Teaching about homosexualities to Nigerian university students: a report from the field
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nigeria’s diverse cultures, religions and political parties appear to be unified by a strong taboo against homosexuality and gay rights. This has affected academic research, HIV/AIDS programmes, and sexuality education, all which commonly show evidence of heterosexism, self-censorship and even explicit condemnations of homosexuality. Yet a dissident discourse in Nigeria, as well as research from elsewhere in the region, suggests that this appearance of unity may belie greater openness to the issues than assumed. Indeed, research shows that (1) many African societies are traditionally more accommodating toward non-normative sexualities than contemporary nationalist or cultural claims would allow, and (2) secretive ‘bisexuality’ is more common in practice (and tacitly acknowledged) than previously understood. Is it possible then that the presumption of homophobia and the fear of backlash that has clearly contributed to heterosexism and self-censorship in scholarship around homosexualities in Nigeria are exaggerated? Is it possible that Nigerians may be more open to consideration of scientific evidence and international best practices around sexual diversity, rights, and health than is commonly assumed in the literature? A trial intervention at a small state university in a predominantly rural area of Nigeria tested these questions by introducing wide-ranging, frank and non-judgemental (science-based) discussions of same-sex sexuality in several classes. Analysis of the students’ feedback finds that stigmatising attitudes toward homosexuality were indeed present among the students. However, there was also a high degree of curiosity, awareness of the existence of secretive homosexualities in Nigeria, desire for education, and confidence that traditional cultures and Nigerian democracy could accommodate individual freedom and sexual rights. The conclusion is that well-prepared researchers and educators could be less anxious and self-censoring around the topic of homosexuality than prevails at present. Careful attention would need to be paid to local sensibilities, but sexuality and HIV education programmes could probably be brought closer into line with world guidelines on best practices and comprehensive approaches to human sexuality education and sexual health.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".