Queering Student Leadership: A Qualitative Exploration of How Queer Undergraduate Students Experience the Construct of Leadership at University
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In contemporary society’s popular imagination, universities are viewed as places where students acquire the skills, experiences, and attitudes to become leaders in their communities. This university-as-leader-maker deserves a healthy level of scrutiny, as traditional ways of considering leadership may privilege some approaches over others, excluding some students in the leadership learning process.In post-secondary environments, traditional prototypes of leadership that emphasize positional and hierarchical structures may exclude students that have a different orientation to leadership. This may have significant implications on the leadership learning experiences of equity deserving populations, such as non-straight and non-cisgender students. This leads to the following research question: How do queer students experience the construct of leadership at university? This dissertation explores the experiences of queer undergraduate students at the University of Toronto. The context of the research is set by drawing on scholarly research, student and local media, campus ephemera, and archival materials. Archival materials were found in The Arquives, Canada’s LGBTQ2+ archives in Toronto, Canada. Drawing from multiple sources allows for a fulsome accounting of the socio-historical contexts that are relevant to the research question. Leaning heavily on narrative inquiry, this research centres the stories of the student participants. The culturally relevant leadership learning (CRLL) model served as a framework to contour the inquiry process, as well as inform the scope of analysis. The ten participants represent a variety of diverse experiences and identities. Participant engagement began with a photo elicitation process. Participants were asked to take photos of spaces on campus based on provided prompts. These photos were a starting-off point for the first interview and then a second interview explored broader themes. Insights gleaned from the participant’s stories demonstrate a strong and inseparable connection between the student’s leadership identity and their queer identities. Students described optimal environments and practices that contribute positively to their leadership learning, while navigating experiences of risk and psychological safety. The importance of leaderful space on campus emerged as a resonant theme. The influence of familial relationships on leadership learning also arose as an important theme. Based on the experiences that students shared, this dissertation offers considerations for leadership educators, as well as recommendations to modify and expand the CRLL.
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".