ArticlePDF Available

Australian psychologists’ understandings in relation to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer/questioning, and intersex (LGBTQI) high school students’ experience of bullying, ‘inclusive’ service delivery, and the impact of ‘heteronormativity’

December 2020

Authors:

Charles Sturt University

Ten percent of high school students identify as LGBTQI and often experience very high rates of sexual/gender diversity bullying, negatively impacting their academic engagement and mental health outcomes. Evidence suggests these bullying rates are increasing worldwide, with the Australian experience exacerbated by recent Marriage Equality Plebiscite backlash, and regressive educational bullying intervention policy changes. In response to increased calls for psychological service support, the APS and industry experts have recommended psychologists develop their reflexivity regarding LGBTQI clients; practice inclusively; and situate LGBTQI youth’s experience within the wider social context. Psychologists’ understandings regarding these issues and recommendations are currently untapped. To contribute to the knowledge base, the understandings of 10 psychologists currently working with adolescents were explored, via semi-structured interviews utilising Foucauldian Discourse Analysis. Findings revealed Australian-trained psychologists lack exposure to LGBTQI inclusive educational discourses, hampering capacity to understand students’ experience, and practice inclusively. Participants were challenged to identify and theoretically explain structural drivers of LGBTQI identity based discrimination, such as heteronormativity, leaving them unable to situate students’ experience within the wider social context. Compounding these incapacities, findings suggested psychologists are inadequately trained in reflexive practice in ways that engage them on a personal, theoretical, and professional level.

Content uploaded by Lester Watson

Content may be subject to copyright.

The Australian Community Psychologist Volume 30 No 2

et al., 2014). In 2017, reports of physical and

verbal assaults from LGBTQI youth doubled,

driven by backlash from the Australian

Marriage Equality Postal Survey and the

damaging nature of the ‘no’ campaign (Karp,

2017).

Preceding this event was the shutting

down of Safe Schools Coalition Australia

(SSCA), creator of the ‘Safe Schools’ (SS)

evidence-based inclusive bullying program

aiming to reduce homophobic, transphobic

and intersex prejudice through representation

and support for diversity (SSCA, n.d.).

Initiated in 2010, SS enjoyed bipartisan

political support (Smith et al., 2014). Due to

its success, it expanded nationally on a

voluntary opt-in basis with participation from

schools increasing robustly to 545 by 2016

(Davey, 2016). However, in 2015 some

conservative MPs, in conjunction with the

Australian Christian Lobby Group,

Australian Psychologists’ Understandings in Relation to Lesbian, Gay,

Bisexual, Transgender, Queer/Questioning, and Intersex (LGBTQI) High

School Students’ Experience of Bullying, ‘Inclusive’ Service Delivery, and the

Impact of ‘Heteronormativity’

Zare Edwards

Lester Watson

Charles Sturt University

Ten percent of high school students identify as LGBTQI and often experience very high

rates of sexual/gender diversity bullying, negatively impacting their academic engagement

and mental health outcomes. Evidence suggests these bullying rates are increasing

worldwide, with the Australian experience exacerbated by recent Marriage Equality

Plebiscite backlash, and regressive educational bullying intervention policy changes. In

response to increased calls for psychological service support, the APS and industry

experts have recommended psychologists develop their reflexivity regarding LGBTQI

clients; practice inclusively; and situate LGBTQI youth’s experience within the wider

social context. Psychologists’ understandings regarding these issues and

recommendations are currently untapped. To contribute to the knowledge base, the

understandings of 10 psychologists currently working with adolescents were explored, via

semi-structured interviews utilising Foucauldian Discourse Analysis. Findings revealed

Australian-trained psychologists lack exposure to LGBTQI inclusive educational

discourses, hampering capacity to understand students’ experience, and practice

inclusively. Participants were challenged to identify and theoretically explain structural

drivers of LGBTQI identity based discrimination, such as heteronormativity, leaving them

unable to situate students’ experience within the wider social context. Compounding these

incapacities, findings suggested psychologists are inadequately trained in reflexive

practice in ways that engage them on a personal, theoretical, and professional level.

LGBTQI youth are significantly over-

represented in mental health diagnoses,

substance abuse, self-harm and suicide

(Semp & Read, 2015). International

(Espelage & Swearer-Napolitano, 2008) and

national (Smith et al., 2014) research reveals

the 10% of high school students identifying

as LGBTQI (Hillier et al., 2010) experience

very high rates of bullying due to gender/

sexual diversity (Ullman, 2016). These rates

are currently increasing (Jones & Lasser,

2017), with high school being cited as the

primary, most harrowing site for

discrimination and harassment (Smith et al.,

2014).

In school settings more than two thirds

of this group report enduring verbal abuse,

and more than a fifth, physical abuse (Jones

& Lasser, 2017). A recent Australian survey

found 90% exposed to physical abuse at

school considered suicide in response (Smith

The Australian Community Psychologist Volume 30 No 2

canvassed the Australian Government to

order a review of SSCA and the SS program

(McGaw, 2015).

The resultant review recommended no

major changes, finding the SS program to

contain suitable content, language, and

consistency with SSCA aims and national

curriculum (Louden, 2016). However, the

SSCA was closed down, and educational

policy was reverted to recommend general,

non- specific bullying programs (Kang,

2017). These traditionally employed

interventions are criticised for insufficiently

considering LGBTQI students’ experience

(Clarke, Ellis, Peel, & Riggs, 2012),

promoting heteronormative individualising

discourses that reduce complex gender/

sexual power relations to a binary

conceptualisation of a problematic bully in

relation to a weaker victim (Marston, 2015).

LGBTQI youth report challenges

accessing mental health services (Semp &

Read, 2015). In a recent Australian survey

up to 50% of LGBTQI youth claim

interaction with psychologists was negative.

Twenty five per cent stated they would avoid

accessing services due to expectation of

ignorance around issues important to them

(Smith et al., 2014). Reported barriers

include fear of discrimination, rejection,

breaches of confidentiality (Davies, 2015),

pivotal topics such as sexual orientation not

being addressed, and negative reaction in

response to sexual orientation disclosure

(Semp & Read, 2015).

Scholars suggest heteronormativity –

the assumption that heterosexuality,

predicated on the ‘conventional’ gender

binary, is the only normal and ‘natural’

expression of sexuality – underlies the

barriers to addressing the issues important to

LGBTQI youth (Walton, 2011). This article

reports on a research project that examined

the perceptions of psychologists’ working

with adolescents regarding their

understandings about LGBTQI students’

experience of bullying in high school, what

‘inclusive’ service delivery means, and the

impact of heteronormativity.

Australian Psychological Society Stance

on LGBTQI Issues

As a profession, psychology has a long

history of damaging pathologising

conceptions about, and treatment of,

LGBTQI people. Psychological theories,

research, and teaching remain

overwhelmingly characterised by

heteronormative assumptions (Neville &

Henrickson, 2005) in which heterosexuality

is constantly presented as the norm, failing to

acknowledge and legitimise diversity (Clarke

et al., 2012).

Developmental factors leave

adolescents highly susceptible to social

exclusion behaviour and attitudes (Horn,

2007). They grapple with sexuality and

gender identity issues at a time of peak

negative peer influence, confusion, and

vulnerability to negative appraisal of

themselves (Brechwald & Pristein, 2011).

Consequently, those who access

psychologists’ services require practitioners

capable of highly informed supportive

exploration of relevant sexual, gender, and

identity issues (National LGBTI Health

Alliance, 2014).

Evidence suggests despite psychology

governing bodies’ policy statements in

support of inclusivity, current (mostly well-

intentioned) professionals reflect the wider

heteronormative culture and are

consequently too ill-informed to situate

LGBTQI youth’s experience within it, and

work effectively with them (Semp & Read,

2015). For this reason, the National LGBTI

Health Alliance (2014) espouses support

must be explicit in every interaction, from

advertising, to intake, to treatment methods.

However, to date, there is relatively little

scholarship exploring service provision for

LGBTQI youth (Semp & Read, 2015), with

the Australian Psychological Society (APS,

2017) acknowledging the need to redress the

serious lack of extant literature.

Significantly, adolescents are most

frequently enrolled in psychological services

by their parents in relation to depression,

anxiety and bullying (Rickwood, Deane, &

Wilson, 2007), so it is unlikely they have the

opportunity to determine if services will be

LGBTQI youth, bullying, inclusivity: Psychologists’ views

The Australian Community Psychologist Volume 30 No 2

receptive to LGBTQI issues. It is also

overwhelmingly common for LGBTQI

adolescents to be grappling with identity

issues without parental knowledge (National

LGBTI Health Alliance, 2014). LGBTQI

youth claim they need explicit recognition of

diversity in mental health settings to feel

comfortable exploring their issues (Semp &

Read, 2015), highlighting the need for all

psychologists to be culturally and clinically

competent for working with this

marginalised group (Rickwood et al., 2007).

The APS (2017) recognises inclusive

service delivery, characterised by LGBTQI

affirmative policies, processes and practices,

is paramount for successfully and effectively

engaging LGBTQI youth. Their ‘Ethical

Guidelines on working with Sex and/or

Gender Diverse Clients’ require

psychologists to understand the

consequences of unfair discrimination and

stereotyping (APS, 2016). Accordingly, the

APS (n.d.) espouses that practitioners need to

practice organisational, systemic, and social

change in support of LGBTQI clients. They

also outline in their ‘Tips for psychologists

and others working with LGBTQI+ students

and communities’ (2017), that psychologists

need to understand the impact of

marginalisation and victimisation on

LGBTQI youth, and develop reflective

practice around working with these clients.

However, there is a lack of literature

regarding psychologists’ understandings of

what this means, how they conceptualise

achieving it, or how they practice it (Semp &

Read, 2017). Scholars have suggested that to

be truly effective in supporting LGBTQI

students facing gender/sexuality based

bullying (Preston, 2014), psychologists may

need the ability to identify and critique the

heteronormative social systems of power that

seemingly invisibly drive and enforce these

phenomena (Ellis, 2007).

Research Aims

Accordingly, the research questions

aimed to examine and understand: how

psychologists discursively construct/describe

the position of LGBTQI youth in relation to

school bullying; their conceptualisation of

‘inclusive’ service delivery; and their

recognition of heteronormativity and the

systems of power that substrate it (Frohard-

Dourlent, 2016). The research questions, and

their inherent analysis of heteronormativity,

rest on concepts such as power, discourse,

and discursive practices (Walton, 2011). To

describe and analyse these in greater detail,

the theoretical lens utilised, a Foucauldian

approach informed by a Queer Theory (QT)

epistemology, is briefly outlined below.

Theoretical Lens: A Foucauldian

Approach

Foucault considered power and

knowledge to be inextricably intertwined

(Mansfield, 2000). He suggested power

relations, and their sanctioned forms of

knowledge ‘naturalise’ certain identities,

while framing others as ‘deviant’, or fail to

represent them at all. These ‘understandings’

are deployed via discourses and discursive

practices (Willig, 2013) through institutions

such as schools and universities (Downing,

2008).

Discourse is defined as the exercise of

meaning making and prioritising of certain

forms of knowledge and identity through

shared communications (Stainton- Rogers,

2003) such as language, text, policy,

practices (Ramazanoglu, 1993), but also

through silences, and the absence of

representation (Walton, 2011). These

discourses shape collective and individual

thought, identity and behaviour, creating

‘subject positions’, as individuals (Spargo,

1999), as students, and as emerging

psychologists (Allen, 2010). Foucault

suggested our subject positions invisibly

influence what actions and behaviours we

can conceptualise and express for ourselves,

and others, personally and professionally

(Parker, 1992). Discursive practices are the

behaviours and actions that transfer meaning

and reflect systems of thought and power

(Springer & Clinton, 2015). They refer to the

systemised bodies of knowledge, intertwined

with and created by discourse, that are

steeped in spoken and unspoken codes,

conditions and rules (Young, 1981).

Foucault (1977) believed transmission

of power and knowledge via dispersed

discourses, such as the framing of sexuality/

LGBTQI youth, bullying, inclusivity: Psychologists’ views

The Australian Community Psychologist Volume 30 No 2

gender/identity, and discursive practices (e.g.

bullying), sculpt our individual subjectivities

(thoughts, feelings, preferences) (Mansfield,

2000). Foucault (1970) termed the invisible

process, transmission, and understandings

deployed via discourse and discursive

practices, the ‘positive unconscious of

knowledge’. Foucault suggested these levels

of knowledge, which elude consciousness

(Springer & Clinton, 2015), are fundamental

to the embedding of discourses and

discursive practices, such as

heteronormativity, in our social

understandings, and to the formation of our

own identities, and the formation of our

conceptions of others identities

(subjectivities) (Foucault, 1970). While

Foucault theorised extensively on these

conceptions regarding sexuality, he was

criticised for comparative silence regarding

‘gender’ (McLaughlin, 2003). Queer theory

addresses this conceptual gap.

Queer Theory

QT extends Foucault’s understandings

regarding power, knowledge, discourse,

discursive practices (Minton, 1997) to place

equal emphasis on critiquing

conceptualisations of both sexuality and

gender. Butler (1990) has highlighted the

importance of examining ‘performativity’,

which refers to stylised repetitions of

gestures, movements, embodiments, and

behavioural patterns that are socially

constructed, sanctioned, and regulated.

QT suggests we are ‘interpreted’

through these, with roles and meanings

ascribed to us (Preston, 2014). The

‘interpretation’ reflects and upholds ‘normal,

healthy’ interior subjectivities organised

around ‘acceptable’ expressions of gendered

and sexual being (Mansfield, 2000).

‘Norming’ and ‘naturalisation’ of these

categories occurs invisibly via ‘positive

unconscious of knowledge’ transmission

(Springer & Clinton, 2015). It is this

performativity that is believed to substrate

‘heteronormativity’ (Butler, 1990).

QT suggests heteronormativity is

embedded in all social structures (Ansara &

Hegarty, 2011), routines and circumstances

of everyday life (Frohard-Dourlent, 2016),

naturalising and privileging heterosexist

identity (Lorenzetti, Wells, Logie, &

Callaghan, 2017). In school settings it occurs

invisibly via constructed traditions, use of

facilities, classroom habits, administrative

practices, curriculum content, and ‘normal,

sanctioned’ student-teacher, student-student

interactions (Preston, 2014). These same

considerations can be transferred to

psychologists’ rooms (Walton, 2011). They

produce and reproduce, affirm and reject,

categories of gender and sexual identity

(Allen, 2010).

Application of Theory

A QT informed Foucauldian approach

prioritises understanding how discourses

about identities are culturally and historically

situated (Parker, 1992). The politically

driven shutting down of SSCA and SS could

be seen as a re-assertion of heteronormative

power relations (Pratt, 2011), serving to re-

legitimate certain forms of knowledge

regarding sexual and gender identities

(Rhodes, 2015). From this perspective,

bullying experienced by LGBTQI students

can be understood as the heteronormative

social system of power at work, targeting

‘non-conforming’ individuals (Payne, Smith,

& Goble, 2014). The individualising

discourse about bullying underpinning

current educational policy and practice also

informs psychologists’ practice (Payne et al.,

2014). Do psychologists, and the institutions

that train them, recognise the importance of

supporting LGBTQI youth to understand

their experience within the broader social

context? Does the deployment of

heteronormativity via ‘positive unconscious

of knowledge’ produce an ‘innocent’

unexamined harmful ignorance on the behalf

of psychologists preventing provision of

truly inclusive services?

This research sought to contribute to

literature on these topics, with the over-

riding aim to improve psychologists’

understandings of LGBTQI students’

experience of bullying, as well as their own

personal and professional reflexive

capacities, and so enhance the provision of

truly inclusive service to LGBTQI

adolescents.

LGBTQI youth, bullying, inclusivity: Psychologists’ views

The Australian Community Psychologist Volume 30 No 2

Research Design

Methodology

The epistemology and theoretical base

utilised, QT informed Foucauldian approach,

share pivotal conceptualisations and

theoretical understandings around the central

tenets such as discourse, discursive practices,

and heteronormativity. This makes them

ideally suited for congruency in providing

the ‘language and format’ to answer the

research questions.

This approach encourages deep critical

reflection on deployment of power via

constructions of knowledge (discourses),

attempting to identify and illuminate

discursive practices (Clarke et al., 2012). It is

pivotally interested in the relationship

between discourses and institutions (Preston,

2014), the possibilities (subject positions)

these dynamics offer (McLaughlin, 2003),

and how these processes influence

subjectivities of psychologists and LGBTQI

students. It critiques and deconstructs

categorisations of gender and sexuality

(Butler, 1990). Perhaps most importantly in

this research, this approach strives to make

visible the ‘positive unconscious of

knowledge’ in relation to psychologists’

understandings.

Participants

Following ethics approval (from

Charles Sturt University; Protocol Number

H18030), 10 research participants were

recruited from email invitations sourced by

searching for potential participants within the

APS’s website in the ‘Find a Practitioner’

section. The prerequisite for recruitment was

being a fully qualified and registered

psychologist experienced in working with

adolescents. The group comprised two

General Psychologists and eight Clinical

Psychologists, whose ages spanned from mid

-twenties to early seventies. Two participants

had three years’ experience in the field, with

the rest ranging from sixteen to thirty plus

years. Participants were from Regional

NSW, Regional Queensland, Tasmania,

Canberra, Sydney and Brisbane.

Method

Data was collected via semi-structured

interviews conducted individually by the first

author via telephone or video-conferencing,

and were audio recorded and transcribed. To

preserve confidentiality of participants, all

personal and organisational identifiers were

removed in the transcription process and

individuals were assigned pseudonyms.

The method of data analysis utilised,

Foucauldian Discourse Analysis (FDA), is

drawn from the theoretical approach adopted,

and so was eminently congruent, operating

within the same conceptualisations of power,

knowledge, discourse, and discursive

practices (Parker, 1992). The FDA steps

utilised were drawn from Willig (2013) and

Parker (1992).

Analysis and Discussion

Identify Discursive Constructions

The first research question focused on

capturing psychologists’ understandings of

LGBTQI students’ experience of bullying by

examining their discursive constructions.

How was bullying of LGBTQI students

being thought about and spoken about? Was

bullying of LGBTQI students perceived as

an individualised act, or was it situated

within the wider social context?

When asked to consider who bullies

who and why, all interviewees understood

bullying phenomena to occur in response to

difference in the face of norms and

hierarchies that were reflective of broader

social forces:

…the epicentre of this social hierarchy,

um, that gets sort of created…the

group that establishes themselves as

popular, and as kind of the norm,

and…I’m sure that those norms come

from general sort of societal

expectations, um, and then…the other

is kind of defined as…whatever is

different from that… (Terri)

…largely being around the um, social

um, hierarchy that occurs…so a lot of

positioning…a lot of the bullying is

around social position… (Kris)

…in my experience, it’s about

difference…it’s about being targeted if

you don’t fit in with the popular norms

of the day. (Jay)

These generalised understandings about

bullying behaviour reflected consideration of

LGBTQI youth, bullying, inclusivity: Psychologists’ views

The Australian Community Psychologist Volume 30 No 2

these acts being reinforcers of hierarchies of

power and privilege via policing of social

norms by other students (Walton, 2011).

Participants were situating these phenomena

within the wider social context as

recommended by the APS and industry

experts. However, they often did not

conceptualise LGBTQI students’ experience

of bullying as being any more targeted and

driven by social ‘norms’ than generic

adolescent bullying:

I don’t think gay would be anything to

be picked on for… (Lindsay)

Um, no, I wouldn’t think so. (Beau)

This discrepancy between acknowledging

wider social context and societal norms as

drivers for bullying generally, yet seemingly

being unable to identify the consequent

heightened impact for LGBTQI students,

suggests a level of contradiction for

psychologists in their conceptualisations.

There appeared to be dissonance in thinking

about drivers for adolescent bullying in

general, compared to understandings around

LGBTQI students’ experience of bullying

specifically.

Compounding this discrepancy, some

participants appeared to discursively

construct LGBTQI students’ experience in a

way that deflected from the sexual/gender

identity nature of bullying, minimising the

student’s experience, and framing the

individual as potentially over-reactive:

…ah, I don’t know that it would be

different…it can be perceived I think

by the person who is being bullied, if

they are…coming under the LGT, they

are going to perceive it being for that

reason perhaps, um, whereas in reality,

that’s just the thing that stands out the

most for the bully to target. (Del)

…they have a framework for

themselves, a narrative about talking

about themselves, where they are the

victim, um, they’re the helpless one…

and I do wonder how they present with

their peers, psychologically, to have

this repeated narrative… (Lindsay)

The contradiction participants displayed in

framing of bullying generally, compared to

LGBTQI students specifically, as well as

questioning legitimacy of the bullied

individual, reveal subtle, unconscious,

unnoticed exercising of heteronormative

power (Burke, 2013). Discursive

constructions used by participants about

LGBTQI youth focussed on individual needs

and deficits, rather than questioning

environment or external factors:

…the bullying is one thing, but how is

this person feeling about their

sexuality within that, now their

sexuality is, it’s already a problem,

because most people don’t accept it

anyway…a lot of times, it’s actually

them coming to terms with their own

sexuality…rather than other people…

(Sam)

This form of discursive construction can be

seen to sustain invisible processes of

marginalisation by applying an

individualising discourse that makes the

student responsible for the way others react

to them and turns the sexualised nature of

bullying into a critique of the student’s self-

acceptance, deflecting attention from

constrictive heteronormative norms. In a

related example, LGBTQI youth sexual/

gender identity was discursively constructed

as a ‘choice’:

…I’m not necessarily saying that same

sex attraction or gender identity is a

choice, um, but you can certainly

choose not to be, you’d be very

uncomfortable, but you can choose not

to be… (Sam)

These kinds of discursive construction that

make the student responsible for the very

architecture of their identity, and capacity to

choose, draw heavily on individualist notions

of agency, placing responsibility for

experience squarely with the bullied youth.

These kinds of unnoticed individualised

discursive constructions reveal how well-

intentioned psychologists can perpetuate

discriminatory dominant discourses

unawares.

A majority of the psychologists’

discursive constructions about LGBTQI

youth centred on forms of individualism and

the bullied individual’s responsibility

towards the ‘aggressor’:

LGBTQI youth, bullying, inclusivity: Psychologists’ views

The Australian Community Psychologist Volume 30 No 2

…often the reason we are being

bullied has little to do with us, and its

more about the person doing it, but I

do always say to them…we always

have to do a certain amount of soul

searching and self-reflection, so if

somebody is bullying us, or being

mean to us…we do need to have a

little stop and a think, well, what has

my behaviour been like…so if we are

able to help the person see something

from someone else’s point of view,

they can sometimes have the bullying

stopped simply by reacting in a

different way. (Del)

While supporting capacity for self-reflection

is desirable, ideally that would be fostered

within explanation that situates bullying

within the wider social context, to glean what

is and is not the student’s individual

responsibility. Discursive construction of

bullying for youth that places sole focus on

them to resolve it, can contribute to ‘learned

helplessness’ if social context is not

accounted for (Marston, 2015). In addition,

some participants also tended to discursively

construct LGBTQI youth as being

responsible for others in general:

…if they are always like, well you

need to accept me, well, they need to

accept that sometimes people aren’t

going to accept how they are, there’s

differences and all sort of varieties of

people, and sometimes people just

can’t accept how someone else is, so

the other person has to accept… (Jay)

Accompanying psychologists’ individualistic

focus was a primary concern to build youths’

resiliency to deflect bullying:

…do they know how to handle

bullying in a constructive way, to

make it stop, or to protect themselves

in the longer term…yeh, just looking

at strengthening up their resiliency

factors… (Beau)

These discursive constructions focused on

supporting students to take responsibility for

the bullying act, changing their behaviour to

deflect it, taking responsibility for lack of

acceptance from others, as well as building

resiliency for coping in the face of

aggression, can all be understood as framing

that supports heteronormative status quo,

through commitment to a binary,

individualised conceptions of bullying and

sexuality.

A focus on resiliency building, while

seemingly an obvious skill set to nurture, if

not provided within an overarching context

of explanation accounting for social and

cultural drivers of bullying, has been touted

as a mechanism of disempowerment for

marginalised populations (Marston, 2015).

At a time developmentally when self-

efficacy is at its lowest, desire for

‘belonging’ is greatest, and feeling socially

bewildered is commonplace, to place the

onus on LGBTQI students to take the

situation in hand, can prime them for feelings

of failure and shame, as well as social and

academic disengagement (Moore & Prescott,

2012). Ideally, psychologists would have

nuanced understanding of these issues from

their training (Rhodes & Langtiw, 2018),

however, all but one of the participants

consistently employed individualised

discursive constructions about bullying of,

and interventions for, LGBTQI students:

…it’s having the social skills, being

able to regulate their emotions, so that

they are able to, in that moment, cope

with something in a more appropriate

way, so that it may not escalate a

situation. (Del)

These discursive constructions focussed on

the bullied ‘victim’, requiring them to

resolve discrimination one bully at a time,

rather than pointing towards, and being able

to deconstruct for their young clients in a

potentially empowering and depersonalising

way, complex gendered and sexualised

power relations embedded within schools

and wider culture (Frohard-Dourlent, 2016).

This contradiction between psychologists

discursively constructing bullying generally

as being driven by social forces, yet

succumbing to individualisation of the issue

regarding LGBTQI students, may reflect a

major heteronormative factor underpinning

the seeming intractability of LGBTQI

bullying (Walton, 2011) – an incapacity,

theoretically and in practice, to situate

LGBTQI youth, bullying, inclusivity: Psychologists’ views

The Australian Community Psychologist Volume 30 No 2

discrimination and marginalisation within the

broader social context. These contradictions

certainly appear to echo current disparity

between governmental and educational

policy regarding their official discourses

espousing ‘inclusivity’, with the actual lived

experience of increasing incidences of

LGBTQI identity based bullying and the

shutting down of the SSCA. Scholars suggest

despite psychology governing bodies

espousing inclusivity, well-intentioned

psychologists have not been availed of the

critical reflexivity skills to critique

heteronormative culture, and consequently

remain too ill-informed to work effectively

with LGBTQI youth (Semp & Read, 2015).

The individualistic discursive constructions

discussed above, and their contradictions,

potentially reflect this suggestion.

To explore psychologists’ discursive

constructions around inclusive service

delivery, they were first asked if LGBTQI

students faced extra barriers accessing

mental health services. All interviewees

confirmed they understood LGBTQI students

to face significant barriers, which included

lack of training and understanding on

psychologists’ behalf and lack of accessible

relevant services:

Yeh…definitely…um, we’re not

necessarily trained in LGBTQI

population, so if their main concern

was around their identity, their sexual

orientation, gender, um, we would

want to refer them on…in [location]

specifically there aren’t many

services…young people, if they are in

[location] region, have no ability to

access services if that is their main

concern, those identity kind of issues.

(Jacq)

Other barriers noted were general community

ignorance about relevant issues and available

services, fear of heteronormative

reactionism, and feelings of shame:

Absolutely…how to access services, if

parents aren’t advocating on their

behalf, and then…just not, not

knowing what services for mental

health exist generally, and then even

beyond that, not knowing what exists

for, particularly LGBTQI young

people…I think, sexuality is such a

taboo issue to begin with, that I think

so many people just have this shame

like, to the point that it is not even

conscious to them that they are making

a choice to like not seek that out, it’s

almost like they just shut down before

they even acknowledge to themselves

that they need that sort of support and

that space to explore…fear of

judgement, fear of shame, um, parents

and important people in life finding out

and responding unfavourably (Terri).

Participants’ conceptions regarding barriers

for LGBTQI youth attempting to access

services clearly considered historical and

social context:

I’m sure historically it feels like…

systematically that’s something that’s

not really welcomed or accepted to

sort of talk about, and I guess that still

probably happens in clinical

presentations now…yeh, it’s probably

not something that is initially openly

disclosed, so yeh, probably that

feeling, of just how to talk about it,

and then, um, what someone is going

to think about that… (Beau)

Also expressed was psychologists’

awareness of challenged capacity for

adolescents, due to age, resources, and

developmental factors, to seek and initiate

truly inclusive treatment:

…I think they would have an

additional barrier of, how do they

know who to go and talk to, how do

they know, and is a 13 year old

confident to ring up and say I need to

speak to a psychologist, do you have a

psychologist who is happy to work

with, and to actually put it out there,

rather than feeling that it is some dark

secret… (Del)

These barriers are particularly pertinent

given that developmental factors at this age

make them highly susceptible to social

exclusion behaviour and attitudes (Horn,

2007). Possibly making them more

vulnerable to risk of accessing psychological

services without sufficient inclusivity is that

they are primarily enrolled by their parents

(Rickwood et al., 2007), who are very

LGBTQI youth, bullying, inclusivity: Psychologists’ views

The Australian Community Psychologist Volume 30 No 2

frequently unaware of their identity and

sexual orientation issues (National LGBTI

Health Alliance, 2014).

…in my experience, a lot of the, um,

young people, haven’t told their

families, um, about what’s going on…

(Jacq)

When asked to define what inclusivity

regarding service provision to LGBTQI

youth meant to them, participants

discursively constructed it to mean

acceptance:

…I think it means that there’s,

everybody feels um, accepted, I

believe that mental health treatment

should be available for anyone, for

anyone that wants to access it, so there

shouldn’t be any barriers to entry, that

it should feel accessible and

approachable for anybody… anyone

feels that they can come through the

door without that, um, fear of sort of,

being turned away, or judgement…

(Beau)

and equality;

…I think it is about, treating everyone

the same…no matter what…that every

single young person that seeks a

service from me would be

communicated with exactly the same,

that if there is something that I am not

that sensitive too, that I would be able

to create a safe enough environment,

for them to be able to tell me about

those things…I think it’s…that

everyone, has a safe place, no matter

what is going on for them. (Jacq)

Participants’ expressions of what inclusivity

meant, acceptance and equality, were very

generic and relatively intangible. QT

theorists would argue that these generic

discursive constructions are ‘throw away’

terms that allow professionals to feel they are

working inclusively, without employing

specific evidence-based practices

recommended by LGBTQI students and

industry experts (Giffney, 2009). Only one

respondent demonstrated ability to frame

inclusivity as requiring explicit confirmation:

…it’s about creating a service that…

doesn’t wait for them to ask for their

needs in terms of their identity…

advertising as such so it is known that

it is going to be supportive of

counselling that is informed...just

being…informed myself

…keeping myself educated about that

and ensuring that there is no…biases

…asking things like that, what are your

preferred pronouns…I think as an

LGBTQI person if I was looking for a

psychologist I wouldn’t want to have to

go in wondering whether it was going

to be a safe and inclusive service,

and…tell my whole story before I sort

of figured out that that person didn’t

get it, and then have to try to find

someone who was going to be open to

that… (Terri)

This participant was the only one who was

able to theoretically conceptualise

discrimination and marginalisation of

LGBTQI students within the broader social

context, as well as unpack and discuss the

concept, and reality, with adolescents in

practice. Tellingly, this psychologist was also

the only participant who advertised, on

websites and within practice rooms,

explicitly working with LGBTQI clients and

issues, and gave an option for gender diverse

pronouns on intake sheets, all practices

supportive of inclusive service provision, as

recommended by the APS and industry

experts.

Contradictions in discursive

constructions about bullying discussed

above, were also found in response to the

second question that focused on their

conceptualisations around inclusivity. While

participants all confirmed they understood

the barriers LGBTQI youth faced accessing

mental health services, and that inclusivity

meant promoting acceptance and equality in

service access and provision, all but two of

the interviewees displayed a lack of

consideration when asked if there was

anywhere in their practice, rooms, or website

where they used visual cues that affirmed

LGBTQI identity, or if they used a range of

pronouns on intake forms:

Um, nothing that we actually, I don’t

think there’s anything that we

LGBTQI youth, bullying, inclusivity: Psychologists’ views

The Australian Community Psychologist Volume 30 No 2

actively, publicise on our website...you

raise a good question actually, I’m not

sure that any, any of our little blurbs,

that we actually have anything on our

site or in our rooms…hmm. (Del)

A number of participants responded in ways

that could be considered deflective and, as

such, invisibly protective of

heteronormativity:

No, my rooms are pretty neutral, I

don’t have posters up about any issues,

I don’t have anything up about any

issues, I could plaster up…Gender

Centre, or this that and the other, and

then I’ll get some 76 year old

conservative Christian lady coming in

taking offence at it… (Lindsay)

This response demonstrates the psychologist

preferencing the potential discomfort of a

stereotypical example of an individual whose

identity and ideology would likely be

heteronormative, above a marginalised

population’s need for consideration,

representation and confirmation. This failure

to consider and act in support of LGBTQI

clients, in order not to ‘offend’ others, has

frequently been cited as a mechanism by

which analysis of discrimination is avoided

and, consequently, heteronormativity is

upheld (Preston, 2014). Similarly, other

participants discursively framed lack of use

of explicitly inclusive practices as being

about the impossibility of being inclusive to

‘all’ potential clients:

No, I don’t have, on my website I

don’t have that…I’ve never really

bothered to put that in because I’ve

thought if I do, that means that I’ve got

to put like everyone in then, then I’ve

got to say, so because, I don’t, really to

highlight one group of people…yeh,

no, I don’t… (Shain)

Both of these ways of discursively

constructing explanations of inaction

regarding LGBTQI representation could be

suggested to protect heteronormative norms

by deflecting critique from wider social

practices in unnoticed ways (Allen, 2010).

Compounding participants’ inability to

understand the importance of adopting

explicitly inclusive practices was their

reported unawareness of other LGBTQI

resources, practitioners, or agencies to refer

youth to if necessary:

No, I don’t know any particular

services off the top of my mind. (Kris)

I haven’t done a lot of research into it.

(Jacq)

Given that students assume a lack of

understanding and expectation of

discrimination from psychologists if they do

not explicitly advertise inclusivity (Davies,

2015), and that more than 50% of LGBTQI

youth that do press forward to access

treatment find the services unsatisfactory

(Semp & Read, 2015), the above responses

are troubling.

All the participants, knowing the

subject matter of this research, and having

been generous enough to participate, clearly

viewed themselves as ‘open minded’

inclusive practitioners sensitive to the needs

of LGBTQI students. A few hundred

invitations to participate in this research were

disseminated nationally, and if these ten

participants, obviously pro-active in support

of the research topic, display incapacity to

apply truly inclusive practices, what does

that say about the field’s capacity as a whole

to practice inclusively?

When asked if any visual cues of

affirmation for LGBTQI students were used

in their advertising or practice, psychologists

seemed perplexed:

....I don’t specifically um, ah,

advertise...hmmm, no, I don’t have it

on my website, which is interesting,

but. (Sam)

No…no, not really, no…so there’s not,

yeh, that’s an interesting question, I

don’t actually have any…well, it’s an

interesting question. (Kris)

This innocent lack of consideration could be

understood as an example of the way

heteronormative discursive constructions and

practices occur invisibly, as discussed earlier.

Foucault (1970) suggests that this ‘positive

unconscious of knowledge’ absorption of

common dominant norms can be identified

by the surprise or confusion that results from

the questioning of behaviour, such as that

observed in the participants upon realising

LGBTQI youth, bullying, inclusivity: Psychologists’ views

The Australian Community Psychologist Volume 30 No 2

that they have not considered affirming

diverse identities in their practice.

To understand the confusion and

discrepancies psychologists displayed, FDA

recommends attempting to identify the

discourses from which these discursive

constructions and their contradictions are

drawn.

Identify Discourses and Relationships

Between Them

The third research question sought to

investigate participants’ understandings of

heteronormativity and awareness of the

systems of power that substrate it. Capacity

to identify and critique discriminatory

structural forces requires critical theoretical,

professional and personal reflexivity skills

(Alexander & Yescavage, 2009), all

recognised components of psychologists’

tertiary training. As such, particular attention

was paid to participants’ tertiary educational

experience. The aim was to understand what

level of theoretical capacity to situate

discrimination and marginalisation of

LGBTQI students within wider social

context had been imbued, and which

educational discourses appeared to be

prevalent.

When asked if interviewees felt

equipped and supported to address needs of

LGBTQI students, and if undergraduate and

graduate training had prepared them for this

task, all but one psychologist, who was

trained overseas, answered in the negative,

and emphasised relevant training, if it had

been pursued, had been self-sought post-

graduation:

Yeh, I don't think I was particularly

well supported, to tell you the truth, I

had to just go out and get the

knowledge, not that I’ve done a huge

amount of training, but I’ve had to

really resource that myself, I don’t do a

lot of, I haven't actually done a lot of in

depth training about that particular

population, what I’ve done has been

pretty patchy to tell you the truth…

(Kris)

Respondents also unanimously expressed a

dearth of accessible LGBTQI training

materials post-graduation as an issue:

I haven’t really had great training post

graduate study, yeh, just because I

don’t really think there is much

accessible… (Terri)

Participants unanimously recounted lack of

representation of LGBTQI identity and

experience in Australian tertiary training and

beyond. As discussed earlier, individual and

communal meaning making and legitimation

of identities (Stainton-Rogers, 2003) is also

transmitted by absence of representation

(Walton, 2011). This absence points to

prevailing ‘discourses of omission’ in all

levels of education and training in which

psychologists participate. These discourses

of omission result in discursive practices of

teaching that are characterised by denial of

diversity:

I don’t recall doing anything specific,

like I remember doing sexuality just as

a sort of uni subject, but not, nothing

specific… (Beau)

The invisibility of discourses of

omission and subsequent discursive practices

of teaching characterised by denial of diverse

representation, mean students and teachers

both, are unaware of heteronormative norms,

knowledge, and understandings absorbed and

perpetuated through ‘positive unconscious of

knowledge’ (Springer & Clinton, 2015). It is

this unnoticed transmission of absence of

acknowledgement of diversity, and the

reinforced understandings about the

‘rightness’ of heterosexuality, deployed via

discourses of omission and discursive

teaching practices of denial, which have long

been suggested to drive maintenance and

perpetuation of heteronormativity (Lorenzetti

et al., 2017). They were also evidenced in the

lack of coverage of appropriate interventions

to use with LGBTQI students:

I don’t feel very equipped at all, um,

I’ve done some very basic training

around it, um, in terms of what the

LGBTQI community is essentially,

what all of those letters stand for, um,

the different statistics around seeking

mental health, in terms of actual, like

intervention, not at all, not at all.

(Jacq)

How would psychologists be capable of

LGBTQI youth, bullying, inclusivity: Psychologists’ views

The Australian Community Psychologist Volume 30 No 2

understanding a marginalised group’s

experience of bullying, or situating their

experience within the wider social context, or

conceptualising truly inclusive service

delivery, via educational delivery defined by

discourse of omission regarding diversity? It

could be purported that the relationship

between discourses of omission and

discursive teaching practices of denial

prevent capacity for critical thought

regarding social drivers of marginalisation

for discriminated groups, as well as

hamstring capacity for trainee psychologists

to engage in truly critical reflexivity.

Participants’ accounts connected the

impact of educational discourses of omission

and subsequent discursive teaching practices

of denial, with an overarching discourse of

individuality that appeared to add further

challenge to capacity to think critically

concerning the research questions. In

interviews, all psychologists were informed

that the APS (2016; 2017) recommends

practitioners develop capacity to situate

discrimination and marginalisation within the

broader social context for LGBTQI clients.

When asked what this meant to them,

participants struggled to conceptualise

theoretically for themselves, or practically

with LGBTQI clients, how they might go

about this:

I think that I can’t really do that at

all…when it comes to wider social

perspective, I don’t know if I would be

equipped…because I’m not, I’m

probably not knowledgeable enough,

to be able to understand that really…

yeh, we definitely come from a place

that is more individual than systemic,

we don’t learn anything about systems,

or the wider social systems. (Jacq)

These responses identified a discourse of

individualism as substrating their education

and practice. The relationship between this

individualistic discourse and discursive

practices of omission and denial of

representation in their tertiary education

appeared to result in incapacity to

conceptualise more broadly, with the

overwhelming response to the question being

confusion:

…um, I don’t really know what to,

um, um. (Pat)

A number of participants confused

theoretical and practical ability to situate

discrimination and marginalisation of

LGBTQI students within the wider social

context, for capacity to adopt inclusive

practices:

Gosh, um, I would imagine it means,

probably, that question that you just

asked before, maybe, having things in

the clinic which obviously indicate,

um, that people are welcome to talk

about sexuality, maybe, signs, or

whatever that might be, um, gosh…oh

look, as you say…maybe making an

effort to have the pronouns on the

sheet… (Kris)

Participants pointing to uptake of inclusive

practices in response to this question was

interesting, given they were not actually

applying those considerations in their

workplaces. This highlighted the possibility

that a capacity to theorise about

discrimination and marginalisation within the

wider social context is necessary to motivate

practitioners to adopt inclusive practices. It is

possible that the effect of discourses of

omission and individuality, and the resulting

discursive teaching practices of denial,

explain why overwhelmingly participants

were failing to adopt inclusive practices;

were confused when asked to theorise about

social forces; and had such contradictory

relationships between their discursive

constructions around general adolescent

bullying and LGBTQI students’ experience

of bullying; and the meaning and practice of

inclusive service provision.

This possibility is highlighted by the

one participant who was trained overseas and

demonstrated capacity to theorise about

LGBTQI students’ experience of bullying in

the wider social context, and engage with

clients around issues of identity, sexuality,

gender, and heteronormativity:

Um, I think it comes back to…that

there is, I think a lot of young people in

particular, if they haven’t been exposed

to…these theories around racism,

sexism, discrimination,

LGBTQI youth, bullying, inclusivity: Psychologists’ views

The Australian Community Psychologist Volume 30 No 2

marginalisation…power dynamics,

dynamics of oppression in society…

privilege, all of these things, they

experience…if they are experiencing

bullying, particularly in relation to

LGBTQI identification, they don’t

have that context, they don’t have the

language to describe what is happening

for them, and that’s really

disempowering… (Terri)

Terri explicitly drew connection between

capacity to theorise about structural forces,

situating youth’s experience within those

theoretical conceptualisations, and making

critique of power dynamics substrating

heteronormativity accessible to them, as

potential experiences of empowerment for

bullied students:

…so I think by being able to, yeh,

locate that this in something larger…

that this isn’t individual bullying, this

is systemic bullying that they are

experiencing…that it is bigger than

them…I think can give people back a

feeling of empowerment rather than

feeling victimised and helpless. (Terri)

As discussed earlier, this participant was the

only one who was currently utilising all of

the inclusive measures, such as diverse

pronouns and affirming LGBTQI visual cues

in rooms and on their practice website. This

connection highlighted the importance of

theoretical understanding of social drivers of

marginalisation and discrimination, and

capacity to unpack bullying phenomena from

this perspective with clients, to actual uptake

and provision of truly inclusive mental health

services.

…the internalised oppression,

teenagers are so prone to, I think that is

a really powerful one, I’ve got a client

who…is of Indian origin, identifies as

queer, but for her that was huge when

she was learning about all of this, and

kind of differentiating what was

external and what was internal

oppression, and realising that she

actually had it within her control to

kind of deprogram herself and let go of

all the…oppressing that she was doing

upon herself even though she couldn’t

change people out there, she could

change within her own mind, which I

think is like, that was really amazing…

if you can come to that, like reach that

point, that is like a real watershed.

(Terri)

The important difference in this account

compared to the responses of all other

participants, was that it did not individualise

framing of bullying nor assign students

responsibility to deal with it, deflect it, be

resilient, or acknowledge their status as a

victim. Rather, this participant, by situating

bullying within the wider social context,

gives the youth a framework to understand

what they can be responsible for, and what

they cannot control, ultimately

depersonalising some of the phenomena. The

description above recounts a client’s personal

empowerment, self and cultural awareness,

and potential political activity, growing in

response to bullying as an act of

heteronormative discrimination being

unpacked for them, and expanded from the

realm of the individual to the social context.

This is an example of discrimination and

marginalisation being situated in the broader

social context, a capacity no other participant

displayed.

As mentioned, this interviewee was

trained overseas in a ‘progressive’ tertiary

institution, where, unlike the Australian-

trained participants, LGBTQI representation

and consideration, and broader social context

theorising was forefront:

…going up to [overseas institution]

and doing my graduate studies there,

where there is obviously a really

vibrant LGBTQI community…there

was a real focus on kind of multi-

cultural counselling, on social justice,

on all these kind of issues, so I think it

was always in the forefront…it was

always part of the conversation…

(Terri)

From a Foucauldian perspective, this

participant’s training, defined by discourses

of inclusivity, resulted in discursive teaching

practices supportive and confirming of

diversity, and developed critical personal and

professional reflexivity in trainee

LGBTQI youth, bullying, inclusivity: Psychologists’ views

The Australian Community Psychologist Volume 30 No 2

psychologists, illustrating the transformative

and liberating power inherent in dynamic

relationships between discourses and

discursive practices when they look beyond

omission and individualism (Ramazanoglu,

1993). The focus at this overseas institution

on providing alternative educational

discourses of inclusivity appeared to be

pivotal in fostering a theoretical level of

critical reflexivity that seems to be missing in

Australia:

…gosh, going back…you touch on it in

a way, but you don’t really... (Del)

...we are only trained to look at things

individually…we are very much intra

psychic in our training… (Lindsay)

In this context, a discourse of individualism,

and even relationships between different

discourses of individualism, can be seen to

substrate discursive practices of denial and

omission for LGBTQI students, and negate

discourses of inclusivity across the

educational spectrum.

The apparent invisibility of these

individualist discourses and discursive

practices, and the ‘sense’ it makes to

psychology students to maintain steadfast

intra psychic focus on their clients, in the

way they view them, formulate cases, and

frame interventions (Rhodes & Langtiw,

2018), could be said to support the

perpetuation of unnoticed marginalisation of

sexual and gender diversity. This continues

to occur because psychologists’ professional

and personal capacity for critical reflexivity

in relation to groups who experience

discrimination in the wider social context is

not currently being sufficiently fostered in

Australia. As such, the relationship between

discourses of omission and individuality and

discursive teaching practices of denial

legitimates knowledge about heterosexual

identity, creating and maintaining

heteronormative power relations

(McLaughlin, 2003). As much as these

power relations can confine and ‘other’

experience of LGBTQI students, they can

also confine and limit the self and

professional reflexivity, conceptualisations,

and practices, of psychologists themselves.

Examine Positioning

This research was interested in

ascertaining what subject positions

educational and psychology governing

bodies, via their official and applied

discourses, offer psychologists. Despite

official discourses espousing inclusivity from

both tertiary institutions and governing

psychology bodies, this research has already

captured reflections of embodied discourses

of omission and individualism from

psychologists’ accounts. These have revealed

consequent limitations on possibilities of

subjectivities regarding LGBTQI youths’

identity and sexuality. Participants’

subjectification and internalisation of these

discourses were identified in their

contradictory discursive constructions and

confusion concerning the research questions.

Psychologists’ subject positions were

characterised by: inability to engage in

critical thinking and theorising in relation to

LGBTQI bullying and wider social context;

inability to explicitly define or understand

what inclusivity means; and confusion when

questioned about lack of application of

inclusive measures in their practices. As

such, participants’ subject positions could be

defined as being underprepared and under-

engaged, rather than informed and inclusive.

This inability to critically engage with theory

could be understood as negatively affecting

psychologists’ autonomy and capacity as

scientist practitioners, in the sense that

reflexivity is required for co-creation of

understandings and knowledge (Friere,

1968). Without it, psychologists could be

described to be positioned as passive,

conforming purveyors of dominant norms

(Semp & Read, 2015).

To explore positioning more

specifically than the general observations

noted above, focus was kept on positioning

of psychologists regarding discourses of

sexuality. Understandings around sexuality

are much impacted by reflexive capacity

(Krebbekx, 2018). This is particularly

pertinent given LGBTQI youths’ criticism of

psychologists’ services lacking explicit

addressing and understanding of sexual

issues relevant to them (Semp & Read,

LGBTQI youth, bullying, inclusivity: Psychologists’ views

The Australian Community Psychologist Volume 30 No 2

2015). Participants’ reflections illustrated

incapacity to deal with relevant sexually

diverse issues specifically:

I guess my training has been pretty

generic around adolescence…

adolescence in general… (Kris)

Participants’ reflections bolstered scholars’

suggestions (Clarke et al., 2012) that

psychological theory, research and teaching,

are still characterised by heteronormative

assumptions and discourses positioned

within an educational narrative of

heterosexual attraction and procreation

(Davies & Harre, n.d):

…so I did Masters in 2007…we really

only talked about straight couples…

(Pat)

Further revealing their positioning as

underprepared and, as such, innocently

ignorant, through lack of understanding of

diversity throughout their education, some

participants repeated tendencies previously

documented regarding diverse sexuality

being a ‘choice’:

…as to your sexuality, that’s

something that is of your choice, or

choosing, or making… (Jay)

This very heteronormative tendency to

regard sexual expression outside of dominant

norms as created and controlled by the

individual reveals positioning that

encourages a startling lack of reflexivity as

well as ignorance (Krebbekx, 2018).

To explore understandings regarding

LGBTQI youth’s request for explicit

broaching of sexual issues from

psychologists, participants were asked if they

thought it was best practice to explicitly

discuss sexual/gender identity with

adolescents.

Psychologists’ displayed positioning

characterised by being ill-informed and

hesitant:

…if there is something other than

heterosexual sex coming up... when I

ask about sexuality, I ask about

attraction, romantic feelings, I don’t

ask about…I don’t ask specifically, or

that sort of thing, I just try to use

language that is general. (Kris)

Compounding being positioned as ill-

informed and reluctant to address sexuality, a

majority of participants framed explicit

enquiry as intrusive:

…I’d be guided by them, rather than

making, ah, asking intrusive

questions… (Pat)

While it seems sensitive and good practice to

be guided by clients, this could potentially be

problematic when the client is an LGBTQI

teen, possibly primed to feel insecure in

disclosing identity. Two participants

acknowledged psychologists’ positioning as

ill-equipped and unprepared in this situation.

They confirmed LGBTQI youth’s reports

that they want practitioners to initiate and

informatively and directly engage in

discussion around sexuality, and are reluctant

to declare it to psychologists if they have not

explicitly displayed receptivity and

understanding:

…probably where people get stuck is

knowing how, where to bring it up, or

assess it, I think that’s probably the

biggest barrier…I’ve noticed a lot in

clinical practice lately, just sexuality,

it’s just generally not incorporated into

therapy very much at all…there’s still

that awkwardness around talking or

asking someone about it, and when the

client feels that the therapist is

awkward about it then they don’t want

to bring it up, or they don’t want to

bring it up, if you don’t bring it up,

then they don’t bring it up… (Beau)

Research evidence already cited describes

the developmental sensitivities of

adolescence and emergent sexuality as

accompanied by vulnerability to self-

negative appraisal, confusion, and peak

negative peer influence (Brechwald &

Pristein, 2011). Clinical practitioners suggest

all these teenage susceptibilities are greatly

exaggerated when their sexuality/gender is

diverse (National LGBTI Health Alliance,

2014), not because of diversity itself, but

because of heteronormative social pressures

(Orygen, 2019). Also, knowing the majority

of LGBTQI youth that avail themselves of

mental health services are enlisted by parents

(Rickwood, et al., 2007), who commonly are

unaware of their child’s identification and

LGBTQI youth, bullying, inclusivity: Psychologists’ views

The Australian Community Psychologist Volume 30 No 2

have not offered any support or confirmation

(National LGBTI Health Alliance, 2014), it

is wholly unsurprising that students are

reticent to initiate or direct conversation.

Traversing challenges without support of

psychologists positioned to be sufficiently

engaged, confirming and informed, could be

further alienating and isolating, as one

participant’s account possibly suggests:

…one young person who, um, was

experiencing some uncertainty around

her sexuality, and the parents weren’t

supportive of that and, and she, we, we

did explore that to some extent, but she

ceased treatment fairly quickly. (Kris)

Compounding the hesitation to delve into

discussion about sexuality, participants also

highlighted the impact of discourses of

omission and individualism on their

positioning as being under-prepared, in

revealing the tendency for students to be

responsible for educating practitioners:

…to be honest, when it comes to

sexual diversity, you probably learn

more from them… (Lindsay)

Once again, the only participant who

demonstrated inclusive and informed

positioning, and who displayed ability to

explicitly address issues of diverse sexuality,

was the participant trained overseas in a

tertiary institution. This participant was able

to articulate how diversity confirming

positioning fostered reflexivity, and

consequent application of inclusive

techniques in practice, enabling students’

concerns to be revealed, and sexuality and

gender to be explicitly addressed, providing a

platform for potentially awkward

conversations:

Um, I think so, because I think it’s

something that they may not feel

confident to bring up on their own, I

think it is something they often really

want to talk about, um…I also have

a…like a Likert scale subjective rating

of different areas of their life, so it’s

got, um, my health…like, eating,

exercise, sleep, um, family, parents,

other family, school, and then things

like social and peer relationships,

work, hobbies, and it’s got gender and

sexuality, um, and so that’s a common

thing that we have, and we kind of go

through and we talk, we talk through

why they are giving those ratings and

what not, so we, it just opens the door

to kind of say…some of them might

say, oh yeh, that’s a 10, everything is

fine, no questions, or they might put a

low score and it opens the door to say,

oh, why did you put a 3 on that…

what’s going on for you, sometimes I’ll

use the um, the graphic of the

genderbread person, and kind of say…

just in terms of that…just exploring

and getting to know who they are, like

where would you place yourself on

each of these continuums? (Terri)

Participants also reflected their positioning as

uniformed and underprepared as problematic

when it came to understanding and acting on

APS (n.d.) recommendations that

psychologists practice organisational,

systemic, and social change in support of

LGBTQI students. When asked what this

recommendation meant to them, respondents

once again struggled to interpret and

conceptualise, let alone translate and apply

those directives into inclusivity measures:

No, I think I might, I would be

worried, because I’m not, um, because

I’m not, I don’t feel well trained, um,

I’d be a bit nervous, I think about

putting, um, I’d be nervous about

advertising myself, I’d feel like I was

putting myself out there as an expert,

and I’d be worried that I was not

prepared, and I know that sounds

really wrong. (Kris)

A couple of participants demonstrated

awareness of the contradictory positioning

that official and applied discourses via

tertiary institutions and psychology

governing bodies proffer:

So, the APS, after training us just to

work with individuals…we are very

much intra psychic in our training…

now wants us to be community

lobbyists, isn’t that lovely…it’s just

unfortunate they forget to train people

in that prior to putting it in a policy

document… (Lindsay)

LGBTQI youth, bullying, inclusivity: Psychologists’ views

The Australian Community Psychologist Volume 30 No 2

This participant’s frustration at being

positioned to be incapable when it comes to

understanding and analysing wider social

drivers in LGBTQI bullying, points to the

relationship between applied discourses

deployed by educational and psychological

bodies, psychologists’ positioning, and

power. To more fully understand these

limitations revealed by psychologists, it is

pertinent to theoretically examine how they

themselves are situated within the wider

educational and social context. This is

explored via the final step of FDA.

Examining Discourse and Power

Participants’ accounts illustrated how tertiary

institutions can be understood as expressors

and modifiers of heteronormative power,

through deployment of discourses of

omission and individualism, concerning

LGBTQI identity and experience and the

framing of bullying. These discourses

influence understandings, knowledge, and

actions, through positioning, in all

psychologists who pass through them (Pratt,

2011). If they have not been trained to

critique them, well-intentioned ‘open

minded’ psychologists can be involved

unawares in maintaining and perpetuating

power relations that support social

regulation, control and marginalisation of

LGBTQI students (Burke, 2013). The

relationships between discourses of

omission, and different forms of delivery of

discourses of individualism, can also be

understood to underpin incapacity for

psychologists to conceptualise or participate

in social justice theorising and critique of

social and cultural structures more broadly.

To further understand how tertiary

institutions might position psychologists as

incapable of social justice theorising, thereby

maintaining heteronormative power

relations, some additional discourses of

individualism, other than those which frame

bullying as a binary, individualised event,

need to be considered.

Scholars have suggested an

overarching discourse of individualism is

pervasive in all aspects of clinical

psychology training (Rhodes & Langtiw,

2018), and this was overwhelmingly

confirmed by participants. The field’s

concentrated focus on the workings of the

mind and individual treatment of intra-

psychic processes may have resulted in the

exclusion of alternative explanations of

distress, whereby ability or willingness to

look beyond individual conceptualisations

and interventions, to wider societal

processes, is unconsidered and prevented or,

at best, significantly compromised (Rhodes

& Langtiw, 2018). This has resulted in

psychological endeavour being confined to

‘fixing’ individuals or supporting them to

‘survive’ society, rather than looking to adapt

and transform institutions and social and

cultural practices within which individuals

become identities (Thrift & Sugarman,

2019). In this sense, educational discourses

and practices in Australia, driven by

discourses of individualism, have

historically, and are currently, failing to

support psychologists in necessary cultural

reflexivity and ability to theoretically

identify and critique the forces that drive

discrimination. As such, they could be seen

as crucial bastions in reproducing

heteronormative power relations (Tierney,

2001).

Important to consider in this argument

is the marriage between discourses of

individualism and neoliberalism in tertiary

education provision. Individualism lies at the

very core of neoliberal discourse and practice

(Devlin, 2013). The neoliberal economic and

political ideology, and consequent

managerialism, that has comprehensively

gained primacy in educational discourse

since the 1980’s, has fundamentally shifted

the way tertiary institutions define

themselves (Olssen & Peters, 2007). The

continual shift away from a traditional

professional culture of open, critical debate

and intellectual inquiry has been replaced

with primary concern for market driven,

economic bottom line performativity and

regulated output, operating to keep emphasis

off intellectual and humanitarian concern

with social justice (Varman, Saha, & Skalen,

2011). This marketisation of education has

comprehensively moved discursive teaching

practices away from ‘being and engaging’ in

LGBTQI youth, bullying, inclusivity: Psychologists’ views

The Australian Community Psychologist Volume 30 No 2

critical intellectual inquiry and potentially

transformative learning, to ‘having and

purchasing’ skills and market place career

path stepping stones (Molesworth & Nixon,

2009). In this environment, trainee

psychologists commonly cite study

motivations as ‘vocational’, rather than

social good (Orr & Orr, 2016). The negative

ramifications for students’ depth of critical

thinking and critical reflexivity are obvious

(Orr & Orr, 2016). Without capacity to

critically analyse and reflect on dominant

discourse and discursive teaching practices,

the exercise of power is invisible (Raaper,

2016). From this perspective, examining the

way psychologists are situated within current

social and academic norms of educational

delivery, and the accepted and largely

uncritiqued discourses that underpin that, it is

understandable that well-meaning, ‘open

minded’ psychologists believe they are

capable of inclusive practice, without really

knowing what that means, or being

especially motivated to find out.

Conclusion

Analysis of psychologists’ discursive

constructions around bullying and inclusive

services for youth revealed discrepancies and

contradictions in their conceptualisations.

They acknowledged bullying for adolescents

in general as socially driven phenomena, yet

they framed specific LGBTQI bullying as

unremarkable. Participants tended to frame

LGBTQI students’ experience in ways that

victimised, delegitimised, and minimised

their experience, supporting the criticisms

LGBTQI youth have made regarding low

expectations of psychologists’ understanding

and addressing issues pivotal to them.

Participants’ accounts deflected from the

sexual and gendered nature of LGBTQI

students’ experience of bullying and focused

on the need for this population to be

individually responsible for the behaviour of

others, and resilient or deflective in the face

of aggression.

All of the Australian-trained

participants lacked ability to situate LGBTQI

students’ experience of discrimination within

the broader social context, as espoused by

the APS and industry experts. Rather, their

communications stayed firmly rooted within

traditional heteronormative educational

discourses regarding LGBTQI identity and

experience, characterised by a generic,

binary, individualised framing of bullying,

sexuality, and gender. They understood

inclusivity to be about acceptance and

equality of access, yet demonstrated lack of

follow through in implementing APS

recommended tangible inclusive practices

supportive of diversity. Participants

displayed dissonance and surprise when

questioned on this, suggesting unconscious,

unnoticed exercising of heteronormative

forms of power.

All Australian-trained participants

reported being insufficiently prepared by

their tertiary training, and beyond, to

consider the needs of LGBTQI students and

to practice inclusively. Participants’

responses revealed lack of theoretical

understanding about structural drivers of

marginalisation and lack of application of

reflexivity skills when it came to social

forms of discrimination. The main

underpinning heteronormative educational

discourses identified as driving these

incapacities were those of omission and

individualism. Discourses of individualism

were recognised in a variety of approaches.

These spanned from binary, individualist

framing of sexuality and bullying keeping

focus on LGBTQI students’ responsibility

for managing bullying experience; to

primacy of intra psychic focus in

interventions with LGBTQI youth.

Educational discourses of omission,

regarding LGBTQI identity and experience,

were recognised by all Australian-trained

participants to have been the defining

characteristic of their education. The

professional and personal understandings

subjectified during their training effectively

positioned them to ignore/deny embracing of

diversity, or critique of social and structural

drivers of discrimination.

Despite official discourses espousing

inclusivity from high schools, tertiary

institutions, and governing psychology

bodies, participants’ accounts revealed them

to have been positioned to embody the actual

LGBTQI youth, bullying, inclusivity: Psychologists’ views

The Australian Community Psychologist Volume 30 No 2

applied discourses employed by these

structures, those of omission and

individualism. This heteronormative

subjectification on the part of psychologists,

as well as being characterised by

contradictory discursive constructions;

inability to understand inclusivity in specific

and tangible ways; and dissonance in relation

to being questioned about lack of inclusive

measures being adopted in their practices;

also appeared to be characterised by inability

to engage in critical reflexivity and

theorising around LGBTQI identity and

experience in the wider social context.

Subsequently, practitioners’ accounts

identified them as positioned to be hesitant

(to address LGBTQI identity and sexuality

issues explicitly), ill-informed (of

consideration and understanding of

diversity), ill-equipped, and underprepared to

practice inclusively. This highlighted the

challenge in meeting LGBTQI youth’s

reports that they want practitioners to initiate

and informatively engage in discussion

around sexuality, and identity issues relevant

to them, in an explicit and direct way. It

provides understanding to their reports that

they are reluctant to declare identity and

sexuality/gender issues to psychologists

when receptivity and understanding of

diversity has not been explicitly displayed.

Australian-trained participants, all

intelligent, experienced, devoted, progressive

practitioners, who identified as open minded,

and accepting, were at best compromised in

their ability to consider and understand the

experience of LGBTQI students who are

bullied. They also appear to be inadequately

supported to practice inclusively, due to

insufficient training. The one participant who

could situate students’ experience in the

broader context, and deconstruct the social

experience for them, was the only one

offering LGBTQI students’ empowerment

and depersonalisation. This practitioner was

also the only one who actually practiced

critical reflexivity in connection to the

research topic, translated theoretical

understanding of processes of discrimination

for clients, and consequently applied all the

recommended inclusivity measures in

practice. She was trained overseas at a

progressive institution that prioritised social

justice and support for diversity. It appears

Australian-trained psychologists lack

exposure to inclusive educational discourses

and practices. They lack exposure to

recognition and provision of theoretical

explanations for structural drivers,

mechanisms, and predictors of

discrimination, when it comes to diverse

sexual and gender identification. They lack

support to deconstruct and examine what

critical reflexivity is, and means, and how it

is ‘done’. They lack exposure to educational

practices that engage them in reflexivity in a

way that bridges personal, theoretical and

professional levels.

It is not the intention to judge the

participants, but rather to recognise the

restrictions of possibility that stem from

psychologists’ educational positioning as

individualism experts in theory and practice.

The research hopes to contribute to

deconstructing and identifying the invisible

processes of marginalisation occurring via

the interplay of power and discourse,

deployed in tertiary institutions and

governing psychology bodies. The resulting

knowledges and understandings about

LGBTQI identity positions psychologists as

underprepared for engaged inclusive service

provision. Ideally, the findings will

contribute to encouraging examination and

engagement with theoretical explanations of

discrimination in psychology training, as

well as encourage review and application of

educational critical reflexivity processes

required to truly practice inclusively.

References

Alexander, J., & Yescavage, K. (2009). ‘The

scholars formerly known as. ’:

Bisexuality, queerness and identity

politics. In N. Giffney, & M.

O’Rourke (Eds.), Queer interventions:

The Ashgate research companion to

queer theory (pp. 49-65). Cambridge:

Ashgate Publishing.

LGBTQI youth, bullying, inclusivity: Psychologists’ views

The Australian Community Psychologist Volume 30 No 2

Bisexuality, queerness and identity politics.

In N. Giffney, & M. O’Rourke (Eds.),

Queer interventions: The Ashgate

research companion to queer theory

(pp. 49-65). Cambridge: Ashgate

Publishing.

Allen, L. (2010). Queer(y)ing the straight

researcher: The relationship (?)

between

research identity and anti-normative

knowledge. Feminism & Psychology,

20(2), 147-165.

Ansara, Y., & Hegarty, P. (2011).

Cisgenderism in psychology:

Pathologising and misgendering

children from 1999 to 2008.

Psychology & Sexuality, 3(2), 137-160.

Australian Psychological Society. (2016).

Ethical guidelines: Ethical guidelines

on working with sex and/or gender

diverse clients; Complementing the

APS Code of Ethics (13th ed).

Melbourne: Australian Psychological

Society.

Australian Psychological Society. (2017).

Information sheet: Tips for

psychologists and others working with

LGBTQI+ people and communities.

Retrieved from https://

www.psychology.org.au/About-Us/

What-we-do/advocacy/Advocacy-

social-issues/lesbian-gay-bisexual-

transgender-intersex/Tips-for-

psychologists-working-with-LGBTQI-

people

Australian Psychological Society. (n.d.).

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender

and intersex~issues: Key points.

Retrieved from https://

www.psychology.org.au/About-Us/

What-we-do/advocacy/Advocacy-

social-issues/lesbian-gay-bisexual-

transgender-intersex?

utm_medium=PromoTile&utm_source

=website

Brechwald, W., & Pristein, M. (2011).

Beyond homophily: a decade of

advances in understanding peer

influence processes. Journal of

Research on Adolescence, 21(1), 166-

179.

Burke, P. (2013). The right to Higher

Education: Beyond widening Higher

Education. London: Routledge.

Butler, J. (1990). Undoing gender. New

York: Routledge.

Clarke, V., Ellis, S., Peel, E., & Riggs, D.

(2012). Introducing LGBTQ

psychology. In

V. Clarke, S. Ellis, E. Peel, & D. Riggs

(Eds.), Lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans

and queer psychology (pp. 3-24).

Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Davey, M. (2016, February, 24). Safe

Schools LGBTI program researchers

'receiving abusive emails' after

Christian lobby campaign. Guardian.

Retrieved from: https://

www.theguardian.com/australia-

news/2016/feb/24/safe-schools-lgbti-

program-researchers-receiving-abusive

-emails-after-christian-lobby-campaign

Davies, S. (2015). Good practice guide:

Many shades of blue: Enhancing

service delivery to address the mental

health needs of LGBTI populations.

Queensland Aids Council. Retrieved

from http://

heartmatterspsychology.com/wp-

content/uploads/2015/09/Good-

Practice-Guide-Many-Shades-of-Blue-

LGBTI-Mental-Health.pdf

Davies, B., & Harre, R. (n.d.). Positioning:

The discursive production of selves.

Retrieved from: http://

www.massey.ac.nz/~alock/position/

position.htm

Devlin, M. (2013). Bridging socio-cultural

incongruity: Conceptualising the

success of students from low socio-

economic status backgrounds in

Australian higher education. Studies in

Distance Education, 38(6), 939-949.

Downing, L. (2008). The Cambridge

introduction to Michel Foucault. New

York: Cambridge University Press.

Ellis, V. (2007). Sexualities and schooling in

England after Section 28: Measuring

and managing ‘at risk’ identities.

Journal of Gay and Lesbian Issues in

Education, 4(3), 13-30.

LGBTQI youth, bullying, inclusivity: Psychologists’ views

The Australian Community Psychologist Volume 30 No 2

Espelage, D., & Swearer Napolitano, S.

(2008). Addressing research gaps in the

intersection between homophobia and

bullying. School Psychology Review,

37(2), 155-159.

Foucault, M. (1970). The order of things:

Archaeology of the human sciences.

London: Tavistock Publications.

Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish:

The birth of the prison, (A. Sheridan,

Trans).

New York: Pantheon Books.

Friere, P. (1968). Pedagogy of the oppressed.

New York: Bloomsbury.

Frohard-Dourlent, H. (2016). ‘I don’t care

what’s under your clothes’: The

discursive positioning of educators

working with trans and gender-

nonconforming students. Sex

Education: Sexuality, Society and

Learning, 16 (1), 63-76.

Giffney, N. (2009). Introduction: the ‘q’

word. In N. Giffney, & M. O’Rourke

(Eds), Queer interventions: The

Ashgate research companion to queer

theory. Cambridge: Ashgate

Publishing.

Hillier, L., Jones, T., Monagle, M., Overton,

N., Gahan, L., Blackman, J., &

Mitchell, A. (2010). Writing

themselves in 3: The third national

study on the sexual health and

wellbeing of same-sex attracted and

gender questioning young people.

Melbourne: ARCSHS.

Horn, S. (2007). Adolescents’ acceptance of

same-sex peers based on sexual

orientation and gender expression.

Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 36,

(3), 363.

Jones, T., & Lasser, J. (2017). School

psychological practice with gay,

lesbian, bisexual, transgender, intersex

and questioning (GLBTIQ) students. In

M. Thielking, &

M. Terhesend (Eds.), Handbook of

Australian school psychology:

Integrating international research,

practice and policy (pp. 596-611).

Switzerland: Springer.

Kang, M. (2017, December, 8). We have

marriage equality, now we need

LGBTQI and inclusivity sexuality

education in schools. The

Conversation. Retrieved from https://

theconversation.com/we-have-marriage

-equality-now-we-need-lgbtqi-

inclusive-sexuality-education-in-

schools-87501

Karp, P. (2017, December 5). Marriage

equality survey marred by doubling in

reported assaults. The Guardian.

Retrieved from https://

www.theguardian.com/australia-

news/2017/dec/05/marriage-equality-

survey-marred-by-doubling-in-reported

-assaults

Krebbekx, W. (2018). What else can sex

education do? Logics and effects in

classroom practices. Sexualities, 1-17.

Lorenzetti, L., Wells, L., Logie, C., &

Callaghan, T. (2017). Understanding

and preventing domestic violence in

the lives of gender and sexually diverse

persons. The Canadian Journal of

Human Sexuality, 26 (3), 175-185.

Louden, W. (2016). Review of

appropriateness and efficacy of the

Safe Schools Coalition Australia

program resources. Australian

Government Department of Education

and Training. Retrieved from https://

docs.education.gov.au/documents/

review-appropriateness-and-efficacy-

safe-schools-coalition-australia-

program-resources

McGaw, B. (Winter 2015). Equity in

education and curriculum reform

[online]. Zadok Perspectives, 127, 19-

22. Retrieved from https://

search.informit.com.au/

documentSummary;dn=259803648668

814;res=IELHSS

McLaughlin, J. (2003). Feminist social and

political theory: Contemporary debates

and dialogues. New York: Palgrave

MacMillan.

Mansfield, N. (2000). Subjectivity: Theories

of the self from Freud to Haraway.

New York: New York University

Press.

LGBTQI youth, bullying, inclusivity: Psychologists’ views

The Australian Community Psychologist Volume 30 No 2

Marston, K. (2015). Beyond bullying: the

limitations of homophobic and

transphobic bullying interventions for

affirming lesbian, gay, bisexual and

trans (LGBT) equality in education.

Pastoral Care in Education, 33(3), 161

-168.

McGaw, B. (2015). Equity in education and

curriculum reform [online]. Zadok

Perspectives, 127, 19-22. Retrieved

from https://search.informit.com.au/

documentSummary;dn=259803648668

814;res=IELHSS

McLaughlin, J. (2003). Feminist social and

political theory: Contemporary debates

and dialogues. New York: Palgrave

MacMillan.

Minton, H. (1997). Queer theory: Historical

roots and implications for psychology.

Theory and Psychology, 7 (3), 337-53.

Molesworth, M., & Nixon, E. (2009).

Having, being and Higher Education:

The marketisation of the University

and the transformation of the student

into consumer. Teaching in Higher

Education, 14 (3), 277-287.

Moore, A., & Prescott, P. (2012). Absent but

present: A critical analysis of the

representation of sexuality in recent

youth policy in the UK. Journal of

Youth Studies, 16 (2), 191-205.

National LGBTI Health Alliance. (2014).

Working therapeutically with LGBTI

clients: a practice wisdom resource.

Sydney, Australia. Retrieved from

https://lgbtihealth.org.au/resources/

working-therapeutically-with-lgbti-

clients/

Neville, S., & Henrickson, M. (2005).

Perceptions of lesbian, gay and

bisexual people of primary healthcare

services. Issues and Innovations in

Nursing Practice. 55 (4), 407-415.

Olssen, M., & Peters, M. (2007).

Neoliberalism, Higher Education and

the knowledge economy: From the free

market to knowledge capitalism.

Journal of Educational Policy, 20(3),

313-345.

Orr, Y., & Orr, R. (2016). The death of

Socrates: Managerialism, metrics and

bureaucratisation in University.

Australian Universities Review, 58(2),

15-25.

Orygen. (2019). Clinical practice in youth

mental health: Working safely and

inclusively with sexuality diverse young

people. The National Centre of

Excellence in Youth Mental Health.

Retrieved from https://

www.orygen.org.au/Training/

Resources/Physical-and-sexual-health/

Clinical-practice-points/Working-

safely-and-inclusively-with-sexuality-

dive/Orygen-sexuality-diverse-CPP?

ext=.

Parker, I. (1992). Discourse dynamics:

Critical analysis for social and

individual psychology. London:

Routledge.

Payne, E., Smith, M., & Goble, K. (2014).

Bound by bullying: Exploring the

limitations of the bullying discourse

through in-schools experience and

research. AERA 2014 QuERI Panel:

American Education Research

Association Conference: Philadelphia.

Retrieved from https://

www.academia.edu/6387629/

PayneSmithandGoble.QuERIAERA20

Pratt, S. (2011). American power: Mary

Parker Follet and Michel Foucault.

Foucault Studies, 11, 76-91.

Preston, M. (2014). ‘They’re just not mature

right now’: Teachers’ complicated

perceptions of gender and anti-queer

bullying. Sex Education: Sexuality,

Society and Learning, 16 (1), 22-34.

Raaper, R. (2016). Academic perceptions of

Higher Education assessment processes

in neoliberal academia. Critical Studies

in Education, 57(2), 175-190.

Ramazanoglu, C. (Ed.). (1993). Up against

Foucault: Explorations of some

tensions between Foucault and

feminism. New York: Routledge.

LGBTQI youth, bullying, inclusivity: Psychologists’ views

The Australian Community Psychologist Volume 30 No 2

Rhodes, D. (2015, April, 17). Making

schools safer and more welcoming for

LGBTQI students. The Conversation.

Retrieved from https://

theconversation.com/making-schools-

safer-and-more-welcoming-for-lgbtqi-

students-39858

Rhodes, P., & Langtiw, C. (2018). Why

clinical psychology needs to engage in

community-based approaches to

mental health. Australian Psychologist,

53, 377-382.

Rickwood, D., Deane, F., & Wilson, C.

(2007). When and how do young

people seek professional help for

mental health problems? Medical

Journal of Australia, 187 (7), 35.

Safe Schools Coalition Australia (SSCA):

Proud to create change in Australian

Schools. (n.d.). Retrieved from: http://

www.safeschoolscoalition.org.au/

Semp, D., & Read, J. (2015). Queer

conversations: Improving access to,

and quality of, mental health services

for same-sex-attracted clients.

Psychology and Sexuality, 6 (3), 217-

228.

Smith, E., Jones, T., Ward, R., Dixon, J.,

Mitchell, A., & Hillier, L. (2014).

From blues to rainbows: Mental health

and wellbeing of gender diverse and

transgender people in Australia.

Melbourne: ARCSHS. Retrieved from

https://www.beyondblue.org.au/docs/

default-source/research-project-files/

bw0268-from-blues-to-rainbows-report

-final-report.pdf?sfvrsn=6f2e60ea_2

Spargo, T. (1999). Foucault and queer

theory. USA: Totem Books.

Springer, R., & Clinton, M. (2015). Doing

Foucault: Inquiring into nursing

knowledge with Foucauldian Discourse

Analysis. Nursing Philosophy, 16, 87-

97.

Stainton-Rogers, W. (2003). Social

psychology: Experimental and critical

approaches.

London: Open University Press.

Thrift, E. & Sugarman, J. (2019). What is

social justice? Implications for

psychology.

Journal of Theoretical and

Philosophical Psychology, 39(1), 1-17.

Tierney, W. (2001). The autonomy of

knowledge and the decline of the

subject: Postmodernism and the

reformulation of the University. Higher

Education, 41 (4), 353-372.

Ullman, J. (2016). Teacher positivity towards

gender diversity: Exploring

relationships and school outcomes for

transgender and gender-diverse

students. Sex Education, 17(3), 276-

289.

Varman, R., Saha, B., & Skalen, P. (2011).

Market subjectivity and neoliberal

governmentality in Higher Education.

Journal of Marketing Management, 27

(11-12), 1163-1185.

Walton, G. (2011). Spinning our wheels:

Reconceptualising bullying beyond

behaviour-focused approaches.

Discourse: Studies in the Cultural

Politics of Education, 32 (1), 131-144.

Willig, C. (2013). Introducing qualitative

research in psychology (3rd ed).

Maidenhead:

Open University Press.

Young, R. (1981). Untying the text: A

poststructuralist reader. London:

Routledge.

Address for Correspondence

Zare Edwards, zareedwards@live.com.au.

Lester Watson, lester.watson@iinet.net.au

Author Biographies

Zare Edwards is a Charles Sturt University

Australia Graduate in Psychology. Her

research is interested in applying

Foucauldian theoretical approach, primarily

to identify and investigate invisible processes

of marginalisation.

LGBTQI youth, bullying, inclusivity: Psychologists’ views

The Australian Community Psychologist Volume 30 No 2

Lester Watson is an Adjunct Research

Fellow and Sessional Academic in the

School of Psychology at Charles Sturt

University, Australia. His research is mainly

centered around critical psychology with a

specific interest in young people who are

disadvantaged, marginalised, or experience

social exclusion.

LGBTQI youth, bullying, inclusivity: Psychologists’ views

TEACHERS’ STRATEGIES FOR DEALING WITH LGBTQI LEARNERS AT SECONDARY SCHOOLS IN THE NONGOMA CIRCUIT

Article

Full-text available

Dec 2024

This study examined secondary school teachers' perceptions of LGBTQI learners within the Nongoma Circuit, focusing on the interactions between teachers and LGBTQI students and identifying effective engagement strategies. Adopting a phenomenological philosophy, the research aimed to understand the lived experiences and meanings of teachers' perspectives. A qualitative approach was employed to provide flexibility in exploring these experiences. The study utilised a phenomenological design to uncover nuanced insights into teachers' attitudes. The sample comprised five Life Orientation educators from secondary schools in the Nongoma Circuit, selected through purposive sampling to ensure rich, relevant data. Data were collected via semi-structured interviews and analysed thematically. To ensure the trustworthiness of the findings, the study addressed credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability. Social constructionism served as the theoretical framework, offering a sociological perspective on human behaviour and interactions. Findings indicated a range of attitudes towards LGBTQI learners, from positive acceptance to negative biases. The study highlighted the need for enhanced training and support for educators to create inclusive and secure educational environments for all students, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity. Thematic analysis revealed diverse viewpoints, underscoring the importance of targeted teacher training and policy reviews to foster empathetic and inclusive learning spaces. The results suggest crucial steps towards improving secondary school environments by addressing LGBTQI issues comprehensively within teacher training programs and school policies.

Parental Experiences of Supporting the Mental Health of Their LGBTQA+ Child

Article

Apr 2024

Heteronormativity and Counselor Self-Efficacy Working with Sexual and Gender Minority Youth

Article

Jun 2023

What Is Social Justice? Implications for Psychology

Article

Full-text available

Sep 2018

Given widespread interest and commitment among psychologists to promote social justice, this article takes up the question “What is social justice?” and critically examines the efforts of psychologists in its pursuit. Contemporary challenges to defining social justice are discussed as well as problems resulting from an absence of consensus regarding its meaning. It is argued that social justice only can be understood in light of its particular history. A brief historical overview of social justice is provided. This history supplies the grounds for a critical treatment of conceptions of social justice and psychological initiatives. Fraser’s framework for social justice is presented as a theoretical guide for psychologists that can be defended in light of a “best account.”

Teacher positivity towards gender diversity: exploring relationships and school outcomes for transgender and gender-diverse students

Article

Full-text available

Dec 2016

Jacqueline Ullman

Transgender and gender diverse secondary students report routine social and curricular marginalisation at school, factors which have been linked to negative social and academic outcomes. This paper examines data from the Free2Be? project, which surveyed 704 same-sex attracted and gender-diverse Australian teenagers (aged 14–18), to examine school gender climate as a potential stressor for the 51 (7%) students who identified as gender diverse. The paper focuses on these students’ reports of their teachers’ positivity regarding diverse gender expression, as a critical element of school gender climate. Multiple regression analyses revealed the significant predictive impact of teachers’ positivity on gender diverse students’ sense of connection to their school environment, highlighting the need for educators to be knowledgeable and affirming of gender diversity.

The Death of Socrates: Managerialism, metrics and bureaucratisation in universities

Article

Full-text available

Sep 2016

Yancey Orr

Neoliberalism exults the ability of unregulated markets to optimise human relations. Yet, as David Graeber has recently illustrated, it is paradoxically built on rigorous systems of rules, metrics and managers. The potential transition to a market-based tuition and research funding model for higher education in Australia has, not surprisingly, been preceded by managerialism, metrics and bureaucratisation (rendered hereafter as ‘MMB’) in the internal functioning of universities in the last decade. This article explores the effects of MMB on the lives of academics, the education of students, and the culture and functioning of universities. By examining some of the labour activities of academics, work scheduling and time use, we demonstrate that MMB reduces the efficiency and quality of academic teaching, research and administration. Even more worrying, by qualitatively assessing the language, values and logic increasingly present in the academic culture of higher education in Australia, we show that MMB does not simply fail to improve universities or accurately assess academic achievement, it replaces the core values of education with hollow bureaucratic instrumentalism.

What else can sex education do? Logics and effects in classroom practices

Article

Nov 2018
Sexualities

Willemijn Krebbekx

Comprehensive sex education (CSE) has been heralded as effective in promoting sexually healthy behaviour in youth. At the same time, it has also been countered by critique, indicating that CSE is not a neutral vehicle for the transmission of knowledge. To think sex education outside this opposition of health intervention and critique, this article asks: What else can sex education do? Three ethnographic cases from secondary schools in the Netherlands showed the school to be a space/time for sexuality, showed how sexual knowledge is produced and used in class, and how sex education plays into and depends on processes of (gendered) popularity. In addition, the analysis pointed to the ways in which comprehensive sex education in practice (re)produces ethnic characterizations of sexuality. Finally, the analysis of sex education in practice complicated the ways in which sex education is conceptualized and measured as a health intervention.

Why Clinical Psychology Needs to Engage in Community-Based Approaches to Mental Health: Why we need community-based approaches to clinical psychology

Article

May 2018

The aim of this article is to advocate for clinical psychology to engage with community‐based approaches to mental health. This engagement will be challenging given community work is antithetical to the individualism that defines much of clinical psychology. It would also result in a direct challenge to the core tenets of our profession, including an emphasis on individualism, psychopathology, and expert‐driven intervention. We need clinical psychology, however, to decolonise itself to respond to the needs of Aboriginal communities and those from non‐Western collectivist cultures. We also need clinical psychology to consider the sociopolitics of human distress and lend itself to social action for complex problems. Specific examples of community‐based practices will be provided, focusing specifically on those that relate to mental health. Implication for the reform of research methodologies and classroom pedagogies will also be discussed.

Understanding and preventing domestic violence in the lives of gender and sexually diverse persons

Article

Oct 2017

School Psychological Practice with Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender, Intersex, and Questioning (GLBTIQ) Students

Chapter

Jan 2017

This chapter discusses how gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, intersex, and questioning (GLBTIQ) youth have been understood in psychology over time, providing key definitions and explaining how early understandings have developed into more recent conceptualizations and practice. Contemporary research data on GLBTIQ students in the primary and secondary years will then be presented, including statistics on experiences of bullying and mental health issues. Finally, the chapter describes the role of the school psychologist in supporting psychological health and well-being for different student groups within the GLBTIQ umbrella, and how this can be mediated against the different expectations in different Australian school contexts. A review of cultural issues for different cultural communities and parents will be provided as well as a case study, some information on training and legal issues, resources, and a quiz.

The Cambridge Introduction to Michel Foucault

Book

Sep 2008

Lisa Downing

French philosopher and historian Michel Foucault is essential reading for students in departments of literature, history, sociology and cultural studies. His work on the institutions of mental health and medicine, the history of systems of knowledge, literature and literary theory, criminality and the prison system, and sexuality, has had a profound and enduring impact across the humanities and social sciences. This introductory book, written for students, offers in-depth critical and contextual perspectives on all of Foucault's major published works. It provides ways in to understanding Foucault's key concepts of subjectivity, discourse, and power and explains the problems of translation encountered in reading Foucault in English. The book also explores the critical reception of Foucault's works and acquaints the reader with the afterlives of some of his theories, particularly his influence on feminist and queer studies. This book offers the ideal introduction to a famously complex, controversial and important thinker.

The ashgate research companion to queer theory

Book

Jan 2009

This interdisciplinary volume of thirty original essays engages with four key concerns of queer theoretical work - identity, discourse, normativity and relationality. A combination of distinguished and emerging scholars from a wide range of international locations, put the terms 'queer' and 'theory' under interrogation in and effort to map the relations and disjunctions between them. These contributors are especially attendant to the many theoretical discourses intersecting with queer theory - feminist theory, LGBT studies, postcolonial theory, psychoanalysis, disability studies, Marxism, poststructuralism, critical race studies and posthumanism to name a few. This Companion provides an up to the minute snapshot of queer scholarship from the past two decades, identifies many current directions queer theorizing is taking, while also signposts several fruitful avenues for future research. This book is both an invaluable and authoritative resource for scholars and an indispensable teaching tool for use in the classroom. © Noreen Giffney and Michael O'Rourke 2009. All rights reserved.

Beyond bullying: the limitations of homophobic and transphobic bullying interventions for affirming lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans (LGBT) equality in education

Article

Jul 2015
Pastor Care Educ

Kate Marston

This article draws on the experience of the charity Educational Action Challenging Homophobia (EACH) to explore the limitations of current practice around homophobic and transphobic bullying. Since 2002, EACH has worked to affirm the lives of lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans (LGBT) people and reduce discrimination experienced due to sexuality or gender identity. The authors experience of working with LGBT young people and their schools are contextualised within the broader academic literature around homophobic and transphobic bullying. It begins with an overview of homophobic and transphobic bullying, moves on to explore three key limitations of existing approaches and concludes with suggestions for future research, policy and practice.

Australian psychologists’ understandings in relation to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer/questioning, and intersex (LGBTQI) high school students’ experience of bullying, ‘inclusive’ service delivery, and the impact of ‘heteronormativity’

Abstract

Recommended publications

Advancing the Health of Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Adults—Reply

Delivering Culturally Sensitive Care to LGBTQI Patients

Gay–Straight Alliances: A Mechanism of Health Risk Reduction Among Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgend...

Positioning discourse on homophobia in schools: What have lesbian and gay families got to say?