner, 1999).

Sex-Positive

Easton and Hardy (2009) described this as:

The belief that sex is a healthy force in our lives. The phrase was created by sex

educators at the National Sex Forum in the late 1960s. It describes a person or group that

maintains an optimistic, open-minded, nonjudgmental attitude toward all forms of

consensual sexuality. (p. 276)

Swinging

Although some individuals might equate swinging with polyamory, for most individuals it is absent of the same philosophical underpinnings of ‘many loves.’ Swinging generally refers to recreational sex with others. In some sex-positive monogamous communities, this involves trading partners for sexual pleasure at exclusive events (Easton & Hardy, 2009; Ravenscroft,

2004).

Triad/Quad/Tribe

These terms reference groupings of partners: triad means three, a quad is four, and a tribe is four or more partners in varying forms of polyamorous relationships.

Primary/Secondary – Some individuals use this language to distinguish immediate

partners from additional partners. Individuals employ these terms inconsistently and

based on how they see their relational bonds. Some poly people live with their primary

partner and could be dating a secondary partner or all partners could live in a tribe despite

one couple still being primary and other partners are secondary (Easton & Hardy, 2009;

Ravenscroft, 2004). 16

Study Delimitations

This study is a constructivist, queer theory case study of a sample of polyamorous students in one institutional context and culture in the mid-western region of the United States of

America.

Case study methodology was selected because employing it involves a highly bound, in- depth understanding of individual subjective experiences (Creswell, 2013) and best fit how I wanted to understand the meaning-making process of a polyamorous identity. By using Baxter

Magolda’s (2001) theory of self-authorship, I had the opportunity to consider how meaning- making was relevant for the articulation of a polyamorous identity. Students were sought at one institution to focus the application of the ecological theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1993) along with the student development theory of self-authorship (Baxter Magolda, 2001).

Self-authorship is situated in a constructivist perspective which represents participant subjective experiences and how each participant comes to know who they are and what they believe about their poly identity. Approaching this research from that vantage point felt inherently limiting to represent the queer aspect of this identity and the realities surrounding how queer people are received in society as outside the bounds of heteronormative expectations. A participant may not feel or name their identity as non-normative, but it is objectively so in our current sociocultural and sociopolitical climate in the United States of America and many parts of the world. Some queer identities have gained limited rights, such as gay marriage, but others like polyamorous individuals, are still lacking in any formal protections.

Blending the philosophical perspectives of queer theory and constructivism provided a lens through which to employ the use of the two aforementioned frameworks and solicit distinct interpretations of how polyamorous students make-meaning of this aspect of their identity and 17 how they describe the relationship between the postsecondary campus environment and their meaning-making.

Overview of the Study

Through this study, I sought to provide insight into how polyamorous students at one large, public institution make meaning of their polyamorous identity within the postsecondary educational environment. I executed this study through a constructivist queer theory case study, and the blending of approaches is twofold. First, this blending of approaches represented the complexity of participant subjective experiences through constructivism.

Second, utilizing queer theory acknowledges the systemic oppressive societal structures and norms impacting those experiences.

Chapter Two is a review of the relevant literature on polyamorous identities, the postsecondary education environment, and relevant theoretical frameworks. In Chapter Three,

I outline the methodology and design of the study. Chapter Four is a summary of the findings and in Chapter Five I discuss the findings and implications for practice and future research. 18

CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Selection of literature first emerged based on recommendations from polyamorous individuals and researchers. A few books were recommended as well as articles and blogs.

From those initial resources I identified a list that seemed most helpful in building my understanding of polyamory and how many poly individuals might be finding information about their identity. After reviewing some of the recommended popular literature I then reviewed select empirically based studies that were most relevant to poly identity development, polyamory in society, or polyamorous postsecondary students. The lack of empirically based literature on this latter subject, polyamorous postsecondary students, was a factor in my decision to pursue research on how polyamorous students made meaning of their identity.

This literature review begins with a summation of the relevant literature on polyamory, including further details on polyamorous language, intricacies of polyamorous relationship structures, and how polyamory is viewed in society. This is meant to help readers understand polyamory more clearly before learning about participants’ individual perspectives on polyamorous identity development. Next, relevant literature on the purpose and environment of postsecondary education is shared to connect the purpose of this study and give voice to poly student identity development in postsecondary environments. An overview of the two chosen student development theories is also provided: Baxter Magolda’s theory of self-authorship

(2001) and Bronfenbrenner’s developmental ecology model (2005). Use of these theories allows for an understanding of poly identity development within the context of postsecondary education. Last, relevant literature regarding feminist and queer theoretical perspectives is also provided to better situate the lens in which the study was designed. 19

Polyamory

In an evolving, collaborative reference list kept by polyamorous researchers through a

Yahoo group1, at the beginning of this project, there were approximately 250 works (some scholarly, many not) discussing, debating, and researching polyamory. Authors of these works provided over two dozen meanings for the concept of polyamory and since the list is still growing, more definitions may develop. The most common definitions highlight the view that love is not a finite resource limited to one relationship between two people; that with open and frequent communication individuals can engage in multiple relationships simultaneously.

These relationships can include one, many, or all of the common human connections: emotional, intellectual, physical, romantic, or sexual.

Poly individuals use varying terms for self-identification; ethically non-monogamous, many loving, polyamorous, poly, polies, and poly practicing are the most common. I will use these terms interchangeably as they refer to anyone practicing or identifying with polyamory.

When specified by the participant I will use the participant’s preferred language. Polyamory is not easily defined, in part due to the lack of literature available for this identity that has only recently received media attention, but also because some poly people intentionally refuse to provide or agree upon a definition in response to heteronormative and neo-liberal norms, expectations, structures, and values (Aviram, 2010; Barker & Landridge, 2010; Easton &

Hardy, 2009; Finn & Malson, 2008; Mint, 2010; Montenegro, 2010; Rambukkana, 2010;

Shannon & Willis, 2010; Warner, 1999). Some polyamorous people prefer terms and names for their individual or group identification; others do not need or want terms to validate their relationship status, way of being, or who they are.

1 This is a restricted group, but can be found at https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/PolyResearchers/info 20

Poly Language

Based on my research thus far, the language associated with polyamory is still fluid, and might always be if the intention is not to place limiting language on poly people and communities. Many poly people believe polyamory is part of their identity; it feels natural to them and once they learned that monogamy was not the only way, they also embraced the polyamorous community and relationship structure.

In this paper, use of words and terms relevant to “choice”, “relationship structure”,

“identity”, and “identity development” are not definitive but based solely on my understanding of how varying individuals I have met are defining polyamory in the context of their lives.

Common social constructions regarding romantic and sexual relationships have positioned monogamy as the normal and expected romantic relationship structure for individuals to pursue and build family structures around. Many polyamorous individuals believe that polyamory offers them a more fluid understanding of human interaction that is less confined by the standards of monogamy (Trahan, 2015). Some individuals believe it is part of human biology and that it is natural to be poly. Others believe polyamory to be genetic, occurring for some individuals, similar to some arguments about being gay, lesbian, or bisexual (Easton & Hardy,

2009). There are also some individuals who believe polyamory is a conscious choice in response to unraveling normative, neo-liberal, hegemonic expectations of what love is and what relationships should look like. Use of any of the above terms are not meant to depict any facts or opinions about the root of polyamory; they simply allow for varying language within this work and recognition of participant language.

Intricacies of Polyamory

Intimacy is an integral aspect of polyamorous relationships. In any relationship, individuals can create and experience varying degrees of intimacy that fluctuate between

21 fulfilling and unfulfilling. In polyamorous relationships, partners can share and express various forms and degrees of intimacy across multiple partners.

Polyamory is multi-faceted; polyamorous individuals live in a variety of relationship structures (dyad, triad, tetrad), some with each partner dating each other, or one partner dating multiple individuals (Easton & Hardy, 2009; Ravenscroft, 2004). Some individuals also assign a status to their partners as primary, secondary, or tertiary, but many poly individuals do not rank partners even if they live with or have children with one partner but not others (Easton &

Hardy, 2009; Ravenscroft, 2004). An important concept in the poly world is that of New

Relationship Energy (NRE), which is commonly referred to as the “honeymoon phase” that does not continue past a certain number of months (Easton & Hardy, 2009; Ravenscroft, 2004).

Although poly individuals (as well as monogamous individuals) can have strong NRE when starting to date someone, it is the relationships that go beyond NRE that become long-term.

To further understand what polyamory is, one should consider what polyamory is not.

It is not infidelity; the consensual, communicative nature does not qualify it as cheating.

Polyamory is not casual sex; although some individuals engage in this, it is not necessarily the primary goal. It is not swinging; although some partners might inter-date like in a tetrad, it is not an exchanging of publicly-appearing monogamous partners simply for sex. Also, polyamory is not about being anti-monogamy. Instead, polyamorous individuals reject compulsory monogamy; polyamorous perspectives support that individuals should have the right to connect with however many partners they want, not be forced into monogamy

(Ranbukkana, 2012; Ravenscroft, 2004; Ritchie, 2010).

In the U.S.-based context, polyamory emerged from the ideology of sexual liberation that emerged in the 1960s where many people lived in poly-like communes (Aviram, 2010).

Numerous individuals who identify as polyamorous prefer not to get political, mobilize, or seek

22 legal recognition or benefits for their polyamorous identities. Many find that polyamory is an alternative relationship structure that goes beyond identity politics and that adherence to more rigid societal practices is the exact opposite of what polyamory represents (Aviram, 2010).

This reflects cognitive processes regarding interpersonal and intrapersonal relationships and is relevant to self-authorship (Baxter Magolda, 2008a; Chickering & Reisser, 1993).

Polyamory in Society

Polyamory is beset with many misconceptions. Easton and Hardy (2009) discussed a variety of myths that bias people against polyamory. Two prominent myths are that monogamy is the only way and that romantic love with one partner is the only real love. Other myths are that love means control over another, jealousy is impossible to overcome, and men should be in charge and have power. Easton and Hardy (2009) also described the myths that sexual desire is a destructive force and having multiple partners reduces intimacy. Polyamorous people battle numerous forces similar to and beyond these myths: the history of religion, government, societal standards, and limited cultural belief systems (Aviram, 2010; Barker & Landridge,

2010; Easton & Hardy, 2009; Rambukkana, 2012; Ravenscroft, 2004); polarization and severe dichotomization of relationship dynamics (Shannon & Willis, 2010; Warner, 1999); sexual autonomy being driven by infantile pleasure (Barker & Landridge, 2010; Shannon & Willis,

2010; Warner, 1999); and heteronormative expectations including what are presumed to be normal, natural, and traditional family values (Barker & Landridge, 2010; Easton & Hardy,

2009; Shannon & Willis, 2010; Warner, 1999). Individuals who move past these myths and expectations might be more likely to hold polyamory as a possibility or have monogamous relationships that are informed by polyamorous values.

The hurdles polyamorous individuals experience can feel oppressive, which can impact the experience of a polyamorous student in the postsecondary campus environment. 23

Programming and language only geared toward monogamy or shaming non-monogamy can leave students feeling marginalized. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs (Lester, Hvezda, Sullivan, &

Plourde, 1983) depicts a way to consider how student affairs can contribute to affirming polyamorous students. If practitioners are not providing students with the most basic necessity of a safe space and inclusive environment, how can scholars and practitioners expect students to feel like they belong, to gain confidence and self-esteem, or to become self-actualized and apply themselves to the best of their capabilities (Lester et al., 1983)? Furthermore, if we as scholars and practitioners are meant to build supportive and inclusive communities, we have a long way to go if we are (however unintentionally) neglecting to support a student identity in interpersonal interactions, in the curriculum, or through our policies and procedures.

Correcting these shortcomings is in line with the ethical standards of our profession (ACPA,

2006; ACPA & NASPA, 1997; NASPA, 1990). Our charge is to help students make meaning of their postsecondary experiences; if we have no understanding of how one population is developing and encountering the postsecondary environment, we are clearly falling short in helping all our students learn, develop, and grow (Astin, Astin, & Lindholm, 2011; Nash, 2001;

Parks, 2000).

Postsecondary Education Purpose and Environment

Postsecondary campus environments are focused on student success and development.

Thus, it is essential for all students to feel supported within the environment. There are, however, many factors influencing how each campus environment is constructed.

Consistent with the numerous documents providing recommendations for curricular reform (AAC&U, 2002, 2005, 2007, 2008; ACPA, 1996), Fuhrmann (1997) highlighted changes in postsecondary education arguing for transferable skills in a multicultural society, particularly those in oral and written communication. Fuhrmann (1997) also argued for a 24 movement from distribution requirements to a core curriculum intentionally measuring student outcomes and that “every area of the curriculum is being examined for its contribution to both a broadly educated society and to disciplinary competence in the new technological world” (pp.

97-98). This examination of the curriculum is fraught with political pressures that can take precedent over student learning and development. For example, a core curriculum might better align with recommendations for curricular reform but universities fear dropping enrollment due to a more prescribed curriculum. Financial pressures can drive many detrimental choices.

According to Fuhrmann (1997), over time:

[the] curriculum, even the very purpose of higher education, has been and continues to

be dependent upon the historical context in which the curriculum is designed, the

location in which questions concerning higher education are asked, and the nature of the

student involved in that time and at that place. (p. 86)

What students are learning, who they are learning from, and how they are learning is still dictated by historical structures and practices that do not necessarily reflect what is essential for learning. Dewey (1967) emphasized “human capacity to constantly reconstruct experience and thereby make personal meaning from that experience” (as cited in Fuhrmann, 1997, p. 90).

Thus, how students are taught can be just as significant as what they are taught. This links to the meaning-making aspects of self-authorship (Baxter Magolda, 1992) as everything is contextual and learned through interaction with one’s environment (Strange & Banning, 2001). Students need to be supported to “make meaning” of their educational and social experiences through beneficial pedagogical methods like scaffolding learning, reflection, and the development of critical thinking skills. What is taught and how it is taught can also be focused on historically dominant groups leaving targeted or historically underrepresented groups out of the content and structures of the postsecondary experience.

For polyamorous students, the postsecondary educational environment may or may not be perceived as supportive of how poly students make meaning of their identity. If scholars and practitioners are going to be supportive of student success in postsecondary education for all identities, we must consider how poly students making meaning within the institutional environment.

Student Development Theory

In U.S. postsecondary education, researchers and practitioners work to develop and infuse holistic approaches to support students. There are numerous theoretical models and concepts available to help scholars and practitioners understand how students learn, develop, and grow: identity development (Chickering & Reisser, 1993), adult development (Levinson,

1986), intellectual and ethical development (Perry, 1981), and challenge and support (Sanford,

1967). Cognitive-structural theories have been applied to gender (Blenky, Clinchy,

Goldberger, & Tarule, 1986; Gilligan, 1977), and theories surrounding particular aspects of identity construction have also been established regarding racial identity development (Cross &

Fhagen-Smith, 1996; Helms, 1990), and sexuality (Cass, 1989; D’Augelli, 1994).

Theories focused on one aspect of development do not account for the numerous identities a student might hold or be developing and how these identities interact with a student’s holistic development. Some researchers intentionally seek to understand the experiences of people with an identity or intersection of identities; sampling is intentionally exclusive to represent the experiences of intentionally sought participants. However, much of the history of research in student affairs either systematically excluded individuals of minoritized identities adding to systemic oppression only desiring to represent individuals of primarily privileged identities, or did not include them as an oversight. Due to the lack of understanding of polyamory existing as an identity it is difficult to know if polyamorous 26 students are intentionally excluded from research or not included unintentionally. This is magnified when theories have been generated from exclusive populations, primarily White, male, and heterosexual, limiting their generalizability to other identity groups. Parker (1977) argued that these isolated, individual theories in the body of higher education literature fall short. Those in higher education and student affairs administration and scholarship need to bend our constructs, recognize intersecting identities, and actually support the whole person

(Parker, 1977). Attempting to respond to this shortcoming, integrative approaches have become more prevalent in student development research.

Jones and Stewart (2016) described the evolution of student development theory as organized in three waves:

‘first wave’ (e.g., foundational, primarily psychological and developmental) theories to

more contemporary ‘second wave’ theories (e.g., reflecting a focus on diverse

populations, social identities, and holistic theories) to ‘third wave’ theories that apply

critical and poststructural perspectives to an understanding of student development. (pp.

17-18)

Jones and Stewart (2016) complicated the “first wave” approach to identity described as a trajectory with more static or consistent perspectives. This leads to “second wave” theories where identity is approached more holistically, inclusively, and intersectionally to include minoritized identities that were not represented in first wave theories. In this wave, identity is viewed as constructed in community with others and based in the ability to comprehend one’s development in relationship to self and others. While second wave theorists observed self- comprehension within the confines of existing societal power structures, third wave theorists have approached identity development as fluid and dynamic, and critically examine how systemic injustice and power structures frame concepts of identity. For example, this wave of 27 theorists shifts from “valuing social identities as a simple reflection of human genetics to valuing the reality and relevance of the effects of oppression on social relationships” (Jones &

Stewart, 2016, p. 23).

In this study, I attempted to integrate the use of second and third wave theories to further explore fluid and dynamic understandings of identity development within "larger structures of power and oppression” (Jones & Torres, 2016, p. 18). Two examples of second wave theories used for this study are self-authorship (Baxter Magolda, 2001) and the developmental ecology model (Bronfenbrenner, 2005; Renn & Reason, 2013). A third wave theory utilized for this study is Queer theory (Wagner, 1999). Despite this ongoing evolution in student development theory, many models are based on limited or homogeneous student samples that are not transferable to all students (Patton, Renn, Guido-DiBrito, & Quaye, 2016).

Polyamory is an identity yet to be included in identity development research, and applying integrative approaches to poly students is yet to be studied in postsecondary education research.

This research project intended to begin filling these gaps by considering polyamorous meaning- making processes through integrative research approaches.

Theory of Self-Authorship

Self-authorship can be defined as “the internal capacity to define one’s beliefs, identity, and social relations” (Baxter Magolda, 2008b, p. 269) and involves mastering developmental tasks like developing values, making sense of information gained, and determining one’s path or next steps. In this study, Baxter Magolda’s theory of self-authorship (2001) was used as a foundation for understanding how polyamorous-identified students develop and make meaning of their polyamorous identity and how the postsecondary educational environment influences these processes of development. I selected self-authorship (2001) because the theory is integrative, depicting intrapersonal, interpersonal, and epistemological domains of 28 development. These provided a unique lens for understanding poly student development and experiences. Baxter Magolda’s theory (2001) emerged from a longitudinal study of students at

Miami University of Ohio. The sample was comprised of primarily White, college educated students, commencing with 101 students and following 30 students into their 30s where they demonstrated “self-authorship.” The study design was constructivist in nature, and data demonstrated student interpretations of their identity and world. The researcher blended how individuals come to know (epistemological development), and brain development (cognitive processes) regarding sense of self (intrapersonal) and relationships with others (interpersonal)

(Patton et al., 2016).

The theory is based on three major questions: “How do I know? Who am I? How do I want to construct relationships with others?” (Baxter Magolda, 2001, p. 15). For polyamorous individuals, these questions are particularly significant to developing a polyamorous identity in relation to self and others. Knowing one loves, or can love, multiple individuals simultaneously involves grappling with questions of self-identity, particularly an identity that is less accepted in society. Relationships are already complex and constantly evolving between two people. Being romantically and/or sexually involved with more than two people requires significant additional effort to communicate and support the needs of each individual (Easton &

Hardy, 2009). Without developing – or working toward developing – self-authorship, it is more difficult to have successful relationships, particularly polyamorous relationships.

Self-authorship (Baxter Magolda, 2001) is a hierarchical stage model comprised of four phases. In phase one individuals follow formulas and paths laid by authority, seek approval from others, have no clear sense of self, and have trouble making decisions. Phase two involves crossroads where individuals recognize that prior approaches were not working, seek new approaches, lack fulfillment, and seek to define the self. Emerging from this crossroads 29 phase builds self-confidence and a sense of direction. Phase three encompasses authoring one’s life where individuals engage in deep reflection to build a strong self-concept, recognize beliefs are contextual and can change, balance needs of self and others, and seek relationships congruent with the self. Phase four demonstrates internal foundations as individuals now have a self-determined belief system, accept ambiguity, and trust their own decisions (Baxter

Magolda, 2001).

Challenging authority and trusting one’s inner voice are integral to developing self- authorship. Baxter Magolda (2001) also identified spirituality as significant to many individuals later in their development. Three assumptions guided her approach: “knowledge is complex and socially constructed, self is central to knowledge construction, authority and expertise are shared in mutual construction of knowledge among peers” (Baxter Magolda,

2001, p. 17). These assumptions make this theory particularly relevant to this study of polyamorous students. Fundamental to developing a poly identity is navigating societal expectations of monogamy and allowing for growth beyond those limitations on relationship development (Anapol, 2010; Easton & Hardy, 2009). The intersection of non-normative identities, societal expectations, and meaning-making was also studied by Abes and Jones

(2004). This study focused on meaning-making capacity and lesbian college students’ multiple dimensions of identity. Abes and Jones (2004) demonstrated that family influences, peer groups, social norms, and stereotypes affect self-perceptions of sexual orientation and other dimensions of identity for many students. Students need to develop self-authorship to move beyond heteronormative societal expectations (Abes & Jones, 2004).

Developmental Ecology Model

The foundation for the developmental ecology model is Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological

Systems Theory (1979, 1993). This theory can be used to identify and understand what is 30 closest to an individual’s immediate experiences and the settings that exert influence less directly (Rogoff, 2003). This research initially focused on children’s various person- environment interactions but can be applied to any phase of human development.

Bronfenbrenner (1979, 1993) “attempted in his model to account for the influences of individuals (person), their interactions with the environment and the responses they provoke from the environment (process), their interactions within immediate settings (context), and changing sociocultural influences on development (time)” (Renn, 2003, p. 387). Below I discuss how each of these four influences affect individuals.

Specific to context, Bronfenbrenner’s original model involved four areas of each individual’s environment. The first area is the microsystems which are immediate experiences and settings: school, home, neighborhood, religious setting. The second area is mesosystems; these are relations among the microsystems in which the individual is involved. Exosystems, the third area, encompass indirect environments one is involved in such as local industry and government or mass media. Finally, macrosystems serve as the fourth area and are “ideology and organization of pervasive social institutions of the culture or subculture” (Rogoff, 2003, p.

47). These four areas of context reflect the environments in which individuals are involved and, coupled with process, how individuals and environments interact. This interaction involves proximal processes which generate human development, similar to how students require opportunities for meaning-making to move toward self-authorship (Reason & Renn,

2013).

Context and process work in tandem with person and time. Bronfenbrenner (1993) proposed developmentally instigative characteristics regarding background and demographics of each individual that influence preferred interactions with the environment. First, people can either hinder or welcome interaction with the environment. Next, individuals explore and react 31 in selectively responsive ways. Third, as activities become more complex, some engage and others deflect; this is referred to as structuring proclivities (Reason & Renn, 2013). Fourth, individuals comprehend their agency in response to the environment in unique ways, referred to as directive beliefs (Renn & Reason, 2013). Furthermore, each aspect of context, process, and person is situated within time, or the chronosystem (Bronfenbrenner, 1993). The chronosystem reflects two major aspects. First is the historical period in which one is living, and the relevant conditions and events that occur. Second, there are expected culturally based social transitions relative to age, role, and opportunities within one’s life. These chronosystem influences are most directly tied to heteronormative experiences and interweaved through all aspects of the person, process, context, and time (PPCT) model.

Renn (2003) demonstrated the unique setting of the postsecondary environment when applying Bronfenbrenner’s model (1979, 1993) as its own microcosm of many individuals’ life cycles. Renn and Arnold (2003), adapted Bronfenbrenner’s model and applied it to college students. Renn (2003) also highlighted how:

The elements of person, process, context, and time (PPCT) create a developmental

environment unique to an individual, through organizations such as college and

universities [which] provide shared settings, where the unique developmental

environments of hundreds or thousands of students overlap significantly and are

influenced by institutional policy and programs. (p. 387)

Renn and Reason (2013) recognized how student characteristics and experiences are innumerable, but emphasized how PPCT can be a useful model to assess how these interactions influence student development within the postsecondary ecology.

Furthermore, Renn and Reason (2013) highlighted how self-authorship focuses on

“what is being developed (cognitive, interpersonal, and intrapersonal complexity), ecology 32 models focus on how and where development occurs” (p. 123). The coupling of these conceptual models provided a unique lens to understand how polyamorous students at one institution make meaning of their identity and how the postsecondary ecology affects their meaning-making.

Theoretical Perspectives

Applying theoretical perspectives provides direction to researchers and a lens to guide all aspects of the research design, findings, and recommendations (Jones, Torres, & Arminio,

2014). “An interest in questioning the status quo is at the heart of most theoretical perspectives” (Jones et al., 2014, p. 55) and is particularly relevant to the selection of queer theory as a lens to deconstruct the subjective experiences of participants. Queer theory is classified under the poststructural/critical theory paradigms, part of the “third wave” of student development theory (Jones & Stewart, 2016).

Feminist and Queer Theory

Feminist theory was foundational to the development of queer theory. Feminist theorists openly challenged cultural norms surrounding sex and gender. Bonnie Kreps (1972) noted “we have not been defined in isolation for who and what we are but in relation to man based on what we are lacking in comparison” (p. 46). Cognitively, human beings tend to understand concepts in binaries or dichotomies. Historically this commonly resulted in gender/sex binaries where men were strong and women weak (Kreps, 1972). These binaries stretch to sexuality (gay/straight) and relate to views on monogamy and marriage: one opposite-gender partner is good, all other possibilities (i.e., same-sex/gender, multiple partners, singledom, asexuality) are bad.

Feminist theorists also brought to light complications in queer theory and philosophical arguments for polyamory regarding labelling of identity (Kreps, 1972). Agreeing on a 33 definition fits societal expectations and desires to have labels; this can crush the liberating fluidity of not using labels (Kreps, 1972). However, without a definition it is harder to construct theory and engage in meaningful praxis (Kreps, 1972). This speaks to the terminology in the queer and poly community/ies as many individuals do not want to create more labels that hinder the fluidity and non-normative spirit of polyamory (Shannon & Willis,

2010).

Another feminist theorist, bell hooks (1984), argued that creating a counterculture supports cultural imperialism and power for some entities, which is counterproductive for ending sexist oppression. hooks (1984) continued to argue for a demarcation of gender issues as one example of ending majority privilege which would not be aided by segregating oppressed communities and battles for the eradication of one form of social inequality over another.

In the queer context, Wagner (1999) also supported the notion of fighting for all social inequalities. Wagner (1999) highlighted how queer as a concept is already making a unified statement and segregation within the queer umbrella only supports hegemonic hierarchy and privilege. There is already differentiated access to systemic privilege through government laws and regulations for many individuals in queer communities who fit societal norms (Wagner,

1999). Further differentiating the queer community would continue this pattern, as eventually some more accepted statuses might gain rights and power (like gay marriage), continuing systemic power and privilege by excluding poly or single gay individuals from certain rights.

When using queer theory one “considers identity to be a social construction and critiques the power structures in the social environment that construct identity” (Jones & Abes, 2013, p. 64).

Hence, supporting continued identity silos can limit unification and societal recognition of many sexual identities. 34

My study challenges societal expectations on sexual and romantic expression in a broad sense. Regard for differing sexual/romantic ethics and sexual/romantic autonomy also counters normative views and expectations. Shaming and policing the sex and love of others forces a socially constructed sexual and romantic morality (Conrad, 2010; Warner, 1999). “In this sex- phobic and sex-obsessed culture, sex has long been seen as intrinsically demeaning” (Warner,

1999, p. 17). Language and laws are archaic, historically conservative, and limited in nature yet are propagated as the only way to express attraction (Warner, 1999). If using queer theory focuses on “how society constructs normative behaviors (or grand narrative) around sexual orientation and the concepts of gender and biological sex” (Broido & Manning, 2002; Gamson,

2000 as cited by Jones, Torres & Arminio, 2013, p. 64), creating excessive hierarchies and labels only supports societal pressure to conform to heteronormative expectations. Space must also be granted for considering broader definitions of romantic relationship, love, and sexual expression. These expansions of social norms would make room for the varying facets of polyamory.

Summary

The limited research available on polyamory mostly consists of definitions, structures, and guidance on how to navigate polyamorous relationships. Scholars across numerous fields

(anthropology, gender and sexuality studies, psychology, sociology) addressed the challenges polyamorous people face overcoming societally expected monogamy. Although there is a growing number of empirically based studies regarding poly relationships, there are numerous gaps in the research on polyamory. Most relevant to this study is the gap concerning polyamorous identity development for poly students in the postsecondary education ecology.

At the time of this study, there was no research that considered poly identity formation in the 35 context of campus climate and what student affairs practitioners should do to create an inclusive campus climate.

Throughout the literature, self-identified polyamorous researchers and participants provided definitions about polyamory as an identity and community. At this time, researchers and participants have anecdotally and dialogically constructed polyamorous definitions, experiences, and preferences. In these prior works authors did not name particular research methods. It is difficult to know if this prior inquiry did not occur through systematic, empirically structured research formats or if authors did not explicitly name their methods.

Anecdotal research is also significant but does not necessarily provide data grounded in theoretical frameworks and valid data collection procedures. My study not only provides emerging empirically based research specific to a social science research methodology, but also specifies this to postsecondary students within the postsecondary environment. I also fulfill relevant measures of trustworthiness and validity for qualitative research as outlined in the next section describing methodology. 36

CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY

In this chapter I outline the research design, including those aspects necessary for high- quality qualitative inquiry as described by Jones et al. (2014). These aspects include providing details for grounding, designing, and executing the study. I sought to answer the subsequent research questions regarding the meaning-making of a polyamorous identity in the context of the postsecondary educational environment at one institution. This study was informed by an emerging blending of philosophical perspectives known as epistemic bricolage (Abes, 2009;

Anzaldua, 1999; Tierney, 1993, Tierney & Rhoads, 1993), which reflects a focus on how identity is intersubjectively constituted and developed through interaction between and among self, community, and social (institutional) context, all of which are processes of dialogic development

(Butler, 1989). Design, implementation, analysis, and dissemination of the study were formed by the implementation of constructivist and critical/queer theory perspectives. These perspectives influence how I employed the theoretical frameworks/conceptual models selected:

Baxter Magolda’s theory of self-authorship (2001) and Bronfenbrenner’s developmental ecology model (2005). Although researching across “theoretical borderlands” (Abes, 2009, p. 154) is still emergent in U.S. postsecondary education research, doing so is fitting for a study of an equally unique social group identity: polyamory.

Research Design

Review of Research Questions

The research questions that guided this study were 1) How do college students

(undergraduate and/or graduate level) who embrace a polyamorous identity describe how they make meaning of, internalize, and articulate that identity for themselves and others?, and 2)

How do college students (undergraduate and/or graduate) who embrace a polyamorous identity 37 describe the relationship between their identity meaning-making and the postsecondary campus environment?

Philosophical Frameworks

This study was grounded in constructivist and postmodern paradigms (Creswell, 2013;

Jones et al., 2014). I straddled theoretical borderlands (Abes & Kasch, 2007) and employed epistemic bricolage (Abes, 2009) to conduct a constructivist queer theory.

Independently, the guiding assumptions of constructivist research are that knowledge is co-created between researcher and participant since identity is dynamic, fluid, and open to new interpretations within the community, as findings emanate from the context of the study (Jones et al., 2014). In constructivist research, reality is relative and knowledge subjective to the individual, as each person constructs their own experiences and meanings from their experiences (Jones et al., 2014). Applying the constructivist approach provided a voice to polyamorous participants regarding how they make meaning of their polyamorous identity.

Operating from a constructivist perspective honors the subjective, fluid construction of self, including sexuality, and of experiences that influence meaning-making.

Postmodern researchers see reality as a co-creation of the mind and environment and emphasize that power affects how we know and what we know (Jones et al., 2014). They also claim that we come to know within community and our experiences “through interaction with others” (Jones et al., 2014, p. 21). Utilization of queer theory, a component of the postmodern perspective, “considers identity to be a social construction and critiques the power structures in the social environment that construct identity” (Jones & Abes, 2013, p. 64). Tenants of queer theory include heteronormativity, performativity, desire (to fit the norms), and becoming

(unfolding identity without endpoint) (Jones & Abes, 2013, p. 64). Creswell (2013) added that

“writers also use a postmodern or poststructural orientation to critique and deconstruct 38 dominant theories” (p. 32). Participants navigating the meaning-making process regarding their polyamorous identity may or may not recognize how systemic structures have influenced their experiences and development. Employing queer theory blends the subjective interpretations of experience while critically considering power structures in society. Applying postmodern approaches also values knowledge formation within community and interaction with others, which are fundamental concepts in polyamory.

Abes (2009) and Abes and Kasch (2007) demonstrated the juxtaposition of constructivism and queer theory as a postmodern project to provide “a poststructural perspective on the analysis of lesbian identity development. Utilizing both constructivism and poststructuralism led to not only increased understanding about identity but also about the influence of power, privilege, and oppression on identity formation” (p. 19). Abes’ (2009) study involved theoretical borderlands, specifically two perspectives melded to reveal more complexities of development.

The philosophical perspectives of constructivism and queer theory were blended to acknowledge the subjective experiences of the participants while also recognizing the systemic oppression surrounding non-normative identities like polyamory. These were used as a lens through which to see and apply Baxter Magolda’s theory of self-authorship (2001) and

Bronfenbrenner’s (2005) developmental ecology model. These frameworks, applied through the constructivist queer theory lens, will illuminate developmental experiences of meaning- making within the context of the educational environment of the case study location.

Methodology

Good qualitative research demonstrates consistency between epistemology, research questions, and data collection, analysis, and presentation (Jones, Torres, & Arminio, 2006;

Morrow, 2005). I believe reality is highly subjective, is constructed through one’s individual 39 lens, and is impacted by socio-political power and one’s ecology, including cultural and social context (Creswell, 2013). This perspective aligns with a constructivist queer theory approach which is applied throughout this case study to explicate how poly students at one institution make meaning of their polyamorous identity and how they describe the relationship between their meaning-making and the environment.

Case Study

Case studies are highly bound allowing for an in-depth understanding of a single case (or multiple individual cases compared) using multiple sources of information within a contemporary context or setting, time, and place (Creswell, 2013; Jones et al., 2014). They are richly detailed, deeply analyzed, and tied to the theoretical perspective employed (Jones et al.,

2014). When executing a case study, the researcher must identify: the case(s); how to achieve a deep, rich understanding through differentiated sources or triangulation; and how to approach data collection and dissemination that fits the identified theoretical perspective(s) (Creswell,

2013). Stake (2000) described three forms of case study: intrinsic cases, focused on the individual case; instrumental cases, focused on the understanding of an issue; and collective cases, utilizing multiple cases to draw conclusions and theorizing about a phenomena (as cited in

Creswell, 2013). Merriam (2009) also described three types of case study, each with recommendations for analysis (as cited in Jones et al., 2014). First, Merriam outlined pluralistic case study, which facilitates our understanding of a specific phenomenon. Next is descriptive case study, which focuses on the outcome of the case, providing rich description of phenomena in a narrative form. The third is heuristic case study which involves “understanding insights gleaned from the case study investigation and lead to new meaning and rethinking about the phenomenon” (Jones et al., 2014, p. 96). 40

For this particular study, I utilized a single instrumental pluralistic case study. The findings will help readers understand the phenomena and subsequent issues surrounding how students make meaning of a polyamorous identity within the context of one large, public

Midwestern university. Research, particularly qualitative research, is about understanding human beings and human connection, and ideally, this study serves dual purposes relevant to the frameworks in which it was designed. Through this study I provide an in-depth understanding of the constructed processes of meaning-making of a poly identity while also acknowledging the potential relevant issues of being a marginalized identity within the postsecondary environment.

Context for the Study

As per my definition in Chapter Two, I conceptualize the environment as participants engaging with their physical environments, the relationship between self and environment, and institutional ideologies, culture, and subcultures present in the environment. This case study is of polyamorous students attending a single institution and how these students made meaning of their polyamorous identity within the context of their institutional environment. All of the students attended the same large, public midwestern university.

Study Participants

Participants were recruited via criterion and snowball sampling as they were required to identify as polyamorous and attend the selected institution (Creswell, 2013). After gaining human subjects review board (HSRB) approval from Bowling Green State University (see

Appendix A), I contacted poly students in this particular community through pre-existing networks I had within the polyamorous community in this area. I posted about the study in appropriate Facebook groups (see Appendix B) and allowed individuals to respond to the inquiry either by demonstrating interest in the study or by sharing knowledge of individuals who were 41 possibly interested in the study. As I was provided with contact information for students in this campus poly community, I contacted potential participants with further details regarding the study. All interested participants received letters of interest to confirm participation via email

(see Appendix C) and each completed a brief demographic questionnaire (see Appendix D).

Participants also signed informed consent forms before each interview (see Appendix E).

Snowball sampling was primarily utilized as willing participants provided contact information for other students who may have had interest in participating in the study (Creswell, 2013). At the first location selected, no students volunteered for the research study so I selected another regional, midwestern university and repeated the aforementioned steps until a sample of seven participants emerged.

Data Collection Methods

Creswell (2013) recommended extensive data collection in case study methodology drawing on multiple sources of information. Multiple sources of data support triangulation which allows for an information rich case and adds to measures of trustworthiness and authenticity of the methodology and data collection, analysis, and presentation (Patton, 2002).

This study included interviews and email exchanges with participants. More specifically, data were collected through two semi-structured interviews with each participant. The research questions were used to design more specific interview protocol questions. These more detailed questions allowed me to address aspects of each framework without needing participants to be familiar with the frameworks informing the study. The first interview focused on the first research question and understanding the meaning-making processes of this group of polyamorous students (see Appendix F). The second interview allowed for clarification of any remaining questions from interview one and then focused on how participants describe the postsecondary environment, and decisions and processes of making meaning of a polyamorous 42 identity (see Appendix F). The follow-up email after each interview allowed participants the opportunity to reflect on each of the interviews (see Appendix G). Transcript verification also occurred (see Appendix H).

I also wrote in a journal, wrote memos, and took notes throughout the data collection and analysis procedures (Creswell, 2013; Jones et al., 2014). These served to help me make sense of my own understandings and the process of coming to those understandings. Memoing, borrowed from grounded theory methodology, is where I intentionally captured my thoughts about coded categories throughout the analysis process (Jones et al., 2014). This was coupled with epoché and bracketing, borrowed from phenomenological methodology (Creswell, 2013; Jones et al.,

2014). Throughout the process of data collection and analysis these approaches created a two- tiered journal: immediate memoed thoughts and those documented through the processes of epoché and bracketing. These two terms are described below in the data analysis section.

Data Analysis

Data collection and analysis were concurrent. Detailed case description and case themes emerged from data collection; journaling, memoing, epoché, and bracketing; and holistic and embedded analysis. Epoché involves putting one’s knowing’s and personal reflections aside and then revisiting the data. Through this process the researcher becomes aware of preunderstandings which are then put aside during data analysis through bracketing (Jones et al.,

2014). This bracketing allowed me to analyze this data without the direct influence of positionality (described in the next section). This also allowed me a space to process data and interpretations of data to ensure consistency with the study design. Although these processes are not typical for case study methodology, due to the use of epistemic bricolage (Abes, 2009) for 43 this constructivist queer theory case study, memoing, epoché, and bracketing allowed me to be reflexive and deepen the analyses of the data and data presentation (Creswell, 2013).

Using holistic analysis allows the researcher to view all data through a theoretical lens even when employing conceptual models (Creswell, 2013). Embedded analysis, viewing the data through one conceptual model at a time, was also employed in order to more clearly identify the emergence of self-authorship within the campus environment. Embedded analysis allows a researcher to analyze data in a more focused way if the holistic analysis was not specific enough or possibly demonstrated inconsistencies (Creswell, 2013). Based on thematic analysis, I will discuss my findings regarding the meaning-making processes of participants about their polyamorous identity within the context of their particular institutional environment.

Provisions of Trustworthiness

In qualitative research, the researcher should provide a variety of validation strategies to ensure the work is designed and executed to the standards of qualitative research (Creswell, 213).

Trustworthiness is the goal and process of creating and executing a study of high quality which provides confidence in the research findings. Jones et al. (2014) described two larger branches of trustworthiness and summarized prior research on terminology within each area: inquiry competence and relational competence. Morrow (2005) described credibility, which supports why the amount of data collection is reasonable in relation to one’s findings. Lather (2003) and

Morrow (2005) described dependability as providing the process of inquiry explicitly, including the chronology of activities. This chronology was provided in the data collection and analyses sections and was also documented in the researcher journal. Finally, in reference to inquiry competence, the study was intended to meet requirements for fairness by accurately representing 44 the voices and views of the participants through triangulation and the variety of data collection methods and analyses described (Guba, 2011, as cited in Jones et al., 2014).

Relational competence involves presenting what the researcher(s) carry with them to the research process (positionality), and the relationship with participants (reflexivity) (Creswell,

2013; Jones at al., 2014). Considering positionality allows researchers to recognize relationships within study design: researcher to participants, researcher to topic, which are all influenced by

“research paradigm, theoretical perspective, and methodology” (Jones et al., 2014, p. 26). More on positionality and reflexivity are provided in the next sections. I also employed a researcher journal throughout the interview, coding and analysis process (Creswell, 2013). According to

Creswell (2013), the researcher should describe and bracket their experiences with and assumptions about the phenomenon through a journal. Epoché and bracketing were coupled with memoing within the researcher journal to allow space for the researcher to share observations both bracketed out and influenced by positionality (Creswell, 2013). This memoing included any impressions, observations, thoughts, and reflections that could have impacted or informed coding, themes, or descriptions compiled by the researcher (Creswell, 2013).

Regarding reflexivity, keeping a research journal allowed me to reflect on numerous aspects of the research process. Some notes included how my social identities and experiences were different from or similar to participants, if I had privileged identity status(es) over participants, and if I was an outsider or insider based on identity status(es) (Jones et al., 2014).

Each of these allowed me to note and process how these aspects might have impacted the interview process and data analysis. Regarding positionality, I explicitly state my paradigmatic beliefs, theoretical frameworks, methodology, and rationale in the manuscript (Broido, 2012;

Cresswell, 2013). I also practiced autobiographical rendering in the subsequent section on reflexivity by openly contemplating why I engaged in the study. Along with the processes of 45 transcript validation previously mentioned, I also utilized a peer debriefer to review a sample of the findings, as described by Jones et al. (2014), to assist with limiting researcher bias on data analysis and presentation.

Positionality

Cognitively, I recognize critical paradigms as ontologically and epistemically valid and inextricably connected to constructions of identity, whether or not individuals consciously recognize social inequities. I have also come to recognize that social inequities are present and prevalent foundations of society exhibited through power, privilege, and oppression on systemic, group, and individual levels (Johnson, 2006).

Beyond resonating with critical paradigms, I feel that most individuals subjectively construct their reality and epistemology relative to the context of their circumstances, experiences, and perceptions. I believe social influences (policies, expectations, and personal circumstances) impact one’s reality both consciously and subconsciously. I also believe we can have some influence over how we experience much of our reality based on being mindful of our thought processes and perspectives in response to circumstance (Creswell, 2013) which, for some individuals, leaves systemic power, privilege, and oppression in the periphery instead of as a lens for contextualizing one’s reality. I conceptualize the purpose of research to further explore and explain certain phenomena in our existence (Creswell, 2013; Jones et al., 2014).

This systematic exploration involves collecting information in numerous forms. Then, through thoughtful analyses and reflection this information provides greater understanding of said phenomena. This anticipated understanding of phenomena allows for better human interaction through potential design structures, policies, or practices. This understanding also allows for 46 the thoughtful dissemination of information so individuals can positively allow information to influence how they interact with others.

To me, constructivism highlights the limitations of our ability to truly know the exact experiences of any human being. We can only attempt to understand what someone is willing to share though whatever medium of communication is used and within the confines of the language available to express their experiences. Theory and various forms of pragmatic and empirical literature aid our understanding of others’ experiences but primarily through our biased lens and interpretation.

I believe strongly in the interpretive, subjective, individual experience. There are multiple realities and reality is not objectively knowable (Patton, 2002). I also believe that individuals construct their own subjective understandings, and we can study this to learn about the many truths individuals carry (Patton, 2002). As I expand my knowledge of systemic power, privilege, and oppression it becomes clearer to me that the dynamics of socio-political power cannot be ignored (Lather, 2006). Critical theory is particularly relevant to individuals with marginalized identities regarding ability, age, class, ethnicity, race, relationship status, sexuality, socio-economic status, and numerous other socially constructed identities. These considerations drove the proposed study and bricolage of constructivist and critical paradigms.

Ethical Issues & Reflexivity

As previously stated, it is important for researchers to be reflexive and consider personal identities brought to the research process (Jones et al., 2014). I hold many identities. Of most relevance to this study is my queer identity, which, for pragmatic reasons, I define as gay, transgender, nonbinary, and poly-informed. My queer identities and my personal and scholarly research interests are commonly perceived to mean I am also polyamorous. Providing further support for this assumption, I was actively involved with a spiritual poly community in 47 northwestern Ohio at the time of data collection. This did provide some immediate credibility to the community of participants I contacted and did assist in gaining participants. On the other hand, participants could have been skeptical of me as an outsider who was not sure of their polyamorous identity or who participated in atypical spiritual practices.

Although I assume my identity has rarely ever been static, I am currently in a monogamous relationship and have predominantly pursued monogamous relationships.

However, in recent years I have engaged in relationships through a polyamorous lens, as many of the assumptions and expectations surrounding monogamy do not align with my personal beliefs, values, or preferences in any form of relationship (friendship, romantic, sexual, etc.). I value kinship and chosen family, concepts commonly outside of the monogamous, heteronormative lens. I have friendships from numerous periods of my life that stretch beyond normative forms of plutonic intimacy that are commonly expected for a monogamous-practicing person. These relationships frequently cross gender, romantic, and sexuality boundaries also uncommon for heteronormative relationships. The founding tenants of polyamory – boundless love, communication, trust, reduction of jealous behavior, and sex positivity – all very much align with my personal ethos surrounding emotional, romantic, and sexual relationships. Although individuals practicing monogamy do not necessarily devalue these aspects, these tenants are not as apparent or valued as significantly in some monogamous communities.

Monogamy is a relatively unexamined power structure influencing human relationships.

This heavily frames my experience with the poly community and interacting with poly individuals as a researcher of polyamory. I am aware of how my view on monogamy creates a bias toward polyamory versus monogamy and a liberal interpretation of polyamory. I employed the numerous aspects of trustworthiness mentioned previously: bracketing/epoché and triangulation in data collection procedures, and analysis; and transcript verification, and peer 48 review after proposing my results. These ensured that I maintained the practices of the methodology and theoretical perspectives when analyzing and presenting data. The intent is to mutually construct meaning with participants while also recognizing societal inequities and power structures. I also, at the urging of my committee, do not intend to valorize polyamory, only share current information available and the stories of my participants.

I also recognized my privilege as a researcher completing my second advanced degree, considered a terminal degree in my field. My status as researcher and doctoral student created a power dynamic with participants that could influence what was shared. As mentioned previously, my identities as a queer person, as a researcher, and as an advocate of polyamory most likely allowed me to build rapport more quickly among the participants.

At this time, most polyamorous individuals studied have identified as White and middle class or upper-middle class (Alan, 2012). As a person who is White and of the middle-class, my race and socioeconomic status might have also helped to facilitate immediate rapport with participants.

My non-apparent identity as an international student is both privileged and oppressed. I experience microaggressions regarding my visa status and access to certain forms of funding and support. I do not always understand references to the history, politics, or sociocultural implications as someone raised in the Unites States might. Yet my country of origin is that of a recognized and generally favored commonwealth which tends to involve others being rather welcoming to me once they hear I am Canadian.

Another relevant identity could include my neurodivergence and struggles with ADHD

(attention deficit hyperactivity disorder). This identity influenced many of the choices I made regarding study design and implementation to ensure I had multiple opportunities to organize information and seek clarity. My ADHD directly impacted my chosen analysis in employing 49 embedded and holistic coding and dissemination of data. I did not originally intend to code for themes and frameworks but I believe being neurodivergent encouraged my initial and emerging selection of methods to organize and analyze data.

Summary

According to Ellingson (2011), researchers let paradigmatic definitions constrain their work, and all qualitative researchers “need to jump across traditions, straddle metatheoretical camps, and loosen constraints as we follow mythical gods of objectivity, validity, and reliability, in order to legitimate creative analytic approaches to analysis and interpretation” (p.

2). I believe restricting approaches to research limits the ability to truly represent the variety of human experiences. This restriction has, in a sense, quantified our qualitative methodologies instead of allowing qualitative methodologies to continue to expand and develop as each being can with experience and introspection. No single theory, methodology, or paradigm can portray the dynamic, fluid, and intersecting identities of each unique individual. This serves as a reminder to scholars that all research was once setting a precedent and if scholars look to other ethical and reliable practices we can bend and expand qualitative research. Furthermore, through epistemological bricolage (Abes, 2009), I aimed to support Ellingson’s (2001) drive to legitimate new approaches to qualitative research.

I believe this case study is among the first regarding meaning-making of polyamorous identity through the postsecondary education and student affairs perspectives. There is little research on how poly students make meaning of or develop this identity. Research on how to support poly students is necessary as more polyamorous individuals share their identity and to create safe spaces for sharing of this identity. Postsecondary education, or higher education, through its curriculum, can be seen as the pinnacle of progressive, informed, and “educated” society (Furhmann, 1997). In student affairs, there is an aspiration to be inclusive, 50 multiculturally competent, and diverse in thought and action (ACPA, 2006; ACPA & NASPA,

1997). This study enhances preexisting literature surrounding polyamory and how practitioners and scholars can truly be inclusive of the poly community at institutions of postsecondary education. 51

CHAPTER IV: FINDINGS

Throughout this chapter, I present findings related to the research questions that guided this study: how do college students (undergraduate and/or graduate level) who embrace a polyamorous identity describe how they make meaning of, internalize, and articulate that identity for themselves and others? How do students (undergraduate and/or graduate) who embrace a polyamorous identity describe the relationship between their identity meaning-making and the postsecondary campus environment?

This chapter is structured around the four themes that emerged through data analysis: misrepresentation/misconceptions, coming out, support, and multiple dimensions of identity.

First, I provide a brief introduction to the participants.

I summarized participant demographics to protect participant confidentiality. At the time of data collection, six participants were graduate students; Luinne was the only undergraduate student. Of the graduate students, three were pursuing master’s degrees, two were pursuing doctoral degrees, and one had recently graduated with their doctorate. Majors will not be specified to protect participant identities. One participant identifies as a parent. Ages ranged from 20-40 years of age. Matthew, Ariana, and Tony all identified as having a disability and

Luinne shared their struggles with mental health multiple times during interviews. Luinne identified as genderqueer, gender fluid, nonbinary, polyamorous-open, demisexual, polyromantic, White, and “not defined by a religion” but holding beliefs that lean toward the

Paganistic/Wiccan spectrum. Anya identified as female, bisexual, queer, poly, fluid, White, and a spiritual person. Nathan identified as genderfluid, nonbinary, queer, polyamorous, heteroflexible, panromantic, Latinx, and secular. Matthew identified as male, gay, White, and spiritual. Rachel identified as a cisgender woman, bisexual, ethically non-monogamous, polyamorous, White, and ambivalently agnostic. Ariana identified as a cisgender woman, 52 polyamorous, bisexual, and White. Tony identified as a trans man, transgender FTM, androphylic bisexual, polyamorous, White, and Pagan.

Misrepresentation/Misconceptions

All participants shared narratives about others’ misconceptions regarding polyamory.

Many of these misconceptions were a part of struggling to learn that polyamory is a valid identity, unlearning compulsory monogamy, and grappling with societal expectations to be self-authored in a poly identity. Each of these misconceptions can be broken down into four more specific subthemes: lack of societal acceptance, heterosexist society, the “nots” (not cheating, polygamy, or swinging), and sexualized.

Lack of Societal Acceptance

Each participant shared that they feel polyamory is not accepted by society. Luinne described having many crushes but “then there’s that pressure from society, it’s like, well you need to choose one.” Tony described getting eye rolls when coming out, and Matthew referred to polyamory as still very taboo. Rachel shared “I don’t think that inherently it’s wrong. And I think that it’s really hard for people to step away from that cultural script.” Rachel also went on to describe that when speaking to others about non-monogamy, many individuals responded by saying “that’s between them” which inferred that polyamorous individuals should be secretive and not speak openly about their relationships. For Rachel, the privacy enforced in this response is not reflected in cultural norms for monogamous individuals. Ariana described that societal values have been “suffocating” and noted that she encountered resistance among non-polyamorous people when bringing up the subject. Ariana also theorized about why many individuals are not accepting:

I don’t want to say that a lot of people don’t want to open their minds, but a lot of

people are comfortable living with the values and norms that their families and society 53

places on them. It becomes comfortable, it feels good but then it becomes a crutch, and

then it becomes a necessity. At the expense of something that might feel good or better.

And that’s how I think a lot of this works.

This lack of acceptance by society and the many challenges they faced to understand relationships between self and others were common refrains throughout participants’ stories.

Heterosexist Society

Arguably, most rejections of non-monogamy are based in heteronormativity.

Heteronormativity involves hesitancy from most individuals to reject, criticize, and push back on normative expectations surrounding gender and human sexuality (Warner, 1999). Examples of heteronormativity might include getting married because it is what you are “supposed” to do or only being willing to date or marry individuals you perceive to hold a specific gender identity because that is expected of someone of your gender. All of the participants deeply reflected on heteronormativity being part of why they felt misrepresented in society. Luinne,

Nathan, Rachel, Ariana, and Tony all reflected on the overpowering narrative of heteronormativity being one man and one woman in society. This narrative is limiting not only by number of persons, but also in gender, which troubled all participants. One participant described:

Well I guess I’ve been socialized to think, when I was a kid, that a man and a woman was

the right relationship structure and they were to be married and have two and a half kids

and a white picket fence sort of thing, and I felt dissonance towards that whenever I

recognized or saw that people didn’t identify as straight, on TV or other things, I think

I’ve been socialized too much to the point where I thought ‘well, they’re just, they don’t

understand, they’re confused’ or something like that. (Nathan) 54

Nathan reflected on the depth in which heteronormativity assumes and indeed teaches that those individuals acting outside of dominant social norms are confused or even abnormal or deviant. Luinne extended this concern to other sexual and romantic identities, as well:

And heterosexism extends to, I would even say the poly community in a certain respect,

because a lot of poly identities, even if you include all these different genders like

genderqueer, agender, gender-fluid, etc., Two Spirit, you still run into the issue of well

it’s not one man and one woman, like, culture likes to, mainstream culture likes to

amplify.

For some participants, gender roles and expectations seemed to be one of the most strict compulsions of heteronormativity, a compulsion from which all arguments against polyamory stemmed.

As shared by Anya, heteronormativity is also steeped in rhetoric around poly individuals being referred to as “greedy,” and as one partner is not “enough.” Rachel continued this thinking when sharing:

We live in a very dualistic and absolutist culture that really says that you have to

choose, and it’s really hard for people to wrap their heads around you may not want to

or have the ability to do so. Or that you could have chosen one person but still

simultaneously be attracted to multiple people. Either currently or theoretically.

This forced choice approach to heteronormativity was echoed by many participants relating in numerous love-triangle stories from books, television, and movies. This supposed greed and needing to choose is rampant in the rhetoric surrounding relationships; individuals who identify as monogamous are often shamed for dating more than one person at a time. 55

Rachel had insightful thoughts on why most individuals might rely on heteronormative standards or why these standards might continue as the pervasive and unspoken “correct” way to engage in relationships:

From an anthropological sort of standpoint, monogamy tends to tie people to their

obligations and create relationships that are stabilizing for society and helps people

track, you know, who is parented by whom and who gave birth to whom and some very

specific things. It keeps, in particular, it keeps young men from going out and sowing

their wild oats and they are sometimes historically inclined to do. And I think that it

also has the effect of participating in patriarchy and that it controls and regulates the

movements of women and women identified people and female folks in general.

Rachel continued this deep reflection and got at the heart of what polyamory could offer to monogamous people who might remain monogamous but reframe their relationships to include less heteronormative expectations:

I believe that non-monogamy offers the possibility for people to reinvent the sort of

dominant cultural script about what relationships have to look like. What constitutes

ethics and ethical relationships, so much of our understanding about how to be a good

partner is couched in monogamy. And when you remove that as a barrier to other types

of openness you suddenly can find that there are a whole host of ways that you can be a

more positive or less positive partner, more or less compatible partner, that they are not

based in whether or not you cheat so to speak.

Anya provided meaningful criticism of heteronormativity at large and expanded on why heteronormativity can cause harm when applied to any human relationship:

So it’s like, you have all these different beautiful loves and I think sometimes with

monogamy, people feel like they can’t love their friends too much. They have to kind 56

of have a little barrier, because ‘if I love this person too much what will that mean for

my partnership?’ and that’s just super sad, because there’s so much love to be had and

enjoyed and sometimes it’s funny, I actually have the feeling that I’m not loving people

enough.

Anya’s insights provided a critique on heteronormativity limiting human intimacy and clarified why many poly people struggle with the pervasiveness of heteronormative standards among society.

Polyamory is Not Cheating, Polygamy, Swinging

Most participants defined their polyamory by describing what polyamory is not more frequently than describing what polyamory is. Defining queer identities in opposition to societal standards serves as a starting point for understanding what something is in relation to that normative standard. For some participants, describing what is not normative allowed them to engage in creating internal formulas for what polyamory means to them.

The largest misconceptions shared by participants about polyamory are that it is cheating, polygamy, or swinging. Swinging can be classified as ethical non-monogamy.

However, some individuals believe it does not reflect the paradigm of polyamory as “many loves” and something beyond exchanging partners for sex and appearing monogamous in all other facets of one’s life. Consistent with queer theory, each participant found themselves realizing what polyamory is, in contrast to what it is not.

Not cheating. All participants spoke about misconceptions surrounding cheating.

Luinne described the lack of understanding from most individuals, that loving more than one person does not equal cheating. Luinne shared that most individuals believe “anything else that isn’t monogamy is considered cheating. Which is not always true.” Matthew described that when coming out to a select few people and talking to them about polyamory, one of the first 57 things they asked was if he would be worried about cheating. Anya, Rachel, Ariana, and Tony were all in monogamous relationships when they first engaged in polyamory, with the consent of their partners, meaning that they also had to navigate this misconception frequently.

Tony emphasized that messages from society and family very clearly designated non- monogamy as bad and reinforced that all non-monogamy is cheating. Tony continued:

“Growing up and watching TV shows and movies and whatever else and you know, any implication or depiction of non-monogamy, whether or not it was consensual or not, was cheating. And, the vitriol of ‘cheating is bad, don’t ever cheat.’”

These messages about cheating continued as Anya shared one encounter where an acquaintance was “looking for a free pass” to cheat. After learning that Anya was poly, this acquaintance wanted to have sex with Anya without getting consent from his partner. More than one participant mentioned being approached for sex knowing the other person was in a monogamous relationship, did not have the consent of their partner, and would be cheating.

Rachel dove deeper into this confusion surrounding cheating:

I mean when I say it’s not talked about, I wouldn’t even say that it’s not talked about in

a positive way because people aren’t talking about polyamory when they are talking

about that, they are talking about people cheating on each other, and so for me that is a

really big structural difference. The idea, polyamory for me, really is the consensual

identity and not somebody being disrespectful, you know. So, it’s not that it’s not

talked about positively it’s just that it’s not talked about at all because when people are

talking about their boyfriend cheating on them that’s not polyamory. People aren’t

going to be like ‘I was in a polyamorous relationship but didn’t know it.’

Five participants experienced the struggle of helping others understand that consent is an imperative to polyamory and that polyamory is not cheating. Participants interacted with many

58 individuals who struggled to understand cheating as separate from other forms of non- monogamy. This lack of understanding added to the stigmas placed on participants. Fueling these misconceptions are individuals who assume it is acceptable to engage sexually or romantically with polyamorous individuals and not get consent from their own partners.

Without the consent of all individuals involved, non-monogamy is cheating and unethical.

For Rachel, non-monogamy without consent appeared early in her life through her mother’s infidelity. Rachel dove into her parents’ divorce and pondered big questions about her mom’s coming out process as a lesbian: “what if she had room for more possibility, what if the dominant cultural narrative didn’t insist that she chose all the time.” Rachel’s reflection on cheating as the result of compulsory monogamy gets at the heart of what could have been if more individuals knew polyamory even existed and cheating was not conflated with non- monogamy.

Not polygamy. Most participants also addressed another large misappropriation to polyamory: that it is synonymous with polygamy, and also associated with cheating: “A lot of people also associate [polyamory] with polygamy, and polygamy is seen negatively and other things it’s like associated with cheating and cheating is usually considered negative, I don’t think

I know of any circumstances of positive cheating” (Luinne). Rachel continued unpacking this misconception as polygamy primarily fulfills patriarchal desires for ethical non-monogamy.

Both might be considered by some to be forms of ethical non-monogamy, but when the non- monogamy is only permitted by one partner-- namely the one who holds power in the relationship-- such a relationship would not fit most definitions of polyamory. This hegemonic foundation to polygamy is philosophically different from polyamory and only further stigmatizes poly people.

Not swinging. Polyamory is also conflated with swinging, and Anya addressed this distinction and differing definitions. Although swinging is an aspect of ethical non-monogamy, not all ethically non-monogamous individuals feel that swinging is polyamory:

Not that there’s anything wrong with being a swinger, they just didn’t understand the

definition, I don’t know, my definition of a swinger is someone who goes and just has

random fun sex at parties, and for us it was more like the spiritual and political

overarching worldview, cuz swinging tends to be pretty closeted also. (Anya)

The many “nots” and parsing out what non-monogamy is and is not were present for each participant as they navigated their own and others’ misconceptions about polyamory.

Sexualized

Another misrepresentation is that polyamory is heavily sexualized. The contrast between this misconception and the fact that the root of the word means “many loves”-- not, for instance,

“many sexual encounters,”-- is almost one of direct opposite. Luinne referenced hesitation to share their poly identity as individuals asked how it “works” and continued asking “inappropriate questions (sic): How do you have sex?” Matthew reiterated this as “everybody views it as a sexual thing only and that you want multiple sex partners and orgies.” Luinne related this to other LGBT identities that are also sexualized. Like many LGBT individuals, poly individuals are assumed to be sexually driven and non-heteronormative forms of self-expression lead to assumptions about sex conflated with a poly identity.

Nathan shared, “it sort of leads to this view of me being more sexually promiscuous, which isn’t necessarily the case and for me, that’s pretty much patently false.” Matthew echoed this sentiment as individuals “heard the term poly and they think it’s all about the sex, and I am like ‘no, it’s not.’” He shared that at least two of his former relationships were not sexual at all.

Reflecting even further back on his teenage years, Matthew shared that he has experienced

60 deeply intimate friendships: “When I think about teenage relationships, it’s really about the heart and less about the libido and as I reflect back I had literal relationships with three and four females at the same time.” As mentioned previously, Mathew described that when sharing with select individuals about a poly identity, these individuals jump to assumptions or questions about cheating. These questions and assumptions about cheating specifically frame cheating through sex and sexual intimacy-- rarely emotional intimacy.

In their first interview, Nathan also shared that they were sexually assaulted by two individuals in their graduate cohort and they wondered if the sexualization of their polyamorous identity might have been a factor. Nathan pondered if the two individuals who assaulted them assumed promiscuity due to their polyamorous identity. Nathan also questioned if the sexualizing of polyamory also meant the assailant assumed the sex was already consensual. This is a deeply troubling aspect of any identity being overly sexualized and others making assumptions that can cause physical and psychological harm or trauma. Adding societal stigmas that imply poly people are more open to sex or “asking for sex” supports and adds to the already problematic rhetoric around sexual assault and rape culture. This rhetoric includes victim blaming of individuals who were “asking for it” and attempts to link a person’s existence as a sexual being as some enticement for their own sexual assault.

Matthew also reiterated how the sexualization of polyamory limits understanding of it as a legitimate identity. Sexualizing polyamory might dehumanize it for some who view sex negatively. Individuals may then invalidate polyamory as a form of human connection detracting from polyamory existing as a possibility for anyone:

I think emotionally, and in terms of loving people, more people are not monogamous and

don’t know it. Again they’ll associate the poly piece with sex. And not love and

emotions, relationships, support, and commitments. So I think it’s kind of a religious

definition that exists of monogamy and I think that hinders what people understand as

monogamy versus poly. (Anya)

Here Anya grappled with how sexualizing an identity like polyamory can fulfill stigmas and make individuals adverse to considering it a valid identity for themselves or others. Anya was also passionate about reminding people that for her, polyamory is about love and tied to her purpose:

What is important is the love aspect of it. And not the romantic love, but the looove,

love. The thing that is life itself and that is the whole purpose for being alive. So that’s

what I like about what I’m doing.

One testament to this focus on love could even be Anya’s word choice. In one of Anya’s transcripts, the word sex was used 38 times whereas the word love was used 96 times. Anya shared numerous stories about how her personal life was sexualized and mocked by some of her colleagues, who would tell others “you probably shouldn’t go to any parties that Dr. Anya invites you to because they are orgies” (Ariana). Anya, who believes human connection does not need to be limited to sex, was misunderstood by colleagues. Many of these colleagues had a one-track view of polyamory and assumptions about sex as the main goal of polyamory were placed upon

Anya in her academic and work environments on campus.

This sexualization also manifested in participants being accused of trying to turn individuals polyamorous. Similar to rhetoric about other queer identities, individuals assumed every queer person has an agenda and is recruiting more queers. Tony demonstrated this concern as well:

So, it’s, more of a just, of waiting the weird vitriol of everyone’s assuming that I am

being creepy about it. It’s like ‘no, I promise I’m not being creepy about it . . . why is

that your initial assumption that I must be being creepy about it.’

Tony’s use of creepy exemplified the spectrum of words used against polyamorous people implying that they are sexually deviant and abnormal.

Additional Misconceptions

Participants also shared a variety of other misconceptions that impact how people view polyamory and what participants had to overcome to accept a polyamorous identity. Another misconception mentioned by participants was jealousy. Anya described that jealousy would be one of the first questions people would ask her after learning that she identified as polyamorous.

Anya firmly believed jealousy to be a learned, conditioned response to relationships fed by society’s patriarchal and hegemonic standards. Nathan shared an example of this learned behavior-- now described as its own emotion. They shared a theory that jealousy can be considered the combination of fear and anger, or sadness and fear, all found as core emotions

(Plutchik, 1980). Luinne also discussed that jealousy and compulsory monogamy can involve a level of compulsory jealousy. They shared their view that jealousy is normalized, if not encouraged in mainstream culture. This normalization of jealousy created an aversion to polyamory. This aversion to jealousy supports a framework that jealousy cannot be unlearned, be criticized, or be absent in any relationship.

Other misconceptions that influence societal perspectives on polyamory included misunderstanding of the relationship of polyamory to various other sexual, gender, and relational identity categories. Many individuals still conflate gender, gender identity, gender expression, sex, sexual orientation, romantic orientation, and relationship structures. This lack of place for an identity could add to it being considered less valid.

Coming Out

Participants were in varying stages of the coming out process. Anya was openly communicative and transparent about her polyamorous identity. She was out in many

63 environments and spoke publicly about polyamory. Tony was out in work and academic environments. Nathan, Mathew, Rachel, and Ariana were out in selective circumstances with few friends and/or family members and vary from somewhat to deeply concerned with how being out could impact employment and career trajectory. And there was Luinne, who varied between identifying as polyamorous and poly curious, still being in the early stages of identity exploration therefore not entirely sure what to be out about. For participants in this study, the path of exploration of coming out and identifying as polyamorous was vast, deep, and highly individualized to the person. With that, in the coming out theme, there were numerous subthemes that impacted the coming out process: confusion/dissonance, internalized negative messages, societal messages, safety/fear, and the emotional labor of coming out.

Confusion/Dissonance

All participants referred to confusion, dissonance, or both in accepting their poly identity as an entry way to sharing it with others. Nathan addressed social conditioning around heteronormative, compulsory monogamous relationships where anyone outside of the norm must be “confused.” When referring to coming out Luinne stated: “I felt suffocated beforehand because I didn’t know how much of my feelings were OK to talk about.” Nathan shared the common misnomer for individuals in any relationship: “if I’m in a relationship I’ll be happy, then pretty quickly speaking, relatively quickly I wasn’t happy and didn’t understand why, and I think that was the source of confusion.” Nathan continued in greater depth:

I think I was definitely more aware of the idea that I was, that monogamy did not fit for

me as a person before I would have identified as poly or polyamorous or any, or had

language or those sort of concepts. I think it’s the experience of, sort of, for lack of a

better term, dysphoria or confusion around, generally speaking, my sexuality. Preceded

me understanding that there was other people that felt similarly.

There was a lot for each participant to learn and “unlearn” from heteronormative socialization to even begin grappling with a poly identity.

Matthew shared that internal acceptance took time, first surrounding his gay identity and then his poly identity. He was confused when couples would approach him to engage in poly relationships and wondering why his monogamous relationships never worked out. Matthew shared, “I had thought something was wrong, again! . . . Why do I think this way, what’s wrong with me, everybody else can commit to one person and be happy.” In this confusion, Matthew decided not to date for 10 years.

Similar to Luinne, Ariana also shared feeling of suffocation to not limit herself and honor her connection with more than one person at a time. She continued, “my internal cognitive dissonance, I am still working through what feels like a very big change in how I construct relationships with other people.” Luinne also expressed confusion regarding experiences, and if one can identify as poly without being in a polyamorous relationship. In a comparable way,

Anya questioned if something is wrong with her if she is not dating multiple people and if she is poly enough. The confusion and dissonance around accepting a poly identity can exist in the contemplative, forming, or even after the acceptance and coming out phases.

Tony shared his multilayered process of working through confusion and dissonance.

First in his transgender identity and then his polyamorous identity, having friends who created a supportive environment to push through the “socialization of sociocultural monogamy” was significant to Tony’s process. He referenced a frustration and questioned “how many layers of compounding bullshit do I have to go through” before pushing through societal expectations and accepting his own identities. These compounding, layered, intersectional experiences were frustrating, invigorating, inspiring, disappointing, and meaningful for all participants as they navigated coming out and embracing their identities.

Internalized Negative Messages

Self-judgement, doubt, guilt, and sometimes even shame, were salient experiences for all participants. When grappling with feelings for a friend, Anya described feelings of guilt, shame, wrongdoing, and possibly “fucking up” her marriage. Her self-judgement stemmed from highly positive perceptions of her marriage:

Basically because my relationship with my husband was ostensibly the kind that is the

fuckin’ Hollywood fairytale where people looked up to us, people came to us for advice

about their relationship problems and so admitting, it’s not, it wasn’t, it’s not like,

admitting that we weren’t fully satisfied with each other, like we wanted more, it seemed

like an admission that our relationship wasn’t as great as it was, but it was great.

Anya also dove into the distinction between judgement of others and of self,

Well, isn’t all self-judging fear of, wait now, isn’t all fear of others judgement just self-

judgement. I think it might be. Like at the root of it, so yeah, I just ultimately didn’t

fully feel comfortable being poly yet, so I projected that on to them and worried that they

would feel the same way.

For her it was self-judgement projected as the judgement of others. Anya shared that it took her a few years to work out the “shame and self-doubt.”

Matthew described self-judgement about why one person never met his needs intellectually and emotionally or didn’t satisfy his heart:

I couldn’t commit to one person, I don’t know, forever I had thought something was

wrong, again! ‘Why do I think this way, what’s wrong with me, everybody else can

commit to one person and be happy.’ But I wanted to love more than just that person,

and not just in a good friend kind of way. I wanted to share parts of my life and develop

together.

Rachel spoke extensively about guilt and needing to push through the hegemonic expectations and see herself as an agent of her own relationships:

As far as ethical choices, I am always asking myself whether or not what I am doing will

make me feel guilty. Is it about trying to combine my own pleasure and joy and sense of

purpose and potency, and need to experience myself as a human being and as a sexual

being, with being kind and compassionate and making choices that are ethical based on

my internal moral compass.

Ariana spoke at length about self judgement and shame influenced by many factors including slut shaming by family and co-workers. Ariana was vulnerable when speaking about her relationships with her therapist and how he helped her:

He knows how to ask questions to get me to realize that I am not a bad person, that I feel

things that are awesome, and that sometimes I might try and cope in unhealthy ways, and

he shows me, through his way of talking with me, makes me arrive at healthier ways to

do this.

Tony worked through many stages of guilt regarding his multiple queer identities, from identifying as trans, to realizing an attraction for men, to having feelings for more than one person. He referenced the importance of reassuring himself that however he felt “that it would be okay! And that really, really helped with dealing with any sort of shame or guilt about it.”

Societal Messages

When asked about identity terminology, Luinne shared that they would not use polyamorous terms like “ethical slut” due to the negative connotations of the word slut. Nathan

67 discussed that women are stereotyped for sexual promiscuity as are men of color. Rachel expanded further on these stigmas:

And also, male sexuality is one that is sort of prized and rewarded for being, what’s the

best word, I don’t want to engage in slut-shaming around it so I don’t want to use those

types of words, but, and because I also don’t think of my husband this way, he’s a very

gentle, sweet, caring type of person, but he definitely benefits from, in this instance, not

having to answer for sexual appetite.

This double standard regarding gender was salient for Ariana as well after her mother found out about her poly identity and stated:

‘Well if you really want to know what I think, I think you’re a whore!’ in the middle of

that bar in public and just the stigma of being a woman and loving many people, people

just think of it as me wanting to just have sex with a bunch of people, or me just wanting

a bunch of pussy and dick, like that’s all people think, because they don’t bother to try to

figure out my motivations or how I really feel about it. So being a woman is a very big

piece. For [Steve], when he told his friends, they were like, ‘Oh yeah man! You getting

all that pussy! Yaaay!’ The stigma for him is so different and even though that’s just as

wrong of a view, it’s more accepted for him than it is for me.

For Tony, this double standard works to his advantage as his friends validate his identity as a transgender man with problematic masculine stereotypes:

I came out as trans pretty early and had really supportive friends, and all the guys, I

didn’t get a bunch of slack for dating a bunch of people because all the guys were like

‘okay you’re just a dude, you’re gonna date people,’ and I worried that if I hadn’t, if I had

been one of the girls going through people that I would have been a slut. Which is a

bullshit double standard, and is unfortunately the culture, especially with serial

monogamy, like ‘oh well if she’s trying to figure out for personality, or what she likes

romantically, or what she likes sexually then she’s a slut’ and I’m like ‘that’s bullshit,

she’s a person and she’s allowed to figure out what she likes, and he’s allowed to figure

out what he likes, they are allowed to figure out what they like, people need to know

what they like.’ I am a full proponent of that, and especially because, I don’t think that

people are hardwired for polyamory any more than they are hardwired for monogamy, I

think people are just hardwired however they are personally hardwired. Like yes there’s

sociocultural stigmas toward monogamy.

Tony was aware of these stigmas and double standards attributed to him and against women. He also takes things a step further by sharing his personal views on how others need to unlearn none of this is “hardwired” but inherent and/or self-determined when stigmas and double standards can be overcome or ignored.

Safety Fear

All participants shared fears and concerns about safety. These concerns for safety were shared in a general context as well as specific to the process of coming out. Luinne processed why someone with a poly identity might not come out: “Not knowing when a space is safe for them. I would say that is one huge obstacle. You can still be in as a space that is completely safe and still have the concern of not being accepted.” Luinne continued by discussing a “sort of shunning” that could happen when coming out and risking rejection. They grappled with “being able to gauge any potential repercussions of such, or being prepared to explain how your poly identity works and people asking inappropriate questions” as other barriers and why many poly people do not feel safe coming out and what they fear, even within the queer community.

Anya, and Ariana endured repercussions at their workplaces when coming out. Anya described why she did not come out at first as the academic environment she was in had a “cut

69 throat” culture and she was terrified of coming out, focusing solely on school “all out of fear”

(Anya). When she did come out in her next academic environment she endured a lot of gossip.

She shared that even individuals with access to graduate education, many pursuing terminal degrees who claimed to be “progressive,” were judgmental and spoke poorly of Anya behind her back. Anya did not anticipate this kind if backlash in an academic environment but went on to say:

Academia is to me no different than the corporate world. So, in the corporate world, it’s

all about appearances, competition, who knows, like trying to sort of, it’s a giant rat race,

it’s incredibly hierarchical, and restrictive. So, you’re always going to be taking a risk if

you declare yourself as something that is not the norm. So that goes for polyamory and a

bunch of other things too. So yeah, super risky.

Anya spoke about the pressure of teaching about relationships in a class she was teaching and how she was “freaking out” about coming out to her students. This allowed her to get over some fears as she knew the dynamics in the classroom could be permanently altered, it felt “high stakes.”

Nathan continued to grapple with reasons why they were sexually assaulted and if coming out openly in their graduate program might have been a factor. Nathan reflected on this prospect of causation or coincidence:

It may have been related to that poly identity held and sort of that assumption of

promiscuity, but that’s also an assumption on my part, so I would definitely consider that

a conflict around my identity that I’ve faced in the community, but I don’t have any sort

of concrete or lasting proof or evidence that it was a result of that.

This uncertainty is a huge barrier to coming out again, and coming out could put one at further risk of unwanted sexual advances due to many of the misconceptions and stigmas surrounding polyamory referenced in the first theme.

Matthew described negative experiences of things “being used against me” when sharing personal information and coming out at work. His supervisor created an environment where the culture was to not speak about anything personal. Ariana also shared a negative response to coming out, similar to a middle school cafeteria, where in the lunchroom others would avoid sitting with her and whisper about her while she was at the next table alone. Rachel grappled the assumed safety in not coming out and shared: “maybe I am justifying being scared, it’s kind of a scary concept to think about, because in general as I have come out to people around me there’s still sort of hemmed in by a sense of etiquette” (Rachel). With this etiquette in mind, Rachel is grappling with how coming out can feel less about oneself and more about who one is coming out to in a particular context. Because of the inherent risk of every coming out experience being different due to who is receiving one’s story, Rachel generally only comes out to individuals who have a “queer sensibility” as it suggests a “sense of safety” (Rachel). Luinne also related to this and discussing polyamory only with individuals who already understand being marginalized.

Rachel continued, “I know that somebody can kind of think through and reposition themselves in relationship to a dominant cultural narrative in relationships, and that’s really where it’s at, for me. That’s how I broker my sense of safety.” This safety had both psychological and physical elements. Rachel described this unsafe feeling as encompassing a forced silence and how she recognized that striking feeling of feeling unsafe:

Through the physical sensations of silence. I think, is a really kind of salient for me to

understand it, which is to say that when people talk about monogamy, when people

engage in slut-shaming, when people talk about women in particular who are being

duped, or cheated on, or who are fools, and men who, and I am using heteronormative

language deliberately here, you know men who are players and I feel physically silenced.

Like I feel my throat kind of constrict and I feel a heavy weight on my chest and I feel

kind of mute, like it’s almost, it feels like visceral, and that’s kind of how I know, that’s

how I internally navigate, in some sense, where I, where and when I don’t feel safe.

This safety also expanded into the workplace surrounding job security, and how coming out could be perceived as harassment “due to the very litigious nature of my work” (Rachel).

Fearing perception like this was held by numerous participants in their work contexts, particularly Rachel, Matthew, and Ariana. Most participants were concerned about the power dynamics of teaching or working in student affairs and having their students find out. This only added to the concern of perceived harassment for most participants and hesitancy to come out if students could learn about their identity.

Anya and Ariana were both in monogamous, heterosexual relationships when they realized they were bisexual and polyamorous. Both were terrified to tell their partners and ruin their current relationships, and Ariana shared:

I felt suffocated beforehand because I didn’t know how much of my feelings were OK to

talk about, about other people with him, even though it was a big part of what was going

on inside of me, like, so suffocating just meant that I felt scared and like, backed into a

corner by these values that I didn’t support, and it was all about realizing that, oh, I don’t

have to live by those values if I don’t want to.

Tony navigated the question, “Is it safe…am I going to be in an endangered situation?,” when pondering coming out in a new environment. He summarized this fear in a term that will be re- addressed, “I think that was probably the most terrifying, parsing through the compounding

72 layers of bullshit.” In the next section we will dive deeper into the complexities of coming out and navigating these “layers of compounding bullshit” each participant experienced.

Emotional Labor of Coming Out

For all participants, navigating the process of coming out involved many conflicting feelings, decisions, and consequences. Luinne described coming out in public forums, after

LGBTQ panels or a poly presentation. Luinne was out to most friends about most identities, but not to family. They also shared, “I tend to leave out poly first because I know for a fact that my parents probably wouldn’t understand.” For Luinne this was not simply an assumption since some of their relatives still believe being gay is a choice. With Luinne’s parents, coming out was layered with good intentions but a lack of understanding impact:

I think there is still that weird barrier where I’ve come out to them but I’ve not come out

to them, they kind of outed me to themselves. So like, it’s not even so much… oh when

my parents said ‘I know you’re gay’ but it’s like wait a minute I didn’t tell you this, it’s

like ‘we knew’ and I’m like ummmm okay, so I don’t feel as completely comfortable

talking about relationships.

Luinne also noted that coming out to individuals who are Christian or religious is exceedingly more difficult. The following quote from Luinne was echoed by every other participant: “Places that are harder to come out to, definitely parents, as formerly mentioned. And any sort of

Christian background and Christian identified organization or something like that.”

Luinne’s process of coming out was also steeped in referring to themselves as in the

“early beginners stage” of coming out and not being sure what language to use during the process. To refer to themselves, Luinne used polyamorous throughout most of their interviews but occasionally switched to polycurious, explaining why:

The reason why I leave it open to polycurious is because, with, I’ve never been able to

experience, have that experience of multiple relationships except once, or be in that sort

of circle, I have in theory, I’ve been connected to someone who is polyamorous which

got me interested in learning. But I really, in order for me to solidify that identity I want

to be able to experience it just like how I’m leaving myself to demi-sexual instead of

outright asexual because I want to know for certain that I, you know, if I don’t, for me if I

don’t want to ever have sex ever again you know I want to be sure that I completely

identify as asexual so demisexual is just a good place to say, you know, I’m sort of there

but I’m not there completely.

For Luinne knowing their sexual orientation as a poly person seemed much more discernible than knowing their romantic orientation or relationship orientation.

Anya had very specific ideas about coming out founded in the belief that “you have to own what you are, if you’re not owning it, you’re not fully that yet.” To Anya, “outness” seemed much more matter of fact compared to other participants: “I guess I just put family, friends, the public at large, into one giant category of just people that need to know.” Anya described some difficulty navigating the coming out timeline with regards to a new employer, a person that Anya did not feel a strong connection with, and the risks that coming out might have posed to her job security. Similar to polyamory being sexualized, Anya hesitated to come out in some environments due to perceived assumptions she might have “an agenda” and been seen as

“persuasive, authoritarian, invasive,” and pushing others to be poly “I want to take into consideration how they will feel about what I am saying, and not say too much… I just want to be myself, but also not lie.”

Anya also shared how coming out as bisexual and polyamorous essentially ended her relationship with her parents, primarily because of their conservative Christian views. Anya

74 shared how others reactions to her coming out “actually strengthened my resolve to be out and to be more of an activist and a teacher.” This allowed Anya to find purpose in her identity and life

“to help others understand that they don’t have to just close their eyes to the different ways of being in terms of relationships. It was weird, it strengthened my determination to keep going with what I was doing.” Anya described her own well-intentioned stubbornness and that when people resist something she is doing or tell her not to do something her response is: “I’m like

‘Really? Watch me do this.’” For Anya, coming out is also deeply tied to her sense of purpose as a person:

I have many missions, but this is one major one, to help people understand options and

then I think also interwoven with the polyamory and sexuality thing is the love aspect.

Helping people understand that we’re making these very actually silly distinctions about

love. Okay, this is romantic love, this is family love, this is love of pets, this is love of

couches, and material objects, and it’s like, no, it’s all the same thing, and to try to make

these fine distinctions is definitely a human urge, we have this urge to categorize things,

that’s fine, but in our personal lives, to make these distinctions it’s so limiting.

Anya continued by expressing a deep desire to connect individuals to a perceived spiritual side of polyamory, one that she feels recognizes, on a spiritual level, the abundance in love and human connection. To Anya, coming out is an essential part of this pathway to abundance and many loves.

For Nathan, coming out had a few layers. They described coming out in undergrad or at home as being different from work and school, in turn, as being different from graduate school.

Nathan attended college two miles from home, and coming out in either environment was hindered due to the homogenous, conservative, religious nature of both spaces. Nathan’s

75 socialization had led them to believe that many of their family members would think Nathan would go to hell and that God would judge them.

Nathan grappled with varying perspectives they assumed their family and friends might share:

I think a lot of people in my family or close ones, other than very close friends, would

sort of continue to bring up those barriers we talked about before in holding a poly

identity whether it’s ‘oh, so you just want a free pass to cheat on people,’ or ‘so you’re

just confused.’

No examples in Nathan’s hometown or family history existed to support the hope that anyone would affirm their identity if they did decide to come out in that environment.

Given the progressive nature of their institution, Nathan is strategically out at work.

They were out to colleagues and supervisors but not anyone they supervise, and by extension, no students on campus that Nathan knew of. Nathan specifically mentioned not minding if anyone had shared their identity with students. They made an intentional choice to not share directly with students they supervised due to the power dynamics inherent in the student/employee or student staff/supervisor positions. Nathan was almost out to everyone in their graduate program and with close friends, since they view that both of these groups have more knowledge of queer identities and know that some fellow students hold other similar identities to Nathan’s own.

Matthew described himself as being very private and not feeling like outness is necessary or his preference in most environments. In fact, internal acceptance was much more significant for Matthew. One barrier to this acceptance was related to being a “recovering Catholic” and impacted coming out as gay first, but also still lingered in accepting a poly identity. Matthew shared:

I’ve never really formally come out to anybody about it. Like I’ll share with people

when I feel there’s an understanding or a comfort or acceptance that they aren’t going to

judge me, or they understand what the concept is, or they’re open enough to have the

conversation if I do share with them.

For Matthew, meeting people who are queer oriented or bring non-monogamy up in conversation first usually entices his willingness to share; Matthew did not specify a time he came out first of his own accord. Coming out as gay strained Matthew’s relationship with his parents in the 90s.

After overcoming those barriers, Matthew had no desire to strain his relationship with his father further, but his mother knows he has more than one significant love connection in his life.

In describing the process of deciding whether or not to come out, and possibly a deterrent to coming out, Matthew described the questions that arise:

How do I tell people? Why do I tell? How public can I be about -- what would it do to

my career? If I take two (partners) will people automatically assume—so I still haven’t

come to terms with how to be open about it with others.

These were echoed by most other participants, who also experienced barriers and obstacles to coming out that are negotiated and renegotiated in each circumstance.

For Rachel, much of their coming out was navigated in relation to fear and safety.

Rachel is out only to a few friends and not out at all at work, with family, or publicly. Rachel spoke powerfully about the silencing aspects of being out in an identity where few people are out. This was relevant to both Rachel’s bisexual and polyamorous identities:

I have to constantly remind myself, because the erasure portion makes me so angry. And

I am always in that space of ‘okay nobody sees you . . . the narrative that they are writing

in their heads about you based on what is publicly acknowledged is literally erasing this

history that you have and it is wiping it out of the possibility for space in their minds.’

And you have to be sort of redrawing and reshaping the story that other people tell

themselves about you, and that’s what coming out ends up being for me. And so, not

really feeling like I can or being able to wear some of those identities in a badge-like

way, you know kind of being able to represent myself in that way is, again, a privileged

act, but is also silencing. So, I am always negotiating that and when I am speaking from

privilege and when I am feeling silenced.

Rachel struggled with the constant battle of wearing the emblems of her identities, almost as scarlet letters, or remaining stealth but silenced. For many queer people, stealthness often permits the retention of certain social privileges while masking experiences of marginalization -- experiences that challenge the desire to come out fully to society. Rachel reflected deeply on these same power dynamics and struggled with the perceived privilege and internal oppression.

Rachel was also concerned with damage to reputation and, similar to Nathan, being assumed to be unethical as a supervisor of undergraduates. This was frustrating and “contrary to my nature” but still a huge barrier to outness for her. Rachel regularly pondered if she should come out and how she should “sometimes I want to be ‘yes, that’s me’ it kind of be like an open secret or not, or do I have to come out? Do I need to go around to everyone in my office and be like ‘I’ve decided to let you know I’m polyamorous?’” Regarding her mixed and ebbing feelings about coming out, Rachel also shared:

It seems like it would be so much easier to just tell the truth, but I don’t know, I don’t

know what it’s going to do to my career, part of me doesn’t care, part of me is just like

‘who wants to work for those people, fuck ‘em?’ So I just have a lot of anxiety about

that. That’s what I am struggling with right now.

Rachel’s decision about whether to come out was also impacted by her mother’s experience coming out as a lesbian when Rachel was a tween. Her mother’s experience confronting

78 conservative values, the repercussions (both personal and social) of falling in love with a woman while still in a heterosexual marriage, and the subsequent professional ramifications all influence

Rachel’s lasting hesitation to come out.

Similar to Rachel, Ariana also grappled with safety and fear surrounding coming out.

She described the traumatizing experience of being outed to her family by her own parents.

They found her partner’s anonymous blog and confronted her in a hostile and shaming way. Her mother called her a slut, saying that she was ashamed of her daughter. She also feared coming out in her current job after social ramifications at her last job.

Among all participants, Tony might have shared the most relaxed approach to outness, possibly due to not feeling like he had endured any negative ramifications being out. Most of his close friends and immediate family know of his identity, and he is out in his academic and work environment on campus. When asked about coming out on campus, Tony shared:

I don’t feel like there were any obstacles, except for my own shyness about, because I

mean, talking about personal things can be very nerve-wracking, with anyone, because

you never know how anyone is going to respond to anything, especially when you are

going through a kind of culture shock.

He also echoed Nathan, Rachel, and Ariana’s concern about being out to students. He joked about students hopefully not suing if it made them uncomfortable or felt inherent to the power dynamic of professor and student.

One unexpected aspect of coming out that Anya and Nathan mentioned was compassion for others in the process. Nathan acknowledged that their patience is higher for strangers and acquaintances with whom a given interaction might be just a few minutes or stem from an exploratory conversation. They shared that this tolerance of intolerance would likely be more difficult over time and with more intimate relationships like close friends and family. With

79 family, it could involve decades of ramifications if family is not supportive and with acquaintances or strangers, the time commitment to the “being out” is likely shorter. Nathan further shared: “I know that I can respond very well, kind, openly, compassionately, and in a way that doesn’t try to persuade people that I’m right, but that the identity is right for me.” Anya also echoed the importance of compassion for others and described how she navigates difficulty in understanding:

Just empathy. I think see from their point of view, it must be really weird to have

someone tell them something like that when in the first place most people aren’t

comfortable acknowledging people have sex, especially older people. So it’s like, there’s

that, so to acknowledge that I have sex with multiple people, that is bonkers to them, and

the fact that I’m even talking about it, they must maybe think that I’m just being sort of in

your face activist person. I try to have empathy, I try to not take it personally, I really,

over the years it affects me less and less when people have bad reactions I more laugh

about it now.

Anya considered how her coming out might impact other individuals and how her truth could be far from their reality. This was a unique perspective not directly shared by other participants.

Anya, Nathan, and Tony also expressed empathy and compassion for self when navigating coming out. Anya described feeling gratitude to herself and for the fact that she did not allow avoidance tactics to hold her back. She also expedited her coming out process by focusing her dissertation on polyamory, so Anya’s gratitude was likely a necessary component of coming out and it not inhibiting her academic work. Tony’s mantra was “it’s okay,” and he strove to get to a place void of self-shame or blame for his identity, almost as an empowered form of self-forgiveness. Other participants did not explicitly express this same comfort with

80 self and outness, as will be further explored when discussing being self-authored in a poly identity.

Support

Throughout the data, participants shared various forms of support (or lack of support).

This depth and breadth of support can be broken into three subthemes: people, places, and representation.

People

Finding individuals to engage with and learn from was difficult for most participants but significant to their journey. Luinne learned about polyamory through a friend. They had a romantic relationship with this friend and still remain friends despite not being romantically involved anymore. This friend identified as polyamorous and supported Luinne’s self- exploration as poly-curious and introduced Luinne to polyamorous literature.

Anya also shared that people were very significant in her journey:

having a support system, so like, having people in my life who modeled and

demonstrated the opposite of those characteristics . . . [my] friends, . . . my [partners],

people who, spiritual mentors, realizing I can actually have confidence in myself, is nice.

For Anya, many individuals helped her feel supported in a polyamorous identity, including her dissertation advisor, who supported her personal identity and research interests in polyamory.

Similar to Luinne, Rachel was introduced to polyamory by a partner. While dating,

Rachel and partner discussed their personal values and discussed polyamory as a potential structure for their future. This partner also shared literature about polyamory and public figures to follow, like Dan Savage, known for his queer-friendly podcast.

Tony described a positive undergraduate queer and allied community on his former campus. This community was important to his coming out as polyamorous “a surprising number

81 of my friends are straight. They are really good allies, they are very queer supportive.” High school friends and community were also significant to Tony’s eventual openness to polyamorous relationships:

I think part of it came out of having a very -- managing to somehow after shitty, shitty

middle school, create a really close knit, very physically, touchy feely physically, friend

group. And, and you know being okay, having people that were okay with touch around

me. And I think that might have helped, you know having people that weren’t jealous if I

touched other people, was especially helpful after I got out of my abusive relationship

from middle school and early high school.

Having a sense of touch being okay was important to Tony. To him, this touch was not usually the norm outside of monogamous relationships. This physical and emotional connection provided a network of support for Tony as he navigated polyamory during his undergraduate education. Queer examples of romance/marriage/relationships/identity in his own family were also momentous for Tony as he shared:

It’s just watching how much my aunt loved her wife and how much it didn’t matter that

her family wanted to just ignore them and kind of turn a back, and she was all like I’m

going to be there and be with you, and they’ve been together for longer than I’ve been

alive now, and they have a beautiful daughter, and a lovely house, and they’ve been

through so much together, and I, even though it has nothing to do with my poly identity,

everything that they do in love with each other is everything that I want to do in love with

the people that I love.

This other queer example in his life influenced how Tony conceptualized love and wanted to emulate that love with his partners.

Ariana shared that a few close friends have been important confidants as she learned about and shared her poly identity. Though she described losing many friendships, those that were supportive have since become deeper. Ariana also noted the significance of her therapist:

because he knows how to ask questions to get me to realize that I am not a bad person,

that I feel things that are awesome, and that sometimes I might try and cope in unhealthy

ways, and he shows me, through is way of talking with me, makes me arrive at healthier

ways to do this. So that’s good, it’s a very positive influence.

This chosen presence in Ariana’s life not only provides positive reinforcement and processing but also fills a large gap in her support system:

I actually don’t feel like I have anything figured out. I feel kind of lost, honestly because

I’m lacking a support system, besides [Sam]. Of course we support each other but it’s so

hard to find other people who support you and having no one to talk to you about it

sucks. I have friends, like really close friends, who I talk to about it but they’re

monogamous and so even if they say they understand, how can they really?

Ariana also shared about loss of coworkers and harsh judgement from her family. For many participants, there was a lack of supportive people in their lives and coming out came at a cost or was delayed due to a severe fear of loss. Tony spoke to this lack of supportive individuals within queer community as well. Some of his own queer friends shunned polyamorous individuals for further stigmatizing all queer people as sexually promiscuous. Tony had also been unable to find any queer community in his current graduate program and most of his support people are out of state.

Places

Participants had many different experiences with feeling supported in campus and local environments. Luinne, the only undergraduate participant, felt supported in queer and feminist

83 organizations and a few classrooms. Anya was frustrated by few spaces available on campus and that she never encountered anything about polyamory on campus until she created space. She also worked with partners to create an intentional community in her home to fill that campus and community void. Nathan felt their work environment off campus had more conversation about

LGBTQ identities compared to their graduate institution. They found a safe space within their academic program but it was difficult when a few individuals violated their safety.

Matthew, who described themselves as being more private, defined the campus environment as more transactional, both regarding academics and work. Due to a negative work environment in particular, Matthew described how:

It’s pushed it and kept it close to me. It’s kind of suffocated it to a degree. But in that

way it’s pushed me to look elsewhere and find places where I can be or share it, or

engage. It’s just pushed me away from being out.

Matthew referred to their academic program as being more supportive of individuals in general, particularly in comparison to work. He also acknowledged that there is a queer graduate student group but that he did not necessarily feel he could be out in either space.

Rachel did not feel supported by her campus work or academic environments. She described experiencing microaggressions after coming out as bisexual:

I think that the department in general is one that really of has just sort of a really

particularly conventional values, they are not really looking for people who are

extraordinarily radical (laughter), you know they want people who can be responsible and

who can represent the department well and who are not gonna rock the boat and cause a

scandal, you know, they don’t want that kind of attention.

She continued this description of her work environment as a place where staff complete what is necessary to fulfill an appearance for supporting diverse gender, romantic, and sexual identities

84 but not necessarily being authentic in doing so. Staff are encouraged to attend SafeZone trainings and know of campus resources for students but more as a requirement than intrinsic motivation. This was echoed by Rachel regarding the larger institutional environment, which claimed to support marginalized student identities but did little to demonstrate this support. She connected this to the lack of infrastructure at the university:

In general I think that revising the infrastructure of the university so they are not only

focused on the experience of traditionally aged, White, middle class students and not

setting up resources so they are peripheral. For instance, disability resources, those are

often located on the edges of campuses and that speaks to the physical environment of the

space: ‘How important are you? Where are your resources located? How easy are they

to find? How visible are the people who run those spaces? What does their turnover

look like? How much do they get paid? What kind of funding do those offices get?

How integrated are they into the central administration?’ Those things are like the

fundamental questions for me about how marginalized identities are incorporated into the

university structure.

These insights highlight the discrepancy between espoused and enacted values that exist on most campuses. This was in stark contrast to Rachel’s undergraduate institution, which she described as a:

politically progressive and politically radical space and that’s really where I was able to

name and explore feminist politics which, really have obviously come up over and over

again, and is a really fundamental part of who I am. And lends itself to a queer

sensibility really easily, especially in its current third wave iteration.

Besides her partner, Rachel heavily credits this undergraduate environment for supporting her polyamorous identity, even though she was not out as polyamorous in that space.

Ariana shared similar concerns as other participants regarding the institutional environment and having her guard up when she is not with her therapist or someone she trusts:

But there’s, it’s also, pressure to act on it when I am not with him. I kind of feel like,

when we are talking one on one, I can be 100% myself, and I am right now with you.

But when we walk out of this room, I am not. Because of the institutional context.

She also shared feeling lonely due to the perceived lack of visible programs or resources on campus and unsure of how the institution could better create and advertise support. Tony echoed this as he did not feel his campus environment had not provided any demonstrable support. He shared some ideas on what could be done:

I feel like administration and the structure of the school might be better served with better

generalized queer education, better education for trans identities, like that sort of thing,

and then we can work on monogamy! Cuz, that was what, sitting in grad orientation, I

was gritting my teeth and almost breaking my pen in half about because you know when

we are going to bring things up its going to have to do with sexual and gender identities,

not necessarily with broader monogamy/non-monogamy issues and so let’s educate on

that maybe!

Many of the participants acknowledged the lack of education on queer identities in general being a barrier to change in the campus environment. This will be explored further within each framework and in the discussion section. A few participants also mentioned that representation of more polyamorous individuals was lacking and likely connected to the lack of additional supportive people and spaces.

Representation

All participants referenced that lack of representation in mainstream media. They described most media representations as limited to heteronormative love triangles, polygamy,

86 cheating, or highly sexualized poly experiences absent of marginalized romantic and sexual orientations. Luinne reflected on heteronormativity and monogamy being prevalent, particularly when learning about relationships through media as a child. Luinne did mention some poly representation in graphic novels and National Geographic. Tony referenced a few fantasy novels and also independent documentaries that included polyamorous individuals. Nathan shared:

I look at much of what comes out of our media from our culture whether it’s romantic

movies or my own sort of peer circle, my peers and friends dating practices or my own

sort of familial structure and see that polyamory isn’t something that’s traditionally

represented.

All participants mentioned using the internet as a resource to learn about polyamory. Five of the seven participants directly referenced lack of representation in academic disciplines they anticipated would address polyamory such as sociology, marriage and family studies, anthropology, women’s studies, gender studies, or queer studies. For Matthew, meeting poly people and learning about their identities was a catalyst for further research and finding more representation of polyamorous narratives. Representation, although difficult to find, was a significant source of support for participants.

Multiple Dimensions of Identity

Each participant described how their polyamorous identity was realized in relation to the understanding of one or more other identities. For all participants, experiences with previously realized identities served as building blocks to understanding polyamory; one experience with marginalization in society aided in the process of accepting another marginalized identity. For at least three participants, other identities helped problematize how they experienced their polyamory as well.

Queer +

Every participant already identified as queer prior to realizing or naming their polyamorous identity. For each participant, accepting a previously realized queer identity or multiple queer identities, was foundational to accepting a poly identity. Anya honors the process of accepting one self-label before understanding another:

It’s almost like, as I’ve moved from label to label, first it was bi, I had to understand it,

come out, be accepted to myself, then the next label was queer, because I was like ‘you

know this bisexual thing isn’t really totally accurate because I don’t really believe in

binary gender systems’ and then realizing that gender didn’t matter either to me, and that

I could love whoever.

Accepting a bisexual “label” took Anya three years, and coming out took even longer. After five years identifying as polyamorous, Anya almost felt beyond the label of polyamorous as well.

Luinne also described how their process was a progression through identities:

I didn’t identify as gay until I was a freshman in high school. From there I was kind of

contemplating whether or not I was trans because at the time, in my high school I

identified as male. So throughout high school I was going through counseling and even a

little bit of middle school I was going through counseling because I don’t fit with my

gender identity.

Luinne knew they was queer surrounding gender identity. Luinne’s gender expression and identity resulted in them experiencing many microaggressions due to being perceived as a man but also having long hair and wearing bright clothes, attributes and habits not usually associated with individuals who identify as men. Coming to understand their other identities was foundational to Luinne recognizing poly as an identity as well. Through the process of exploring

88 many queer identities, Luinne was able to articulate the identities of polyamorous, gender queer, polyromantic, polysexual, and demisexual.

Nathan also shared that multiple queer identities related to their poly identity.

Nonbinary, hetero-flexible, and panromantic identities were relevant to Nathan’s polyamorous identity. Nathan shared:

I guess I see panromantic as sort of a romantic identity that I hold in the sense that I’m

not only comfortable but drawn to having romantic relations with people across a

spectrum of gender identity ranging from those who are binary identified, nonbinary,

trans, or anything outside of that, beyond that, between that. Gender in particular isn’t

something that I see as coding my romantic experience, desire, wants.

Although gender was not particularly relevant to Nathan regarding their romantic attraction, it was important regarding stealthness and their own gender identity in relation to polyamory:

If I’m, for example, interacting with somebody who identifies as trans, I’m thinking to

myself, are they going to understand that I haven’t always identified as cis and that

process is important, that gendered part of my life, gendered component to my life is also

really important in a way you may or may not assume about me.

Nathan described their hetero-flexible sexual orientation as a recent shift and due to their experiences with sexual assault by cisgender, likely gay-identifying, men. Previously, Nathan had identified as pansexual, more in line with their romantic orientation, but currently:

Those acts have sort of been cause for me to question my sexual orientation in particular,

not so much my gender or romantic identity or identity as polyamorous rather than

monogamous, but certainly my sexual orientation.

Nathan reflected on these recent assaults and how identity and associated language might shift over time due to external circumstances out of one’s control.

Tony also navigated multiple queer identities before polyamory and was sexually assaulted by a cisgender man. For Tony, the experience with sexual assault resulted in little attraction to individuals who identified as or were perceived to be men. He was “sexually repulsed” by men for a time and even had friends question why he wanted to be a man if he experienced that repulsion. Tony explained that the two were mutually exclusive; his assault and his gender identity did not have to influence his sexual or romantic attraction. This was significant in Tony’s journey as he came out as gay, then as transgender, and then as polyamorous. He was quite emphatic when describing “coming out for the third fricken time!”

Tony also described the erasure of his bisexual identity:

My bisexuality has an appearance of heterosexuality because I am not currently dating a

man, or a male-presenting person. That creates an element of stealth-ness, which is

frustrating, so I kind of make a point when I can to talk about how much I like dudes.

Which I am sure makes people uncomfortable and I don’t care!

This erasure was also experienced by Anya, Nathan, Rachel, and Ariana in regard to the gender of a person they were dating, meaning they were assumed to be both heterosexual and monogamous. Not all participants made the connection to poly erasure, but due to aspects of safety, not every participant wanted to be out publicly as poly (at the time of data collection).

Tony also believed that his gender identity had the most influence on his polyamorous identity. His non-monogamy can be affirmed more since he is a man and is not held to the same double standards and or subjected to the same stigma as women. For Tony, his gender identity and sexual orientation are also relevant given that others often assume he wants to have threesomes because he is both bisexual and polyamorous. His gender is also relevant when discussing touch, sex, and polyamory:

Still sometimes where I am all like, how do I do the touch thing? And I’m not sure if

that’s a masculinizing socialization thing at this point or if it’s a residual traces of abuse

or if it’s the socialization of sociocultural monogamy where it’s just all like ‘you don’t

touch people except for your partner.’

Unpacking this confluence of gendered normative behaviors and prior sexual abuse was an important foundation for Tony’s development of a polyamorous identity.

Matthew shared that he needed to accept his identity as a gay man and the idea that his sexuality could be fluid before being comfortable with his poly identity. He shared, “I wasn’t at all comfortable in my skin as a gay man to think about being in a relationship with two other individuals, let alone one.”

For Rachel, her gender identity and bisexuality were informed by “queer identified sensibility and definitely toward feminism” and relevant to her polyamory. She shared:

So, you know, classes sometimes where we are asked to talk about parts of our identity

and for me there’s… they are all connected, they all inform one another, I can’t talk about

polyamory and non-monogamy without talking about sexuality, without talking about

queerness, without talking about feminism, it is impossible, and for me, you know, the

act of being poly is in some ways inherently queer, and is in some ways inherently

feminist. And if it’s not, then it is probably not for me, you know?

This description of multiple minoritized identities of gender, sexual orientation, and polyamory will be further explored in Chapter Five when discussing identities more directly.

Disability

Four participants shared how experiences with mental health, trauma, and/or sexual assault were relevant to their poly identity. For Luinne, overcoming depression impacted being able to engage in poly relationships: “right now I’m having problems even getting a relationship

91 because of other stuff, mental psyche and what not, but it’s more of trying to overcome that hump of well, how do I break this to them.” When grappling with societal expectations and polyamory, Luinne mentioned “either brush it off, or dissociate, which my brain does a lot of in general. It’s not very good to have that kind of dissociation, but it’s the easiest way to cope.”

This survival instinct to cope with societal pressures impacted Luinne’s mental health and how they worked through dissonance and a polyamorous identity that is not accepted by mainstream society.

Ariana related her ADD and anxiety to a natural inclination to not focus solely on one person or relationship. Her anxiety deeply impacted how she processed coming out and fear of job loss and further loss of friends, family, and coworkers.

Although they did not relate their trauma directly to mental health, Nathan’s experience of sexualized violence had an impact on who they might date as a polyamorous person. Their trauma manifested in a shifting sexual orientation, still informed by fluidity and openness, but different from how they identified before their assaults. Similarly, Tony shared how his history of sexual abuse first manifested as a repulsion to being sexually attracted to men and how he would engage in polyamory. He also shared how bipolar and depression influenced how he communicated with partners if he needed space: “I mean, I feel like sometimes my mental health gets tied into it a little bit just because, my bipolar and my depression and stuff will affect how I express my affection” (Tony).

Race/Ethnicity

Nathan’s process of understanding their poly identity also intersected with ethnicity, spirituality, and socioeconomic status:

There’s a sort of a longstanding stereotype that Latino fathers aren’t present with their

children and so, and in general are just promiscuous. And so wrestling with my ethnic

identity I guess in particular and how that shapes my polyamorous identity is important

because I know that I could never talk to my grandma on my dad’s side about it because

she would want to disown me from the family, there’s sort of long standing Catholic

roots within my Latino heritage and that’s something that would, that I need to consider

when thinking about how authentic I live or how authentic I am within spaces.

Nathan unpacks the benefit they gain from being perceived as a man. This perception of their gender identity means they are not slut-shamed the way a woman might be shamed. But when the intersection of their race and ethnicity is coupled with their perceived gender, they are stereotyped as promiscuous and unethically non-monogamous. For Nathan, who identifies as bi- racial, their Latinx identity is not commonly recognized in all spaces:

I’ve come to understand, polyamory has this sort of racial or ethnic component of being a

really White-centric sort of thing, or phenomenon at the moment. That is also important,

I mean I know that perhaps maybe my White identity is being affirmed to be identifying

as polyamorous, or maybe it resonates with the White me more than the me of color. But

I keep in mind in general I guess sort of racial and ethnic intersection with polyamorous

identity.

Nathan goes deeper with this reflection of race and similar to their stealthness as a nonbinary person, they process how they engage in conversations around polyamory when they are perceived within a racial binary:

If I’m interacting with people of color about polyamorous identity am I continuing to

affirm this idea that it’s a White, phenomena or a White thing considering I’m White-

passing. But then when I interact with White people about it I know, considering,

considering my name and the cultural heritage that’s tied behind it I understand I don’t

pass, I don’t get a pass when interacting with White people.

Nathan goes on to address the stereotypes associated in each situation. First, when discussing polyamory with a White person, that person might shame people of color for polyamory. This bias goes deeper than commentary about sexual promiscuity; it is also compounded by race.

Within the framework of respectability politics, White individuals might see race as the reason for sexual promiscuity, something they would not attribute to other White individuals who also happen to be polyamorous. In a situation where Nathan is speaking with a person of color, the stereotype might involve only seeing Nathan’s Whiteness and that only White individuals are polyamorous.

Nathan also recognized their educational and class privilege and that many poly spaces tend to be White and middle or upper class:

I am very educationally privileged and I think that also has provided me with not only

opportunities to have language and meaningful discussion about polyamory and

polyamorous identity, but with, also to connect with, to have sort of the academic or

vocational, professional, or personal resources to reach out to other people who may

identify in that way, or just have the knowledge of just people to contact if I want to talk

about polyamorous identity.

Each of these intersections with Nathan’s identities are important to their understanding of being received as a poly person of color.

Spirituality/Worldview

All participants referenced religion or spirituality as relevant to their polyamorous identity. For nearly all participants, there was an intentional separation from any religion or spiritual identity over time, and for a few, separation from one spiritual identity resulted in a different spiritual identity than previously held. For Nathan, Matthew, and Tony, the roots of

Catholicism were mostly related to concerns for family and how family would respond to

94 knowing about their poly identity. Matthew described himself as a recovering Catholic and that he still has a lot of guilt: “I kind of stepped away from religion and said that I am not going to let it influence my life.” Michael has taken the time to learn about many religions and believes: “I still have a spiritual nature” but has not felt comfortable in one specific spiritual community.

Not resonating with Catholicism either, Tony found paganism and Celtic mythology were much more in line with is identities as guiding concepts of morality. The self-guiding nature of each perspective, also supported by his mother, were integral to accepting a polyamorous identity.

Nathan did not share a particular spiritual identity but did share their worldview as,

“Ethical identity or my ethics. Either of those are fine. I think some people when conceiving of their ethics, when thinking about how should I act, they use guiding sort of principles.” Nathan’s process of identifying with this worldview was also significant and related to polyamory. First

Nathan embraced a secular philosophy that they described as emerging through philosophy classes:

I was exposed not only to perhaps ideas of non-traditional romance in general or

relationship styles and setups, but just as importantly I was forced at least academically to

tackle questions head on to which I didn’t have the answers. And, it just so happens that

my lack of answers to those questions ended up, or my attempts in trying to answer those

questions led to more questions that bolstered that confusion I had already about my

romantic identity. So I was forced to tackle questions about my spiritual and religious

identity, academically.

This development of a secular philosophy allowed Nathan to continue with deeper questions of who they wanted to be and how they wanted to engage with the world. Nathan began “to reframe my epistemology and my belief system from that, from one of sustainability to one of harm-reduction more or less, and I think what I ended up doing, and I wondered in other ways

95 could I reduce harm.” For Nathan, his harm reduction involved choices around consumerism, banks, and even diet: “the fact that I chose to be vegan because it’s a philosophy of harm reduction really resonates with polyamorous identity too. I see those two as the most relatable.”

As Nathan continued with questions around reduction of harm:

I thought of it as, well if I identify as polyamorous certainly philosophically it makes

sense to me, in that way I not only espouse but really enact a value of compassion

towards another person and toward myself as well knowing my own wants or needs as a

polyamorous person.

Nathan’s guiding principles and perspective of harm reduction were highly relevant and intersectional to their polyamorous identity.

Ethics and worldview were relevant for Rachel:

As far as ethical choices, I am always asking myself whether or not what I am doing will

make me feel guilty. Is it about trying to combine my own pleasure and joy and sense of

purpose and potency, and need to experience myself as a human being and as a sexual

being, with being kind and compassionate and making choices that are ethical based on

my internal moral compass.

For Rachel, respect and kindness were essential to any relationship, monogamous or otherwise.

Rachel referenced a conservative upbringing; the intersections of her later queer and feminist perspectives were ultimately essential to understanding her polyamorous identity:

I connect my feminism and my non-monogamy pretty closely. Yea it’s just, to me they

are inextricable. . . it’s not just that we have this and we have this and we have this, and

they are all together, it’s more like they are co-constructed and they develop, it’s like a

tree with roots that sort of grows together and becomes all the same thing and you cannot

pull it apart because if you did it would die (laughter). Or it wouldn’t exist and it

wouldn’t be the same thing anymore. And so, that’s a very theoretical sort of

understanding of how my different social identities interact, but that’s really, they are

formed together and it is an amalgam and not separate distinct categories all of the time.

This intersectional view of identity was imperative for Rachel’s understanding of her polyamorous identity.

Ariana, Luinne, and Anya all referenced being raised in conservative Christian environments and the pressure of not living up to those expectations. For Ariana, this was also a regional distinction as Christianity in Appalachia was described as a cultural force. For Luinne,

Baptist Christian beliefs that are very “God Centric” never resonated, and over time, they embraced a spiritual perspective with more holistic, humanistic perspectives. Yoga, energies, karma, luck, and many eastern religious perspectives have informed this growing worldview for

Luinne. More specifically, Luinne aspired “to focus on the finding of yourself so that you can eventually go beyond yourself. So right now I am in that stage of finding myself so that I can eventually go beyond myself.” Anya also shared a deep connection to eastern-informed perspectives and saw her spiritual awakening and willingness to embrace her spiritual journey as a catalyst to understanding her polyamorous identity. Anya shared:

I felt like that spiritual realization gave me a mission, and I feel like, what’s under my,

well, not under, but equally interweaved with my mission to teach people about

polyamory, my mission to teach people about sexuality in general, and like those two

things are so conveniently tied together, that it’s like as I learn about one, the other one

benefits, and as I learn about one, the other topic benefits, so I really do feel like I have a

mission to and I have many missions, but this is on major one, to help people understand

options and then I think also interweaved with the polyamory and sexuality thing is the

love aspect.

For Anya, polyamory is inherently spiritual, and the translation of polyamory to many loves has a deep connection to her sense of self and purpose in the world.

Further Unfolding Identities

For this section, participant names may not be explicitly stated to protect participant identities. Participants shared other identities that were relevant to the development of their polyamorous identity. These include identifying as a parent, a graduate student, a person of size, in student affairs, or a teacher. One participant identified as a parent and spoke openly about how this impacted a fear of being out as poly but completely aligned with the loving, open- minded environment she wants to create for her child.

Six out of seven participants were graduate students, and nearly all of them referenced their academic status as relevant to their current understanding of their poly identity. For Tony, his cohort was a safe place to be out. For Nathan, being in graduate school provided space to explore and reflect: “It’s been almost exclusively through my graduate school experience, the academic and the environments of academia and work that make up that experience for me.” In

Anya’s graduate school journey this was not the case:

Word was getting out in my whole department that I was poly, and so at first I didn’t

think anyone thought it was a big deal, because people didn’t seem to give a crap about it,

but then slowly over the months, my good friends would come to tell me, and I kind of

wish they didn’t, but like, all the negative things that other people were saying in my

department about me, grad students, not professors, basically saying these outlandish

things about me . . . I realized academia is not the open-minded land of free thought that I

thought that I was, silly me (laughter), I had to get into a Ph.D. program to figure that one

out.

Graduate school was not all Anya thought it would be, as her colleagues did not rise to the level of intellectual rigor that she felt they should around identity dialogues. Despite a perceived lack of acceptance, the process of completing her dissertation about polyamory was an opportunity to support Anya’s explorations:

Basically my dissertation was an overview of published research, so, it was a little bit of

pedagogy, practical pedagogy jammed in there at the very end. So, once I read so much

stuff about the topic I felt then, more comfortable, I guess that aided the self-doubt,

because I felt I had a lot of knowledge I could just grab and have a response if someone

had a question, like ‘oh, well, research says,’ so, I felt confident because of having

familiarized myself with other scholars and what they had to say about it. From an

intellectual standpoint it was really helpful.

For Matthew, the climate felt generally accepting, but he still hesitated to be out in his program:

“It’s those few individuals with the cancerous group thing that I just, that’s one reason I don’t come around, because, all the things that I’ve heard come back to me about what they say about me around others, false.” Ariana was only out to a few students in her program since a prior colleague who identified as poly was gossiped about and treated poorly.

Identifying as a person of size was also relevant for one participant:

body size and weight, and I use fat as sort of a political identity as well as a descriptor for

myself and a non-judgmental term. I don’t think that people are comfortable hearing

about people’s sex lives, and I also have to couch that in I don’t think people are okay

hearing about my sex life, in part because I am often sort of, and not just me, but in

general, fat people and people who are sort of thought of as not being desirable in the

typical confines of standard beauty, western idealized beauty standards, people don’t

really ask me about particulars about my sex life.

This intersection of size and sexuality created many specific sex-negative spaces where talking about sex was compounded by size, and individuals were only sex-positive in certain circumstances. Reflecting further, this participant stated: “I can’t not exist in my body you know, that’s the only lens that I am able to physically experience that kind of attitude.” This participant deeply tied the salience of her lived experience as a person of size to her polyamorous identity and how others might experience her identities.

Regarding careers and employment, all of the participants grappled with thoughts about how their poly identity could impact their current job or future career. Matthew shared: “I’m still dealing with the obstacles around me. How do I tell people? Why do I tell? How public can I be about . . . What would it do to my career?” For Matthew, being “burned” in a prior work environment caused him to be even more private and skeptical of being out as poly at work. Matthew also shared how he found his current work environment to be a troubling one in general:

In the current office that I work in no I would not [come out]. I don’t even get

acknowledged by individuals. And the relationship I have with my supervisor is very

disconnected. When I took the internship in the [sic] office, with [Steve], it was like I

became the bane of their issues, and the comments they make out loud in the common

area, or loud enough in front of students, I’ve cried multiple times, and now that I have a

physical office at least I can shut the door. It’s just, very disheartening, I am counting

down the days, literally.

Anya had to navigate many differing work environments and her identity. As someone working as a healer, she was asked not to share her poly identity in certain circumstances so individuals who were already skeptical of healing work would not have the skepticism compounded by polyamory. Rachel asserted that most job environments are not conducive to being

100 polyamorous: “I don’t know how to combine that with professionalism as we understand it culturally, because I don’t really think professionalism allows for expressions of sexuality.” This recognition of environments being inherently limiting for polyamorous individuals was shared by all participants.

In this chapter I have provided an overview of the four themes that emerged through my data analysis: misrepresentation, coming out, support, and identity convergences. In the next chapter I discuss the findings, their connections to existing literature, and provide recommendations for practice and research.

101

CHAPTER V. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS

The purpose of this constructivist queer theory case study was to better understand how polyamorous students made meaning of their polyamorous identity within the postsecondary campus environment. In this final chapter, I discuss major findings, connect to literature, and suggest implications for practice and future research. My responses to the two research questions guiding this study show the complexity of identity meaning-making for these polyamorous students within the campus environment.

Summary of the Findings

The two research questions guiding this study and categorization of the subsequent findings include:

1. How do college students (undergraduate and/or graduate level) who embrace a

polyamorous identity describe how they make meaning of, internalize, and articulate

that identity for themselves and others?, and

2. How do college students (undergraduate and/or graduate) who embrace a polyamorous

identity describe the relationship between their identity meaning-making and the

postsecondary campus environment?

Regarding my first research question, I concluded that polyamorous college students made meaning of their identities by questioning what they knew of monogamy, finding support from partners and friends, searching for representation and resources in the media, contemplating coming out, and relating to their other identities, particularly other queer gender, romantic, and sexual identities. Six participants articulated polyamory as an identity although Rachel referred to polyamory as an identity and as a behavior. Participants internalized their identities through a heteronormative lens, and reframed polyamory as a valid identity and form of human connection.

102

To answer the second research question, I noticed in my findings that participants shared that the particular postsecondary campus environment did not provide any intentional opportunities to make meaning of their identities. One participant found community on campus around their other queer identities, while some participants only had their fears confirmed and hesitated to be out as polyamorous due to already chilly climate toward queer identities.

Below, I further discuss these findings and make connections to the extant literature. In the literature I studied for this project, I found a lack of diverse sexualities being studied. Other researchers (Galupo et al, 2014; Nicolazzo, 2017) also found that much of the existing research still relied on binary or compartmentalized systems comparing heterosexuality to all other sexualities or cisgender identities to all non-cisgender identities. This reflects ways in which societal presumptions of heterosexuality and monogamous/monoamorous identity are also typically carried into the literature. In light of this, I found parallel experiences in studies whose focus was on different minoritized populations (e.g., race, gender identity, and sexuality).

Understanding Polyamory

Participants shared nuanced ways of understanding their polyamorous identities.

Similar to the word queer, participants articulated comparable, yet distinct interpretations of polyamory as shared in Chapter Four. Participants described polyamory as an identity and

Rachel also referred to it as a practice, consistent with the work of Easton and Hardy (2009).

All participants understood polyamory through a queered lens by contrasting what polyamory is, to what it is not: cheating, polygamy, swinging, or monogamy. Participants each worked through negative internalized messages common in heteronormative societal expectations, which included guilt and shame for their interest in multiple partners. As Easton and Hardy

(2009) suggested, heteronormative foundations in U.S. society were a significant barrier and a

103 catalyst to participants making meaning of their identity as minoritized. This research is also consistent with the work of Wagner (2009) regarding the fear and stigma rooted in heteronormativity negatively impacting queer individuals.

Luinne and Nathan expressed that being polyamorous emphasized one’s agency and the agency of other partners to experience multiple connections when consented to in an open and ethical manner. This consent does not restrict one’s intimate connections–something culturally inherent in monogamy when partners expect the other to limit other sexual or romantic intimate connections, sometimes even including friendships (Easton & Hardy, 2009). All participants rejected compulsory monogamy consistent with the work of Ranbukkana (2012), Ravenscroft

(2004), and Ritchie (2010). Most participants believed we are all “hardwired however we are hardwired” (Tony) and just wanted polyamory to be a recognized identity in society without the damaging stigmas. One participant believed polyamory to be possible for every person as a new framework for relationships.

Anya, Nathan, Rachel, and Ariana all shared common terminology of many-loving in relationship to polyamory and understanding it beyond just sexual relationships. Rachel understood her poly identity in relationship to her internal moral compass and desire to be true to her sense of purpose and joy. Rachel also distinguished between her desires for relationships comprised of multiple partners and actually claiming a poly identity. This is supported by

Galupo, Davis, Grynkiewicz, and Mitchell (2014). Gulapo et al. concluded that:

participants articulated a conceptual disconnect between their sexual orientation and

sexual orientation identity. This was similarly expressed regardless of participants’

sexual and gender identity and is consistent with current sexuality research

(Worthington & Reynolds, 2009) in which ‘sexual orientation’ refers to sexual

predispositions (e.g., arousal, attraction) and ‘sexual orientation identity’ refers to the

104

conscious recognition and self-identification based on those predispositions (e.g., gay,

lesbian, bisexual, pansexual, queer). (p. 440)

Rachel’s understanding of her poly identity reflects the literature regarding social identities that evolve within contexts and relationships (Omi & Winant, 1994). There is no single meaning for the experience of polyamorous individuals, just as Abes, Jones, and McEwan (2007) have found there is no single meaning for individuals of other minoritized identities.

Further, Enam (2015) studied the experiences of “overweight and obese men of African descent (OMAD) who have had voluntary sexual contact with other men (OMAD-MSM)” (p.

3) and also highlighted the “complex, layered, fluid, and multidimensional” (p. 18) identities of participants. When utilizing postmodern theories such as queer theory, we can understand minoritized identities in complex manners and not just “an orderly, predictable pattern” (Abes et al., 2007, p. 15). This understanding of minoritized identities is also reflected in critical and intersectional approaches to studying race, ethnicity, and systemic oppression of minoritized identities found in the work of Anzaldua (1999), Bell (1995), Butler (1990, 2006), Collins

(1990), Crenshaw (1989, 1995), Cross, Parham, and Helms (1991), Cross and Fhagen-Smith

(2001), Delgado (1995), Ferdman and Gallegos (2007), Foucault (1990), Helms (1995), hooks,

(1984), Horse (2001), Lorde (1984), Warner (1999), Williams (1991), Yosso (2006) and many others.

Coming Out as Polyamorous

Coming out as polyamorous heavily shaped how the participants made meaning of a poly identity. The participants each described experiencing fatigue because of defending their identities from accusations of cheating, practicing polygamy, or swinging grounded in monogamist expectations. They also shared that their polyamorous identity was hypersexualized. The work of Abes and Jones (2004) was also confirmed as participants in this

105 study needed to work through family influences, peer groups, stereotypes, and heteronormative social norms to push through to more positive self-perceptions and to accept one’s queer identities. Nathan compared the process of working through these messages to having a sense of dysphoria. Sadness, anger, fear, and compassion all marked these participants’ meaning- making journeys. Ultimately, they hoped for a shift away from compulsory societal monogamy and for polyamorous expressions of human intimacy to become more accepted in society.

All participants were still engaging in the process of self-authorship, including “an ability to construct knowledge in a contextual world, an ability to construct an internal identity separate from external influences, and an ability to engage in relationships without losing one's internal identity" (Baxter Magolda, 1999, p. 12). Each participant recognized the tension inherent in facets of queer theory (Wagner, 1999) and when they needed to perform monogamy for their own physical or psychological safety. Luinne shared this in relation to their gender identity as well. All participants engaged in the crossroads stage and grappled with externally defined meanings of their identities and moved toward internal definitions. These complex movements toward internal definitions are represented in the work of Abes, Jones, and

McEwen (2007) and Jones and Abes (2013). Utilizing the Reconceptualized Model of Multiple

Dimensions of Identity (R-MMDI) “captures the complexity of intersecting domains of development” (Abes et al., 2007, p. 5). Similar to Abes et al., my participants shared complex understandings of their identities as influenced by the context of their lives. This complexity arose when navigating outness and determining which contexts may or may not feel safe to be out. This complexity connects to the literature on minoritized identities and the imperative to acknowledge their identities as fluid and dynamic (Abes et al., 2007; Enam, 2015; Galupo et al.

2014; Jones & Abes, 2013; Jones & Stewart, 2016). Additionally, this supports a movement away from essentialist understandings that “reifies dominant–subordinate binaries presumed to

106 be grounded in biology (e.g., White–non-White, men–women, heterosexual—homosexual;

Weber, [1998])” (as cited in Abes et al., 2007, p. 2).

Each participant also shared many fears regarding coming out due to societal expectations for monogamy intersected with heteronormativity. During their interviews, participants feared the loss of family and friendships, jobs, academic communities, as well as current, former, and future intimate relationships due to their polyamorous identity.

Participants feared retribution in their campus work environments and some in their academic environments. Two participants specifically named isolation and retaliation from current or former co-workers. Similar to Tierney’s work (1997), participants feared being out and outness impacting current or future job prospects. Participants articulated varying desires to be out and embraced outness in multiple ways. Some participants, such as Luinne, Nathan, and Matthew, only wanted to share with close friends. Tony shared his poly identity whenever it was relevant like referring to which partner he was visiting when speaking to cohort mates on campus. On the other hand, another participant – Anya – chose to write a dissertation about the topic thus outing herself more publicly.

All participants either took extended periods of time to come out, hesitated to come out at all, or came out selectively. Ariana and Rachel did not see a pathway to coming out at the time of data collection. This struggle with outness reflects much of the literature on problematizing the closet and moving away from in/out binaries (Cunill, 2015; Segwick, 1990).

Cunill (2015) applied Communication Privacy Management Theory (CPMT) to lesbian couples attempting to separate outness from commitment in relationships. Matthew reflected this approach as a very private person who did not believe his outness reflected his understanding of his poly identity. Whereas Rachel and Nathan were more concerned with being viewed as inauthentic if they were not out, Anya believed being out was an essential part of feeling fully

107 formed in her identity. This is consistent with Galupo et al. (2014) as “participants experienced their sexual orientation identity in a social context was through the disconnect between their self-identity and the perception of their identities by others” (p. 444). Enam’s (2015) OMAD-

MSM participants also grappled with outness within contexts and the subcultures in which they engaged due their multiple minoritized identities. When sharing their identities with others,

Enam recounted that participants:

describe their identities in a hierarchical way that takes into account the marginalization

of and identification with various identities. That hierarchy may include any number of

social identities, labels, traits, or professional affiliations. For some of them and to

varying degrees these OMAD-MSM have integrated aspects of their body image into

the hierarchy as well. (p. 218)

Across these studies, participants were constantly navigating perceptions of others and if they needed to be out to feel fully formed or make meaning of their identity.

Outness can also be connected to Co-cultural theory (CCT) which “embraces the lived experiences of many ‘nondominant’ co-cultural groups (i.e., people of color, women, lower socioeconomic status, LGBTQ) (Orbe, 1998b)” (as cited in McKenna-Buchanan, 2014, p. 7).

One facet of CCT is how privileged groups possess power that constrains individuals of minoritized identities. This even extends to language and communication patterns where

“dominate group communication systems reinforce heteronormative patterns of behavior in the workplace and prevent alternate perspectives from individuals who identify as gay or lesbian, from being voiced and heard” (McKenna-Buchanan, 2014, p. 44). Through their work, Orbe and Spellers (2005) addressed six components queer individuals navigate in the workplace.

The two most relevant components being preferred methods and the costs and rewards of being out. Ariana and Matthew had already experienced the costs of being out at work and had no

108 desire to pay that price again regarding their emotional health or social capital. Their preferred method was to assimilate and appear monogamous or single (Orbe, 1998). Nathan, Rachel, and

Tony shared experiences of accommodation where they addressed monogamist statements and shared their identity selectively with coworkers. Matthew also exhibited separation as he saw his work environment as transactional and would further detach if negative comments were made about any queer identity.

For Anya, the reward of being out was driven by a larger picture and more individuals learning about polyamory. Anya also considered situational context, and when working with a co-op of healers, was asked to not mention her poly identity or her work as a poly activist. She accommodated within the context and ensured her peer acknowledged her identity but was willing to refrain from educating potential clients for her reiki practice. Tony’s identity as a transgender man and stealthness as an assumed cisgender man meant his costs of being out were significantly lower than participants like Rachel and Ariana who were stigmatized as women within a context of sexism and misogyny. Ariana was called a slut by her own mother whereas Tony was congratulated by friends who saw polyamory as Tony fulfilling his right to hegemonic masculinity and non-monogamy.

Consistent with second wave theories described by Jones and Stewart (2016), researchers assessing development through the self-authorship model acknowledged the effect of societal power structures on meaning-making. However, these narratives of outness and problematic societal stigmas and structures were challenging to label within the stages of self- authorship. While facing these difficult and problematic oppressive systems, participants navigated making-meaning of their identities. The varying degrees of outness for participants could be easily equated to being less developed or in earlier stages of self-authorship.

However, critical theorists (Cunill, 2016; Enam, 2015; Galupo, 2015; Sedgwick, 1990; Tierney,

109

1997) have troubled the push for queer individuals to come out of the closet and maintaining binaries of being in/out. In light of this perspective on being out, we should also problematize the concept of development. From the perspective of third wave theorists, I found using self- authorship to be limited. The emphasis in self-authorship on moving to internal foundations could imply that coming out is developmentally necessary to be self-authored in one’s identity.

Relationships

Participants noted that there were many negative or harmful people in their lives. Anya and Ariana mentioned being estranged from their families since coming out. Luinne, Nathan, and Rachel had no intention to tell family members anytime in the foreseeable future, and

Matthew had only told his mother. Collectively, they feared estrangement or harsh judgement from family. Coming out in work and school environments felt equally risky for participants, as many had already experienced negative outcomes from telling people. Generally, participants also found their work environments to be hostile due to troubling remarks about other queer identities or a generally chilly or hostile climate toward minoritized gender, romantic, and sexual identities. The lone exception to this was Tony, who worked as a graduate assistant in his academic department. But even he felt dissonance due to the problematic statements about his masculinity as a catalyst for polyamory being more readily accepted at work and school.

Alternatively, participants mentioned valuable relationships in their lives. All participants described the importance of relationships to their meaning-making and development as supported by Pascarella and Terenzini (2005). Having open and honest conversations with partners, friends, and family was also foundational to articulating identity and to revealing how individuals wanted to engage in relationships with others (Aviram, 2010;

Billinkoff, 2005; Easton & Hardy, 2009; Ravenscroft, 2004). These beneficial relationships

110 included some friends, both queer-identified and allies to the queer community, mothers (but not fathers or other parental figures), former or current partners, and therapists. Some literature and online formats such as blogs, podcasts, and mini-documentaries were also referenced as positive resources. Nicolazzo (2017) discussed the use of literature to inform self- understanding. Lacking a trans community hirself, Nicolazzo utilized literature to feel less alone and shared that ze had been “reading myself into existence; the more I read, the better I understand myself” (p. 19). Nicolazzo’s participants also discussed the juxtaposition of problematic and supportive media that were available to them. Similar to participants in this study, Nicolazzo’s participants utilized virtual kinship networks to feel less alone and to learn about their identities. Participating in online communities also provided important counterstories to battle negative representations in the media in Nicolazzo’s study and this study.

The distinct lack of resources representing polyamory and absence of people who could support was impactful to participant journeys. Relevant to this absence of supportive people, resources, and representation, many participants struggled to make meaning of their coming out processes. This is consistent with Stewart (2014) and the significance of campus student communities in supporting Black students. Affinity-based social groups can validate minoritized students but can also maintain oppressive norms (Stewart, 2014). Luinne mentioned one program surrounding polyamory in their queer student group which was based in a debate about whether or not polyamory should be considered a queer identity. Matthew attempted to connect with a queer graduate student group but did not feel polyamory would be supported in that community.

111

Media Representations

Participants in this study also discussed the ways in which media representations of polyamory influenced how they made meaning of their polyamorous identity. They recalled that most of the pop-culture references they knew typically conflated polyamory with polygamy or only depicted highly sexualized poly communities. This did not reflect my participants’ sexual diversity or the differing role of sexuality in their relationships. For example, one participant was demi-sexual and more than one participant mentioned poly relationship networks that were not sexual. This lack of diverse poly media representation meant participants are lacking the resources that are slowly becoming more readily available to other queer identities.

Building on the work of Blais, Craig, Pepler, and Connolly (2008) and Gray (2009),

Craig and McInroy (2014) studied LGBTQ youth and found that “new media enabled participants to access resources, explore identity, find likeness, and digitally engage in coming out” (p. 95). These online developments in identity also expanded into the development of identities offline. In Meier’s (2015) study of the experiences of Third Culture Kids (TCKs),

Meier found that social media was used as a path for self-discovery and connection.

Participants constantly negotiated and re-negotiated their identities in relation to their home context and current cultural context. Some participants found community and empathy with other TCKs online and others found that online media kept them connected to their U.S. based context and hindered their identity development within the integration of their current cultural context.

This parallels the experiences of participants like Luinne, Nathan, Ariana, and Tony who referenced that finding resources online was imperative to making meaning of their poly identity. However, problematic depictions of polyamory (conflations with polygamy and

112 hypersexualization), did not allow participants to feel connected to media representations of their identity. These negative media representations complicated understandings of polyamory within a heteronormative context and how to navigate monogamist cultural norms and risks despite the benefits associated with outness.

Identity Convergences

Another major finding was the multiple dimensions of identity that were relevant to the participants’ understandings of their own polyamorous identities. Often participants related their minoritized gender and/or sexuality to how they made meaning of being poly. Having to understand another marginalized identity earlier in life provided a pathway to making meaning of their polyamorous identity. Earlier experiences processing and making meaning of other marginalized gender, sexual, and romantic identities led participants to be able to work through accepting a polyamorous identity.

I found limited existing literature that supported a previous understanding of how one minoritized identity might inform meaning-making of another minoritized identity. Manley,

Diamond, and Van Anders (2015) studied the sexual fluidity of polyamorous and monoamorous (monogamous) individuals and found that sexual fluidity surrounding sexual attraction was more likely for polyamorous individuals. This was a quantitative study that did not consider meaning-making but implies the reverse effect for my participants: for participants in the Manley et al. (2015) study, being poly informed sexual fluidity regarding the gender of other partners whereas for my participants sexual fluidity informed their polyamory.

Galupo et al. (2014) found that shifts in gender identity resulted in shifts in sexual orientation identification for participants. This was mostly expressed by trans and nonbinary individuals and/or articulated as temporal. Enam (2015) found that participants made meaning of multiple minoritized identities in context and in a less sequential way than participants in

113 this study. Six participants named their meaning-making of a queer identity coming before their polyamorous identity and aiding them in understanding their poly identity. Luinne was the one participant to take a less sequential approach. For Luinne, their understanding of gender identity came before their understanding of their other queer identities but they realized their sexual and romantic orientations close to and in relation to their polyamorous identity.

Nicolazzo (2017) coined the term compulsory heterogenderism which ze used to explain “the ways participants’ gender identities and sexualities were consistently understood in and through each other” (p. 76). An outcome of heterogenderism is the assumption of participants’ gender identities due to “sexuality-based stereotypes that dictated one’s sexuality as a result of gender presentation (e.g., a masculine presenting as female being understood by others as a lesbian)”

(Nicolazzo, 2017, p. 77). This conflation of sexuality and gender was for the comfort and understanding of others and not related to participants own understandings of their identities.

This is similar to Tony, a trans man whose polyamory was equated with toxic masculinity, not as a unique facet of Tony’s identity as a queer polyamorous person.

Surviving sexual assault. Participants shared many experiences that hindered and helped how they made meaning of their polyamorous identity development. Nathan and Tony both survived sexual assault. Nathan believed they were assaulted in part because others assumed their poly identity implied automatic consent to sexual activity. Nathan had already shared multiple stories regarding consent and how asking for it was seen as hindering a sexually exciting moment by other potential partners. For Nathan, the experiences of asking for consent and having their consent violated only further supported how Nathan made meaning of their poly identity. They understood their polyamory through a focus on ethical identity and an ethical approach to consensual non-monogamy.

114

Both participants felt that their assaults influenced how they experienced romantic and sexual attraction. Surviving sexual assault also affected whether they would be interested in polyamorous relationships with people of certain gender identities. Tony’s experience was from earlier in his life and he had worked through his aversion to dating men in therapy. He realized that being assaulted by a man did not need to influence his attraction to men and bodies that he perceived as male bodies. Although he was dating two individuals who identified as women at the time of the study, his attraction to men and male bodies was significant to how he made meaning of his poly identity and the fluidity of gender attraction was central to his polyamory. In contrast, Nathan’s experience with being sexually assaulted by gay men did impact their current attraction toward, and interest in, dating or being sexually intimate with people perceived as or who identified as men.

Spirituality or worldview. Identifying with a spiritual, ethical, or worldview perspective was also salient for each participant and how they articulated their polyamorous identity. Breaking away from heteronormative Christianity was significant for each person in two ways. First, for those who found a re-affirmed or reframed spiritual belief, they needed to detach the heteronormative standards pervasive in their previous religious and spiritual systems. Second, for those who evolved toward a more secular or humanistic worldview, stepping away from organized religion aided them in redefining their human connections. This redefinition allowed participants space for multiple sexual, romantic, or kinship connections as a polyamorous person. Participants named religion and cultural belief systems (Aviram, 2010;

Barker & Landridge, 2010; Easton & Hardy, 2009; Rambukkana, 2012; Ravenscroft, 2004) as barriers to overcome to make meaning of their identities, as well as sexualization (Barker &

Landridge, 2010; Shannon & Willis, 2010; Warner, 1999), and heteronormative traditional

115 family values (Barker & Landridge, 2010; Easton & Hardy, 2009; Shannon & Willis, 2010;

Warner, 1999).

Other social identities. Only three participants named race or class as relevant to their polyamorous identity. Related to their poly identity, Nathan shared that in communities of color, they might be perceived as participating in a “White phenomena or a White thing.” To

White individuals, Nathan could be perceived as fulfilling stereotypes of Latino men as sexually promiscuous. Anya and Rachel recognized that much of the literature and conversations about poly communities seemed to be centered on individuals with a middle or upper-class socio-economic status (SES), and who were primarily White. Both Anya and

Rachel acknowledged their privileged racial and class identities, and that these identities came with certain social advantages, including, as summarized by Sheff and Hammer (2013),

“greater social latitude to engage in and redefine sexual or relational ‘deviance’ than that available to those burdened by racism, poverty, inadequate education, limited job prospects and other forms of discrimination” (p. 199).

The lack of diverse identities being represented within the polyamorous community was an additional barrier to Nathan accepting and finding support for their identity in affinity and allied spaces. Many researchers supported the concern of primarily homogenous populations being sampled (Rubin, Moors, Matsick, Zeigler, & Conoley, 2014; Sheff & Tesene, 2015). In a

“content analysis of peer-reviewed journal articles on consensual non-monogamy (CNM)” (p.

32), Brewster et al. (2017) found that “only 45.2% of studies reported information on participant education levels, 28.6% reported information on social class, and 35.7% reported information on age. A large majority (86.5%) of participants were white” (p. 44). The current narrative of polyamory as middle-class and White-centric is problematic for many reasons, including the framing of the above statistic centered around Whiteness. There is extensive

116 recent literature where researchers support the need for intersecting minoritized identity representation, including queer identities of color (Rosenberg, 2017), queer individuals of size

(Enam, 2015), queerness and socioeconomic status (Rosenberg, 2017; Sheff & Hammers,

2011), and queerness and disability (Cosenza, 2014).

Nathan’s experiences with microaggressions, and lack of representation around race and socioeconomic status, highlight the need for more research centered around the experiences of poly individuals with multiple minoritized identities. This reflects Collins’ (1990) “matrix of domination” (p. 222) wherein Black women, who have multiple minoritized identities, better understand how multiple oppressive systems interact. Nathan articulated their challenges within multiple oppressive systems throughout their interviews. The particular intersection of race and polyamory connects to the respectability politics faced by queer individuals in communities of color (White, 2001) who fear additional repercussions for identifying as queer

(Sheff & Hammer, 2013). Further, Nathan’s multiple minoritized identities also reflected another concept that considers the intrarelationships of their multiple minoritized identities.

Identifying as a nonbinary, Latinx individual, I believe that Nathan is journeying toward a form of mestiza consciousness (Anzaldúa, 1999). Similar to Anzaldúa’s (1999) description of mestiza consciousness, Nathan grappled with the contradiction and ambiguity of living on the figurative borderlands of their identities, and the social stigmas and expectations associated with each of their identities. Referencing Anzaldúa, Falcón (2008) shared, “we have a better understanding about how survival in their borderlands requires a navigation of multiple and intersecting worlds based on race, gender, and nation” (p. 664). This quote appropriately describes how I understood Nathan’s meaning-making process regarding their poly identity: their growth in ethical identity and their harm-reduction approach to human connection informed their gender, race, sexuality, and polyamory and led them to develop, as Anzaldúa

117

(1999) described, an integrated “third element which is greater than the sum of its severed parts. That element is a new consciousness” (pp. 101-102).

Nathan was the only participant who described how they made meaning of their identities from an intersectional framework. This intersectional meaning-making was demonstrated when Nathan discussed their race, gender, and sexuality representing “the interlocking systems of domination” (Collins, 1990, p. 6) that intersectionality allows us to identify and address. The identity convergences listed above and found throughout Chapter

Four, demonstrate that all participants could describe how they made meaning of multiple minoritized identities as relevant to their polyamorous identity (Jones & Abes, 2013).

However, other participants described those multiple minoritized identities and their meaning- making about those identities differently from Nathan. For example, participants like Ariana spoke to their identities as a woman and as polyamorous, and how power structures influence making meaning of each individual identity, but not necessarily the interlocking aspects of how power operates against members belonging to both social groups.

The Postsecondary Setting

Participants described how they made meaning of their identities in the postsecondary campus setting. Career development and mentoring, campus programming, and student organization spaces were campus settings that informed how participants made meaning of their poly identities.

In relation to career aspirations and mentoring, participants feared academic isolation and the possibility of job loss, or their career credibility being tarnished if their polyamorous identity was known. The conflation of queer sexualities and relationships with pedophilia could be damaging to their educational career prospects as well. Anya, Nathan, Rachel, and

Ariana all mentioned concern that their identity would be hypersexualized and that their work

118 as graduate assistants or teaching assistants would be seen as an opportunity to abuse their power over undergraduate students and recruit more poly individuals. Gedro (2017) discussed identity as negotiated between an individual and their organization. Individuals of many minoritized identities have experienced hostile and harmful work climates deterring certain career choices and general job satisfaction (Gedro, 2017). Individuals like Anya, Matthew, and

Ariana, who have been ostracized within their work environments, are more likely to take transactional approaches to the work (Gedro, 2017), as Matthew explicitly stated.

When studying career choices for graduate students of color, Haley, Jaeger, and Levin

(2014) argued for more inclusive educational environments and workplaces “so that students of color do not feel that they have to detach themselves from their cultural communities in order to survive and thrive in an academic career” (p. 115). This work has some parallels to the experiences of Anya, Nathan, Matthew, Rachel, and Ariana who were compartmentalizing their polyamorous identity to avoid ramifications in their educational environment of work and school.

Campus offices and programming. Despite a campus climate that was slowly becoming more accepting of queer individuals, the institution did not have resources for poly students. Also, none of the campus offices for minoritized student populations explicitly included polyamorous students among the populations they sought to serve and support.

During the period of my research, only one event, hosted by a queer student organization, was focused on polyamory. Several topics were raised by participants through the discussion including what polyamory was, whether or not it should be included in the queer umbrella, and whether or not polyamory should be supported by the student organization. It is possible that there were other offerings at the institution of which the participants or researcher were unaware, but a search of the website three years post data collection still only returned seven

119 results spanning four events, all dating from 2009-2016. The first result for polyamory was an event held by another doctoral student discussing her research. I discussed my dissertation proposal at another event. A third event was the previously mentioned event hosted by the queer student organization. The final event listed to account for the seven queries was the first doctoral student returning after graduation to discuss polyamory in a social setting. This lack of representation reflects the literature of Rankin (2005) and her concern about the hostile climates for queer individuals and the subsequent lack of structural resources to support queer identities. There is extensive literature on the positive effects of co-curricular programming on student outcomes (Pascarella & Terrenzini, 2005). Patton (2010) highlighted the positive impacts of cultural centers and subsequent programming on identity development as they provide spaces of discovery, community, and healing for students of minoritized identities.

Bazarsky, Morrow, and Javier (2015) discussed the work of supporting queer students through programming and the need to stay relevant with fluidity of identities.

Educating the campus. Tony desired for the campus to offer a basic foundation of queer affirming policies and programs that would include polyamory. However, he recognized that the institution still needed to get gender and sexual orientation education correct first.

Despite fearing dismissal from her academic program and lack of support for her dissertation topic, Anya also publicly educated the campus community. Others deflected or delayed opportunities to share due to fear of retribution. For example, Rachel repeatedly waited until there was some assumed confirmation of poly acceptance by others, what she deemed a “queer sensibility” that went beyond compliance to supporting student identity development and creating more inclusive spaces. Case (2013) studied the experiences of minoritized students who resisted tokenization in various ways, including forms of active resistance (addressing

120 problematic behaviors) and passive resistance (silence, disengagement). As Case (2013) found, the emotional labor of educating privileged identities is detrimental to student holistic success.

Making sense of the campus environment. The macrosystems and pervasive ideologies of monogamy and heterosexism on campus did not support meaning-making for participants positively. Meaning-making occurred during negative experiences and due to a lack of supportive institutional structures and individuals. Participants were still able to articulate how they made meaning of their polyamorous identities within the campus, but being in college itself provided few or no affirming spaces and interactions.

Recommendations for Practice

The foundational scholarship of postsecondary educators (AAC&U, 2002, 2005, 2007,

2008; AAUP, 2014, 2015; ACPA, 1996, 2006; ACPA & NASPA, 1997; Evans & Reason, 2001;

NASPA, 1990; NCPPHE, 2008) included either limited or non-existent attention to polyamorous students. Continuing to intentionally exclude (or unintentionally not include) polyamory and poly students does not reflect the field’s values and ethical principles to provide holistic, affirming opportunities for all students to develop. As mentioned previously, we must enact these espoused values. Postsecondary educators should recognize that spaces only feel physically and psychologically safe for some students. That injustice in our campus environments must change. Postsecondary educators and researchers must also consider if our environments are ideal spaces for complex development. Furthermore, we should consider if we are presumptively attributing the concept of “development” to our curricular and co- curricular offerings.

Participants did not find their identity represented in curricular or co-curricular offerings. Rachel and Matthew experienced campus work climates that were not accepting of their bisexual and gay identities. Anya and Ariana experienced academic work contexts that

121 were hostile toward them after coming out as polyamorous. All participants found no programming and limited one-on-one support on their campuses, besides what was provided by me, the researcher, and one of the participants. These findings confirmed Chickering and

Reisser’s (1993) recommendations to develop programs surrounding mature interpersonal relationships. These program opportunities were absent in the campus environment, and participants had to find off-campus events and opportunities to grow in interpersonal connections surrounding their polyamorous identity.

Polyamorous students were also provided limited opportunities to make meaning of their identities in the classroom. Nathan was the only one to name that philosophy classes provided a platform to reflect on larger questions of ethics and interpersonal connection. Anya and Tony shared support from faculty but Tony’s support also came with tokenization and speaking for his queer identities. All other participants mentioned nothing about classrooms or generally spoke of lukewarm to hostile academic and work environments. Even participants who took courses where polyamory should have been part of the curriculum, they shared that polyamory was not even mentioned. Luinne specifically named courses in women’s and gender studies, queer studies, and family studies that needed to be altered to be more inclusive of polyamory. Curricular and co-curricular experiences must also include more diverse and nuanced understandings of human intimacy and family structures, healthy communication in relationships, and consent in multiple contexts including sexual assault and ethical non- monogamy. All participants in this study named the lack of resources available on their campus and a desire for more inclusive programming to support their identity and experiences as examples of an inclusive campus environment. Aspects of the campus environment and culture also influenced participants choosing not to come out. This instinct to remain closeted was due to troubling perspectives on non-monogamy and a general lack of awareness, or chilly

122 climate toward queer individuals. Other best practices for curricular and co-curricular areas include listing polyamory as an identity that is supported at queer and women’s centers, offering affinity spaces for poly students, and having speakers or educational sessions on polyamory to address stigma and create awareness.

Throughout the study, participants also shared experiences of horizontal oppression by other queer individuals. These experiences support the recommendation to educate everyone on polyamory, not just individuals with privileged gender, romantic, and sexual identities, but also other queer individuals. At minimum, horizontal oppression needs to be addressed by gender and sexuality resource centers and in classrooms focused on queer identities in order to create a more inclusive campus environment within queer communities.

Warner (1999) posed the question, “What would a world look like in which all these links between sexuality and people’s ideals were suddenly severed” (p. 47). Through this question, Warner presents a world not likely in our current climate toward queer individuals

(Rankin, 2005). Campus gender and sexuality, LBGTQ, and women’s centers need to increase efforts in dismantling gender, sexual, and romantic identity discrimination and other campus partners need to support their efforts. Student affairs professionals must continue to understand all forms of human connection as valid and beneficial to society and support the development of all students.

Institutional biases and policies also need to be addressed. Rachel and Matthew spoke of the lack of inclusive policies regarding poly individuals. Spade (2015) wrote extensively about administrative violence and utilizing critical trans politics to organize and push beyond

“legal recognition and inclusion, seeking instead to transform current logics of state, civil society security, and social equality” (p. 1) across minoritized identities. For example, all participants named the lack of structural support and resources being limited and impacting

123 connection to the university. Only Luinne, the undergraduate student, felt some connection to their campus through their involvement in the queer community, but this was not specifically support for their poly identity. In order to move toward greater acknowledgement of polyamory as an identity, institutions must add polyamory as an identity in their lists of statuses/identities protected from discrimination. This language should be reflected in student codes of conduct, boards of trustee manuals, and all language should be consistent throughout.

Participants who were older students and were also employed by the university or neighboring campuses did not have access to benefits like health care for multiple partners.

This is concerning when one considers family leave for children or leave for partners requiring support. Most poly individuals who have more than one partner and paid leave would only be able to use the leave for one person who must be listed as a spouse or domestic partner. There might also be issues accessing benefits provided under the Family and Medical Leave Act of

1993 (FMLA) or leave benefits regarding the welcoming of a child. In states where some queer parents already cannot be listed on birth certificates or adopt their children, their access to leave is also limited. When factoring in the potential for children with multiple partners, the loss of access to parental leave benefits could be significant depending on the poly individual.

A greater understanding of Title IX and leave policies is necessary to respond to these potential concerns for polyamorous families. Many necessary policy changes could help families of other identities as well. These changes would add to Dean Spade’s (2015) framework of

“trickle up” justice, where focusing on laws and policies for those most minoritized by the system due to intersectional oppressed identities will also address concerns for individuals oppressed by one relevant identity (e.g., access for transgender women likely also addresses access for all women). Spade argued for systemic, transformative change as opposed to the

124 common trickle-down approach where we start with the single-identity based issue (e.g., gay marriage), and then go down to the next concern for rights within a community.

It is important to note that our current practices and policies still operate from normative and privileged frameworks. Postsecondary education was not created to include the growing numbers of minoritized individuals gaining access to higher education, and we continue to

“other” students by creating additional spaces for them, not by changing the problematic nature of all of our spaces. As Cooper (2012) proposed, we must think beyond current conceptualizations of being and doing; we must refresh our ways of understanding the world and embody a transformational movement toward social change.

Recommendations for Future Research

The intention of this study was to understand how undergraduate students made meaning of their polyamorous identity on campus. After initial recruitment at one campus failed to yield any participants, I expanded my search to include graduate students. Of the seven participants in this study, there were six graduate students. A future study focusing on undergraduates specifically could more deeply expand on Luinne’s experiences, and explore how undergraduates who identify as polyamorous make-meaning of their poly identity.

Each of the graduate students in the study grappled with working part-time on campus and being a full-time student as poly-identified persons. All mentioned the tension of whether to be out as poly or not, or how to navigate the climate if they are out. Anya, Ariana, Rachel, and Matthew all named detailed negative experiences in their work and school environments, either specific to polyamory or queer identities more generally. Only Tony was out to most people and attributed that to his privilege of passing as a cisgender heterosexual man. These participants’ experiences raise questions to consider about polyamorous students on our campuses: What is the line between being a student first and being an employee of the

125 institution as a polyamorous individual? How do polyamorous graduate students who work on campus navigate having a professional identity or distancing themselves from their work?

More research on graduate students who also work on their campuses in varying assistantships or part-time roles (teaching, research, administrative), would further support the challenges poly graduate students face with multiple roles on campus.

All participants named the lack of an inclusive campus climate and a dearth of resources to support how they made meaning of their polyamorous identity as necessary environmental improvements. Tony referenced how a student group would be meaningful, and Luinne just wanted representation in the curriculum of courses that are commonly associated with affirming queer identities. Future research on what polyamorous students need and want from their campuses would further support the recommendations for practice shared from this study.

I also recommend reconsidering if postsecondary educational environments are ideal for researching the complex development of individuals with multiple minoritized identities.

Participants primarily focused on specific physical spaces that did not feel safe or welcoming for them. They also referenced institutional practices and policies that needed to change. If participants do not feel safe or supported, and as researchers we continue to try to understand their development in problematic and harmful environments, are we understanding their needs holistically? How does studying minoritized students in historically and actively oppressive spaces continue to reproduce and reinforce deficit approaches to understanding what minoritized students need from their campuses (McGuire, Berhanu, Davis, & Harper, 2014)? I encourage future research beyond postsecondary spaces to highlight the experiences of minoritized individuals who are attending postsecondary institutions.

There was limited social identity representation among the participants regarding disability, race, and socioeconomic status. There was one participant who identified as a

126 person of color and the other six identified as White. The absence of people of color in this study reflects the lack of public presence of people of color in public communities in general

(Scheff & Hammers, 2011). There is a need to further understand the experiences of polyamorous people of color and how they make meaning and navigate the campus environment. Participants referenced their privilege regarding socioeconomic status and Scheff and Hammers (2011) also named that there are limited understandings of polyamory across socioeconomic statuses. Luinne, Ariana, and Tony shared some connections to mental health.

Further research on disability, such as mental health, and the meaning-making of a polyamorous identity is needed.

It is also important to readdress the age of participants, ranging from 20-40 years old.

Reeves (1999) summarized numerous theories of adult development including stage models

(Levinson, 1986), events and transitions (Schlossberg, 1987), and more inclusive theories

(Gilligan, 1982). Reeves highlights how each theory can be applied to understand some aspect of adult development for participants even if the original theory is based in populations that are

18-22 years of age. Reeves also hinted toward epistemic bricolage and the need to apply multiple frameworks to understand adult student development. Additional research on adult development is needed, particularly focused on minoritized individuals who are above 25 years of age.

There were no heterosexual-identifying individuals in this study. Polyamory among these participants was intimately connected to queer sexualities. As a result, research on those who have navigated polyamory outside of queer sexualities would be useful. For example, how does heterosexuality inform polyamorous meaning-making, articulation, and practice? Or, do heterosexual poly people negotiate their poly identities on campus differently from those with

127 multiple queer sexualities? Studies focused on these questions would contribute to a broader understanding of poly identities across sexualities.

Another area for further research is the overlap of polyamorous-identifying individuals attending postsecondary education who also identify with kink, and bondage, discipline, and sadomasochism or sadism and masochism (BDSM) communities (Easton & Hardy, 2009).

Scheff and Hammers (2011) discussed the discrimination faced by individuals who identify as kinksters and as polyamorous. The authors addressed the discrimination faced within both identities separately and the compounded discrimination for holding both identities in addition to other minoritized identities surrounding race, socioeconomic status, and gender. Their study summarized 36 other studies on kinksters and poly individuals. Many of the participants had postsecondary degrees but the studies did not necessarily ask about current attendance at postsecondary institutions.

A longitudinal study of how polyamorous individuals experience meaning-making would provide useful data on meaning-making over time, not just as captured through two interviews in a few months’ time span. A longitudinal study of polyamorous individuals could inform a theory of polyamorous identity development and whether this process is similar to the identity development of other queer identities.

Consistent with the work of Abes and Kasch (2007), self-authorship is still insufficient as a framework for understanding queer identities. The second wave theoretical nature (Jones

& Stewart, 2016) of self-authorship does not take into account the movement toward dismantling power structures. As per Cooper’s (2012) work, utilizing only self-authorship and more constructivist paradigms are far from taking an anti-oppressive approach to understanding queer identities like polyamory, and creating spaces that are physically and psychologically safe. I recommend research utilizing additional third wave theories and approaches to better

128 understand queer identities like polyamory and problematize the concept of identity development.

Conclusion

The findings of this study provide a meaningful understanding of how a group of polyamorous students in an institutional context understand their polyamorous identities. The experiences of these participants offer a challenge to institutions of postsecondary education: do better. Since data were collected, five participants have completed their degrees, one had graduated the semester prior to data collection, and one has withdrawn from their graduate program. In relation to their polyamorous identity, these students persisted in spite of their campus, not because of it. They had to find resources and support outside of their campus context in order to persist.

Despite having multiple barriers to completion, I am grateful that I persisted in repeated stages of hand coding, analyzing, and organizing data. Over 500 pages worth of data, leaves me with a great task ahead and the opportunity to continue to share the experiences of these participants with greater depth. I look forward to this work. As a result, epistemic bricolage was one of the most challenging aspects of this study. As I reflect on how this study has affected me, similar to Abes (2009), I am unsure if I can return to constructivist or interpretivist work without postmodern and critical paradigms being on the forefront of my mind. As a scholar-practitioner, I cannot un-see or unlearn the social injustices that are ever present on the individual, group, or systemic levels in society.

129

REFERENCES

Abes, E. S. (2009). Theoretical borderlands: Using multiple theoretical perspectives to

challenge inequitable power structures in student development theory. Journal of

College Student Development, 50(2), 141-156.

Abes, E. S., & Jones, S. R. (2004). Meaning-making capacity and the dynamics of lesbian

college students’ multiple dimensions of identity. Journal of College Student

Development, 45, 612-632.

Abes, E. S., Jones, S. R., & McEwen, M. K. (2007). Reconceptualizing the model of multiple

dimensions of identity: The role of meaning-making capacity in the construction of

multiple identities. Journal of College Student Development, 48, 1-22.

Abes, E. S., & Kasch, D. (2007) Using queer theory to explore lesbian college students’

multiple dimensions of identity. Journal of College Student Development, 48, 619-636.

About Bi Pride UK. (n.d.). Retrieved March 18, 2018, from https://biprideuk.org/about/

About student affairs and services. (n.d.). Retrieved February 28, 2015, from

http://www.iasasonline.org/about

Alan, M. (2006, December 2). How prevalent is polyamory? [Web log comment]. Retrieved

from http://polyinthemedia.blogspot.com/2006/12/how-prevalent-is-polyamory.html

Alan, M. (2012, October 1). Poly, privilege, race, and class: New voices [Web log comment].

Retrieved from http://polyinthemedia.blogspot.com/2012/10/poly-privilege-race-and-

class-some-new.html

American Association of Colleges & Universities. (2002). Greater expectations: A new vision

for learning as a nation goes to college. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from

http://greaterexpectations.org/

130

American Association of Colleges & Universities. (2005). Liberal education outcomes: A

preliminary report on student achievement in college. Retrieved from

http://www.aacu.org/advocacy/pdfs/LEAP_Report_FINAL.pdf

American Association of Colleges & Universities. (2007). College learning for the new global

century. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from

http://www.aacu.org/leap/documents/GlobalCentury_final.pdf

American Association of Colleges & Universities. (2008). Our students’ best work: A

framework for accountability worthy of our mission. Retrieved from

http://www.aacu.org/publications/pdfs/StudentsBestReport.

American Association of University Professors. (2015, 2014). Policy documents and reports

(Eleventh ed.). Baltimore, MD; Washington, D.C.: American Association of University

Professors. Retrieved from https://www.aaup.org/reports-

publications/publications/redbook

American College Personnel Association. (1996). The student learning imperative:

Implications for student affairs. Retrieved from

http://www.myacpa.org/sli_delete/sli.htm

American College Personnel Association. (2006). Statement of ethical principles and standards.

Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from

http://www.myacpa.org/au/documents/Ethical_Principles_Standards.pdf

American College Personnel Association & National Association of Student Personnel

Administrators. (1997). Principles of good practice for student affairs. Washington,

DC: Authors. Retrieved from http://www.myacpa.org/pgp/principle.htm

American Council on Education. (1937). The student personnel point of view. Washington,

DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.myacpa.org/pub/documents/1937.pdf

131

American Council on Education. (1949). The student personnel point of view. Washington, DC:

Author. Retrieved August 9, 2006, from

http://www.myacpa.org/pub/documents/1949.pdf

Anapol, D. M. (2010). Polyamory in the twenty-first century: Love and intimacy with multiple

partners. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Anzaldúa, G. (1999). Borderlands: La frontera (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Aunt Lute

Books.

Astin, A. W., Astin, H. S., & Lindholm, J. A. (2011). Cultivating the spirit: How college can

enhance students’ inner lives. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Auer, M. K., Fuss, J., Höhne, N., Stalla, G. K., & Sievers, C. (2014). Transgender transitioning

and change of self-reported sexual orientation. PloS One, 9(10), e110016.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0110016

Aviram, H. (2010). Geeks, goddesses, and green eggs: Political mobilization and the cultural

locus of the polyamorous community in the San Francisco Bay area. In M. Barker & D.

Landridge (Eds.), Understanding non-monogamies (pp. 87-93). New York, NY:

Routledge.

Barker, M., & Landridge, D. (2010). Introduction. In M. Barker & D. Landridge (Eds.),

Understanding non-monogamies (pp. 3-8). New York, NY: Routledge.

Baxter Magolda, M. B. (1992). Knowing and reasoning in college: Gender-related patterns in

students’ intellectual development. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Baxter Magolda, M. B. (1999). The evolution of epistemology: Refining contextual knowing at

twentysomething. Journal of College Student Development, 40, 333-344.

Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2001). Making their own way: Narratives for transforming higher

education to promote self-development. Sterling, VA: Stylus.

132

Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2008a). The evolution of self-authorship. (pp. 45-64). Dordrecht:

Springer Netherlands. doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-6596-5_3

Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2008b). Three elements of self-authorship. Journal of College Student

Development, 49(4), 269-284. doi:10.1353/csd.0.0016

Baxter Magolda, M. B., Creamer, E. G., Meszaros, P. S. 1., & Ebrary Education Subscription

Collection. (2010). Development and assessment of self-authorship: Exploring the

concept across cultures. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.

Baxter Magolda, M. B., & King P. M. (2004). Learning partnerships: Theory and models of

practice to educate for self-authorship. Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Bazarsky, D., Morrow, L. K., & Javier, G. C. (2015) Curricular and campus contexts.

in D. L. Stewart, K. A. Renn, & G. B. Brazelton (Eds.), Gender and sexual diversity in

U. S. higher education: contexts and opportunities for LGBTQ college students.

Retrieved from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com

Bell, D. A. Jr. (1995). Who's afraid of critical race theory? University of Illinois Law

Review, 1995 (4): 893.

Billinkoff, Z. (2005). Essential epidural: The dilemma of polyamory. BA honors thesis.

Brown University, 2005. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses A&I.

Blais, J. J., Craig, W. M., Pepler, D., & Connolly, J. (2008). Adolescents online: The

importance of internet activity choices to salient relationships. Journal of Youth

Adolescence, 37, 522–536. Retrieved from

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10964-007-9262-7

Blenky, M. F., Clinchy, B. M., Goldberger, N. R., & Tarule, J. M. (1986). Women’s ways of

knowing. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Blumstein, P., & Schwartz, P. (1983). American couples. New York, NY: Morrow.

133

Brewster, M. E., Soderstrom, B., Esposito, J., Breslow, A., Sawyer, J., Geiger, E., . . . Cheng, J.

(2017). A content analysis of scholarship on consensual nonmonogamies:

Methodological roadmaps, current themes, and directions for future research. Couple

and Family Psychology: Research and Practice, 6(1), 32-47. doi:10.1037/cfp0000074

Broido, E. M. (2012, Fall). Week 8: Case study. Qualitative problems and methods in higher

education. Lecture conducted from Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green,

OH.

Broido, E. M., & Manning, K. (2002). Philosophical foundations and current theoretical

perspectives in qualitative research. Journal of College Student Development, 43(4),

434.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and

design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1993). The ecology of cognitive development: Research models and

fugitive findings. In R. H. Wozniak & K. W. Fischer (Eds.), Development in context:

Acting and thinking in specific environments (pp. 3-44). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (2005). Making human beings human: Bioecological perspectives on

human development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Butler, J. (1989). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York, NY:

Routledge.

Campa, M. I. (2007). Three studies of romantic relationships. Retrieved from ProQuest

Dissertations and Theses. (AAT 304866742)

Carey, M. (2013, October 16). Is polyamory a choice? OUTWARD: Expanding the LBGTQ

Conversation [Web log comment]. Retrieved from

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2013/10/16/is_polyamory_a_choice.html

134

Case, K. (2013). Deconstructing privilege: Teaching and learning as allies in the classroom.

New York, NY: Routledge.

Cass, V. C. (1979). Homosexual identity formation: A theoretical model. Journal of

Homosexuality, 4, 219-235.

Chickering, A., & Reisser, L. (1993). Education and identity (2nd ed). San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.

Collins, P. H. (1990). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of

empowerment. New York, NY: Routledge.

Conrad, R. (2010). Against equality: Queer critiques of gay marriage. Lewiston, ME: Against

Equality Publishing Collective.

Cooper, D. (2013). Everyday utopias: The conceptual life of promising spaces. Durham, NC:

Duke University Press.

Cosenza, J. (2014). The crisis of collage: Disability, queerness, and chrononormativity.

Cultural Studies ↔ Critical Methodologies, 14(2), 155-163.

doi:10.1177/1532708613512272

Craig, S. & McInroy, L. (2014). You can form a part of yourself online: The influence of new

media on identity development and coming out for LGBTQ youth. Journal of Gay &

Lesbian Mental Health. 10.1080/19359705.2013.777007.

Crenshaw, K. (1988). Race, reform and retrenchment: Transformation and legitimation in anti-

discrimination law. Harvard Law Review. 101 (7): 1331–1387.

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five

approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cross, W. E. Jr., & Fhagen-Smith, P. (1996). Nigrescence and ego identity development:

Accounting for differential Black identity patterns. In P. B. Pedersen, J. G. Draguns, W.

135

J. Lonner, & J. E. Trimble (Eds.), Counseling across cultures (4th ed., pp. 108-123).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cross, W. E., Jr., Parham, T. A., & Helms, J. E. (1991). The stages of Black identity

development: Nigrescence models. In R. L. Jones (Ed.), Black psychology (pp. 319-

338). Berkeley, CA: Cobb & Henry.

Cunill, M. L. (2015). Keeping love “under cover”: Communication privacy management

strategies in lesbian relationships with varying levels of partner openness in the

southern United States. Retrieved from https://getd.libs.uga.edu/pdfs/cunill_mary-

lee_201508_phd.pdf

D’Augelli, A. R. (1994). Identity development and sexual orientation. Toward a model of

lesbian, gay, and bisexual identity 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.

Delgado, R. (Ed.). (1995). Critical race theory: The cutting edge. Philadelphia, PA: Temple

University Press.

Easton, D., & Hardy, J. W. (2009). The ethical slut: A practical guide to polyamory, open

relationships & other adventures. New York, NY: Celestial Arts.

Edgerton, R. (1997). White paper on higher education. Prepared for the Pew Charitable Trusts.

Washington, DC: Pew Forum on Undergraduate Learning.

Ellingson, L. L. (2011). Analysis and representation across the continuum. In N. K. Denzin &

Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (4th ed., pp. 595-610).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Enam, A. J. (2015). Tongues untied truth revealed: Body image, social media, identity

development, and meaning-making in overweight and obese black gay MSM (Order No.

136

3726329). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses A&I; ProQuest

Dissertations & Theses Global. (1725092983). Retrieved from

https://search.proquest.com/docview/1725092983?accountid=26417

Evans, N. J., Forney, D. S., Guido, F., Patton, L. D., Renn, K. A. (2010). Student development

in college: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Evans, N. J. & Reason, R. D. (2001). Guiding principles: A review and analysis of student

affairs philosophical statements. Journal of College Student Development, 42, 359-377.

Falcón, S. M. (2008). MESTIZA DOUBLE CONSCIOUSNESS: The voices of afro-Peruvian

women on gendered racism. Gender and Society, 22(5), 660-680.

doi:10.1177/0891243208321274

Ferdman, B. M., & Gallegos, P. V. (2007). Identity orientations of Latinos in the United States:

Implications for leaders and organizations. Business Journal of Hispanic Research,

1(1), 26-41. Retrieved from

http://bernardoferdman.org/Articles/GallegosFerdmanIdentityOrientationsBJHR2007.pd

Finn, M, & Malson, H. (2008). Speaking of home truth: (Re)productions of dyadic-containment

in non-monogamous relationships. British Journal of Social Psychology, 47, 519-533.

Foucault, M. (1990). The history of sexuality (First Vintage books ed.). New York, NY:

Vintage Books.

Friederichs, K. (1958). A definition of ecology and some thoughts about basic concepts.

Ecology, 39(1), 154-159. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1929981

Fuhrmann, B. S. (1997). Philosophies and aims. In J. G. Gaff, J. L. Ratcliff & Associates,

Handbook of the undergraduate curriculum: a comprehensive guide to purposes,

structures, practices, and change (pp. 86-99). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

137

Galupo, M. P., Davis, K. S., Grynkiewicz, A. L., & Mitchell, R. C. (2014). Conceptualization

of sexual orientation identity among sexual minorities: Patterns across sexual and

gender identity. Journal of Bisexuality, 14(3-4), 433-456.

doi:10.1080/15299716.2014.933466

Gamson, J. (2000). Sexualities, Queer Theory, and Qualitative Research. In N. K. Denzin & Y.

S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (2nd ed. pp. 347-365). Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Gedro, J. (2017). Identity, meaning, and subjectivity in career development (1st 2017 ed.). DE:

Palgrave Macmillan.

Gilligan, C. (1977). In a different voice: Women’s conceptions of self and of morality. Harvard

Educational Review, 47, 481-517.

Gray, M. L. (2009). Negotiating identities/queering desires: Coming out online and the

remediation of the coming-out story. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication,

14, 1162–1189.

Haley, K., Jaeger, A. J., & Levin, J. S. (2014). The influence of cultural social identity on

graduate student career choice. Journal of College Student Development, 55(2), 101-

119. doi:10.1353/csd.2014.0017

Helms, J. E. (1990). Toward a model of White racial identity development. In Black and White

racial identity: Theory, research and practice (pp. 49-66). New York, NY: Greenwood

Press. hooks, b. (1984). Feminism: A movement to end sexist oppression. In C. Mccann & S-K. K

(Eds.) (2009), Feminist theory reader: Local and global perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 51-

57). New York, NY: Routledge.

138

Horse, P. G. (2001). Reflections on American Indian Identity. In C. L. Wijeyesinghe and B. W.

Jackson III (eds.), New perspectives on racial identity development: A Theoretical and

practical anthology. New York, NY: University Press.

Horowitz, J. L., & Newcomb, M. D. (2002). A multidimensional approach to homosexual

identity. Journal of Homosexuality, 42(2), 1-19. doi:10.1300/J082v42n02_

Johnson, A. G. (2006). Privilege, power, and difference (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw Hill.

Jones, S. R., & Abes, E. S. (2013). Identity development of college students: Advancing

frameworks for multiple dimensions of identity. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Jones, S. R., & Stewart, D.-L. (2016). Evolution of student development theory. In E. S. Abes

(Ed.), Diverse and critical perspectives on student development theory (pp. 17-28). New

Directions for Student Services Monograph Series. San Francisco, CA: Wiley.

doi:10.1002/ss.20172

Jones S. R., Torres, V., & Arminio, J. (2006). Negotiating the complexities of qualitative

research in higher education: Fundamental elements and issues. New York, NY:

Routledge.

Jones S. R., Torres, V., & Arminio, J. (2014). Negotiating the complexities of qualitative

research in higher education: Fundamental elements and issues (2nd ed.). New York,

NY: Routledge

Karnaze, M. (2009, February 14). Why neither monogamy nor polyamory is more natural.

MindfulConstruct: Your life is your construct [Web log comment]. Retrieved from

http://mindfulconstruct.com/2009/02/14/why-neither-monogamy-nor-polyamory-are-

more-natural/

Kreps, B. (1972). Radical Feminism 1. In C. Mccann & S-k. K (Eds.) (2009), Feminist theory

reader: Local and global perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 46-50). New York, NY: Routledge.

139

Lather, P. (2006). Paradigm proliferation as a good thing to think with: Teaching research in

education as a wild profession. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in

Education, 19(1), 35-57. Doi:10.1080/0951839.5004501

Lester, D., Hvezda, J., Sullivan, S., & Plourde, R. (1983). Maslow's hierarchy of needs and

psychological health. The Journal of General Psychology, 109(1), 83-85.

doi:10.1080/00221309.1983.9711513

Levinson, D. J. (1986). A conception of adult development. American Psychologist, 41(1), 3-

13. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.41.1.3

Lewin, K. (1936). Principles of topological psychology. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

LGBT Resource Center. (n.d.). Retrieved February 26, 2015, from http://lgbt.syr.edu/

Lorde, A. (1984). Age, race, class and sex: Women redefining difference. Sister outsider:

Essays and speeches. Freedom, CA: Crossing Press.

Manley, M. H., Diamond, L. M., & van Anders, S. M. (2015). Polyamory, monoamory, and

sexual fluidity: A longitudinal study of identity and sexual trajectories. Psychology of

Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 2(2), 168-180. doi:10.1037/sgd0000098

Matsuda, M. (1987). Looking to the bottom: Critical legal studies and reparations. Harvard

Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, 22(2): 323.

McGuire, K. M., Berhanu, J., Davis, C. H. F., & Harper, S. R. (2014). In search of progressive

black masculinities: Critical self-reflections on gender identity development among

black undergraduate men. Men and Masculinities, 17(3), 253-277.

doi:10.1177/1097184X13514055

McKenna-Buchanan, T. (2014). Communicating "out" at work: Exploring co-cultural theory in

the context of organizational socialization (Order No. 10170080). Available from

ProQuest Dissertations & Theses A&I; ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.

140

(1840157005). Retrieved from

https://search.proquest.com/docview/1840157005?accountid=26417

Meier, C. R. (2015). Third culture kids and social media: Identity development and transition

in the 21st century (Order No. 3703137). Available from ProQuest Dissertations &

Theses A&I; ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (1687190092). Retrieved from

https://search.proquest.com/docview/1687190092?accountid=26417

Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Mint, P. (2010). The power mechanisms of jealousy. In M. Barker & D. Landridge (Eds.),

Understanding non-monogamies (pp. 201-206). New York, NY: Routledge.

Montenegro, J. M. (2010). ‘Many partners, many friends’: Gay and bisexual Mormon men’s

views of non-monogamous relationships. In M. Barker & D. Landridge (Eds.),

Understanding non-monogamies (pp. 134-41). New York, NY: Routledge.

Morrow, S. L. (2005). Quality and trustworthiness in qualitative research in counseling

psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(2), 250-260.

Nash, R. J. (2001). Religious pluralism in the academy: Opening the dialogue. New York, NY:

Peter Lang.

National Association of Student Personnel Administrators. Standards of professional practice.

(1990). Washington, DC: Authors. Retrieved from

http://www.naspa.org/about/standards.cfm

National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education. (2008). Measuring up 2008: The Ohio

state report card on higher education. San Jose, CA: Author. Retrieved from

http://measuringup2008.highereducation.org

141

Nicolazzo, Z. (2017). Trans* in college: Transgender students’ strategies for navigating

campus life and the institutional politics of inclusion. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.

Omi, M., & Winant, H. (1994). Racial formation in the United States from the 1960s to the

1990s. New York, NY: Routledge.

Orbe, M. P. (1998). Constructing co-cultural theory: An explication of culture, power, and

communication. New York, NY: Sage.

Orbe, M. P., & Spellers, R. E. (2005). From the margins to the center: Utilizing co-cultural

theory in diverse contexts. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Theorizing about intercultural

communication (pp. 173–192). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Page, E. H., (2004). Mental health services experiences of bisexual women and bisexual men:

An empirical study. The Journal of Bisexuality, 3(3/4), 137-160.

Parker, C. (1977). On modeling reality. Journal of College Student Personnel, 18, 419-425.

Parks, S. D. (2000). Big questions, worthy dreams: Mentoring emerging adults in their search

for meaning, purpose, and faith. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: A third decade of

research, (Vol. 2). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Patton, L. D. (Ed.). (2011). Culture centers in higher education: perspectives on identity,

theory, and practice. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com

Patton, L. D., Renn, K. A., Guido-DiBrito, F., Quaye, S. J., & Ebooks Corporation. (2016).

Student development in college: Theory, research, and practice (Third ed.). San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass & Pfeiffer. Retrieved from

https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/unco/reader.action?docID=4389946&query=

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.

142

Perry, W. G. Jr. (1981). Cognitive and ethical growth: The making of meaning. In A.W.

Chickering & Associates (Eds.), The modern American college (pp.76-116). San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Rambukkana, N. P. (2004). Uncomfortable bridges: The bisexual politics of outing polyamory.

Journal of Bisexuality, 4(3-4), 141-154. doi:10.1300/J159v04n03_11

Rankin, S. R. (2005). Campus climates for sexual minorities. In R. L. Sanlo (Ed.), Services

Special Issue: Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation: Research, Policy, and Personal

(New Directions for Student Services, no. 111, pp. 17–24). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley

Periodicals, Inc.

Ravenscroft, A. D. (2004). Polyamory: Roadmaps for the clueless & hopeful. Santa Fe, NM:

Crossquarter Publishing Group.

Reeves, P. M. (1999). Psychological development: Becoming a person. New Directions for

Adult and Continuing Education, (84), 19-27. doi:10.1002/ace.8403

Renn, K. A. (2003). Understanding the identities of mixed-race college students through a

developmental ecology lens. Journal of College Student Development, 44(3), 383-403.

doi:10.1353/csd.2003.0032

Renn K. A. & Arnold K. D. (2003). Reconceptualizing research on college student peer culture.

Journal of Higher Education, 74.

Renn K. A. & Reason, R. D. (2013). College students in the United States: Characteristics,

experiences, and outcomes. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. (Chapter 6: Approaches to

college student development)

Ritchie, A. (2010). Discursive constructions of polyamory in mono-normative media culture. In

M. Barker & D. Landridge (Eds.), Understanding non-monogamies (pp. 46-54). New

York, NY: Routledge.

143

Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. New York, NY: Oxford

University Press.

Rosenberg, R. (2017). The whiteness of gay urban belonging: Criminalizing LGBTQ youth of

color in queer spaces of care. Urban Geography, 38(1), 137-148.

doi:10.1080/02723638.2016.1239498

Rubin, J. D., Moors, A. C., Matsick, J. L., Ziegler, A., & Conley, T. D. (2014). On the margins:

Considering diversity among consensually non-monogamous relationships. Journal für

Psychologie, 22, 1–23.

Sanford, N. (1967). Where colleges fail: The study of the student as a person. San Francisco,

CA: Jossey-Bass.

Schlossberg, N. K. (1984). Counseling adults in transition: Linking practice with theory. New

York, NY: Springer.

Schreiber, B. (2014). Key challenges facing student affairs: An international perspective. In M.

Speckman & M. Mandew (Eds.), Perspectives on student Affairs in South Africa (pp. 9-

26). Somerset West, South Africa: African Minds.

Sedgwick E. (1990). The epistemology of the closet. Berkeley, CA: University of California

Press.

Shannon, D., & Willis, A. (2010) Theoretical polyamory: Some thoughts on loving, thinking,

and queering anarchism. Sexualities, 13(4), 433-443. doi:10.1177/1363460710370655

Sheff, E. (2014). The polyamorists next door: inside multiple-partner relationships and

families. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com

Sheff, E., & Hammers, C. (2011). The privilege of perversities: Race, class and education

among polyamorists and kinksters. Psychology & Sexuality, 2(3), 198-223.

doi:10.1080/19419899.2010.537674

144

Sheff, E., & Tesene, M. M. (2015). Consensual non-monogamies in industrialized nations. In J.

DeLamater & R. F. Plante (Eds.), Handbook of the sociology of sexualities (pp. 223–

241). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International.

http://dx.doi.org.unco.idm.oclc.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17341-2_13

Spade, D. (2015). Normal life: Administrative violence, critical trans politics, and the limits of

law: Administrative violence, critical trans politics, and the limits of law (Rev. ed.).

Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Stake, R. E. (2000). Case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of

qualitative research (2nd ed.; pp. 435-454). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Stewart, D.-L. (2014). Know your role: Black college students, racial identity, and

performance. Higher Education and Student Affairs Faculty Publications. 7. Retrieved

from https://scholarworks.bgsu.edu/hied_pub/7

Stewart, D-L., Renn, K. A., & Brazelton, G. B. (Eds.). (2015). Gender and sexual diversity in

U.S. higher education: Contexts and opportunities for LGBTQ college students. New

Directions for Student Services, no. 152. San Francisco, CA: Wiley.

Strange, C., & Banning, J. (2001). Educating by design: Creating campus learning

environments that work. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

Strange, C. C., & King, P. M. (1990). The Professional practice of student development. In D.

Creamer & Associates, College Student development: Theory and practice for the 1990s

(pp. 9‐24). Alexandria, VA: ACPA Media.

Sullivan, N. (2003). A critical introduction to queer theory. New York, NY: New York

University Press.

Tierney, W. G. (1993). Building communities of difference: Higher education in the 21st

century. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.

145

Tierney, W. G., & Rhoads, R. A. (1993). Postmodernism and critical theory in higher

education: Implications for research and practice. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher

education: Handbook of theory and research, (Vol. 9, pp. 308-343). New York, NY:

Agathon Press.

Trahan, H. (2015). Opening love: Intentional relationships & the evolution of consciousness.

Croydon, UK: Changemakers Books.

Warner, M. (1999). The trouble with normal: Sex, politics, and the ethics of queer life.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Weber, L. (1998). A conceptual framework for understanding race, class, gender, and sexuality.

Psychology of Women Quarterly, 22, 13-22. Retrieved from https://onlinelibrary-wiley-

com.ezproxy.bgsu.edu:9443/doi/full/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1998.tb00139.x

Weitzman, G. (2006). Therapy with clients who are bisexual and polyamorous. Journal of

bisexuality, 6(1/2), 137-164.

White, E. F. (2001). Dark continent of our bodies: Black feminism and the politics of

respectability. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

Williams, P. J. (1991). The alchemy of race and rights: Diary of a law professor. Cambridge,

MA: Harvard University Press.

Yosso, T. J. (2006). Critical race counterstories along the Chicana/Chicano educational

pipeline. Teaching/Learning Social Justice. New York, NY: Routledge.

Zell, M. G. (1990). A Bouquet of Lovers. Green Egg, (Vol. 23) 89. Retrieved from

https://web.archive.org/web/20030508180124/http://www.lair.org/writings/polyamory/b

ouquet.html

146

APPENDIX A: HUMAN SUBJECTS REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL LETTER

147

APPENDIX B: PRELIMINARY RECRUITMENT EMAIL/POST

Hello, If you happen to be a college student (or happen to know a student) who identifies as poly or practices a polyamorous relationship structure, I could use your help! I’m conducting my dissertation study on how polyamorous college students make meaning of their gender and polyamorous identities and I’m seeking students to interview. This is an exciting part of my grad school journey at Bowling Green State University and I am really looking forward to learning about the experiences of polyamorous students at your institution. The time commitment will be about 3-5 hours depending on the student. There would be two individual interviews and email exchanges with me to make sure I capture everyone’s experiences accurately and that my interpretations of those experiences are fair. There are no anticipated risks to participating in this study and I will keep your identity confidential in all reports from this research. Students can choose to leave the study at any time. If you happen to be an student who is poly or happen to know one, please feel free to private message me, email me: [email protected], or post here with an email address if you’d like to learn more about my research project!

Thanks for reading!

~Liane

Liane D. Ortis Doctoral Candidate Higher Education Administration Bowling Green State University 330 Education Building Bowling Green, OH 43403

148

APPENDIX C: LETTER OF INTEREST

Letter of Invitation to Participate in Study Dear Student,

I am conducting a qualitative research study about how polyamorous students make meaning of their poly and gender identities within the university environment at your institution. My research on polyamorous students is to fulfill the dissertation requirement of the Higher Education Administration doctoral program at Bowling Green State University (BGSU). Your experiences as a poly-identifying student in the university context will aid in our understanding of how poly students articulate who they are and how they experience the university environment, and can fill an important gap in the literature on polyamorous college students. As such, I am writing to invite you to participate in this study.

There are a few expectations for participation in this study: return the brief completed participant questionnaire, participate in two one-on-one interviews with me and email correspondence with me throughout the study. The total time expected on your part for your participation in this study will be approximately 3-5 hours over the next 4-5 months. This includes the brief participant questionnaire, interviews, and any email exchanges. The timeframe of the study will be between June 2014 and October 2014.

There are a few eligibility criteria required for this study; you must: 1. be 18 years or older, AND 2. be a full-time graduate or undergraduate student enrolled at The Ohio State University carrying a full credit load (6+ graduate, 12+ undergraduate) 3. identify as polyamorous

If you have any questions or comments about this study, you may contact me, Liane Ortis, at 347-552-2850 or [email protected] or Dr. Dafina-Lazarus Stewart, my dissertation advisor, at 419-372-7382 or [email protected]. You may also contact the Chair, Human Subjects Review Board, Bowling Green State University, (419) 372-7716 ([email protected]), for questions about participant rights.

I hope you will consider participating in this important research study as it stands to provide insights into polyamorous student experiences that can serve practitioners and academicians working in postsecondary education.If you meet the criteria above and are willing to participate in this study, please complete and return the brief participant questionnaire (attached) and email it to me at [email protected].

Thank you for your consideration,

Liane D. Ortis Doctoral Candidate, Higher Education Administration Bowling Green State University Phone: 347-552-2850 Email: [email protected] 149

APPENDIX D: PARTICIPANT QUESTIONNAIRE

Participant Questionnaire To be considered for this research study, please complete and return this brief form by emailing to [email protected] by [DATE]. If you have any questions about the form or this study, please contact Liane Ortis at [email protected] or 347-552-2850. Please be assured that your information is confidential and accessible only to me and the chair of my dissertation committee, Dr.Dafina-Lazarus Stewart, Associate Professor, Department of Higher Education and Student Affairs.

Contact Information Name: ______Email: ______Cell Phone: ______

Participant Demographic Information What is your age? What is your gender? What is your race/ethnicity? What is your sexuality? What is your religious/spiritual/worldview identity? Do you identify as having a disability? If yes, please list if comfortable sharing. What year are you in school? What are your major and minor? What is your intended career? Where were you born? What is your citizenship status? Where did you grow up? Is there anything else about your identity you’d like to share?

Thank you for your willingness to participate in this important research study. Please return this form to Liane Ortis at [email protected] by [DATE]. Liane D. Ortis Doctoral Candidate Higher Education Administration Bowling Green State University 330 Education Building Bowling Green, OH 43403 150

APPENDIX E: INFORMED CONSENT

151

152

APPENDIX F: INTERVIEW PROTOCOLS

INTERVIEW PROTOCOL #1

How did/do you know you are poly? When did you know this? What do you believe about monogamy and polyamory? How did you come to hold these beliefs?

Have you had to overcome any barriers to accept your identity? If so, what were they?

Please describe what it means to you to be polyamorous. How did you come to understand polyamory in this way?

Who/What has influenced the development of your poly identity (peers, media, spiritual experiences, romantic experiences, sexual experiences, social norms, etc.)?

What challenges have you faced coming out as poly?

How have you navigated societal expectations and values?

How have your relationships changed as you’ve become aware of your poly identity?

How do your other social identities impact your poly identity?

INTERVIEW PROTOCOL #2

How have your classes, the programming and support services at the university, and university policies) influenced the development of your poly identity? Are there any people, organizations, or experiences relevant to campus that have influenced the development of your poly identity?

Who are you out to as poly on campus? In what circumstances do you share your poly identity? (class, events, meetings, groups) Are there spaces or places you feel it is easier or harder to be out as poly?

How are you supported in your polyamorous identity on campus? (by peers, faculty, staff, the institution as a whole?)

What if anything would you change about this university to make it easier for you to be a poly person on this campus?

Tell me more about your experiences as a poly person on campus.

Have you had to overcome any obstacles on campus as a poly person? If yes, please explain. How have you responded to conflict or questioning regarding your identity?

What else about your poly identity, your experiences as a student, or anything I haven’t asked you yet would you like to share?

153

APPENDIX G: FOLLOW UP EMAIL

Dear Participant!

Thank you again for taking the time to meet with me for your interview and for participating in my study. Something I will do after each interview is ask a few brief questions to allow you to share any additional thoughts in written form:

Do you have any additional thoughts you’d like to share in response to our first interview?

Anything you’d like to add or say before we meet again tomorrow?

It is also okay if you have no additions.

Thank you again for your time,

~Liane

Liane D. Ortis Doctoral Candidate, Higher Education Administration Bowling Green State University Phone: 347-552-2850 Email: [email protected] 154

APPENDIX H: TRANSCRIPT VERIFICATION

Dear Participant,

Thank you again for participating in my study. As per the recruitment email, verifying your transcribed interviews is the last step. Attached you will find both of your transcripts. The purpose of reviewing your transcripts is to confirm that you feel it is an accurate representation of what you shared at the time and that nothing was mistyped or misrepresented. Pardon any small typos. This is not required but would be greatly appreciated. Please let me know if you have any questions.

Thank you for your time and I sincerely hope that you are well,

~Liane

Liane D. Ortis Doctoral Candidate, Higher Education Administration Bowling Green State University Phone: 347-552-2850 Email: [email protected]