Moschopoulos, Despoina Natsi, Jordan Paterson, Gintarė Pocė, Maria Stamataki,
Thanasis Theofilopoulos
Edited by: Thanasis Theofilopoulos
Publisher: Panteion University of Social and Political Sciences
Publication year: 2024
ISBN: 978-960-7943-25-5
Project Coordinator: Dr. Laura Bugatti, University of Brescia
Scientific Supervisor on behalf of Panteion University: Professor Gerassimos Karabelias
The project “INCLUSIES - INCLUsive universities leading to inclusive SocietIES” is a Project funded under the Erasmus Plus Program, KA220-HED of the European Union
INCLUSIES - INCLUsive universities leading to inclusive SocietIES - is a Project
Foreword
Project “INCLUSIES” united academic institutions (Panteion University, University of Brescia, and Vytautas Magnus University) and LGBTQI+ civil society organizations (Colour Youth - Athens LGBTQ Youth Community, Rete Lenford, Lithuanian Gay League) from three EU member states (Greece, Italy, Lithuania). The project's objective was to foster inclusion and diversity in universities and subsequently, society, while also enhancing the active role of the witnesses of incidents of discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, gender identity, and/or sex characteristics (SOGISC), who play a significant role in the prevention and resolution of such phenomena. “INCLUSIES” also sought to establish an inclusive environment in higher education institutions and society, as well as to advocate for the European democratic principles of equality, equity, inclusion, and non-discrimination. This was done to address the obstacles that may impede the academic performance and participation of LGBTQI+ students, as well as the general well-being of LGBTQI+ individuals.
The proceedings from the Final International Conference of the Project, which was organized and hosted by Panteion University on October 11, 2024, are included in this publication. The research data collected during the project's implementation was presented by the partners from the three participating countries, while the project activities were outlined in detail by the project coordinator, Dr. Laura Bugatti (University of Brescia), during the conference.Part A ofthe current publication contains summaries of the research results, which were the result of desk research, personal interviews, photo elicitation, and auto photography. The project's research findings are comprehensively presented in the publication Inclusive Universities, Leading To Inclusive Societies: Research Findings From Greece, Italy, and Lithuania, which is accessible on the project's website. Additionally, the International Scientific Committee of the conference selected scholars and researchers from Greece and abroad to present original papers on topics related to the
promotionofequalityandinclusionofLGBTQI+ individualsatthe Universityand/ormore broadly in education or society. These individuals were selected through an open call that was published on the Panteion University website in May and subsequently disseminated by the project's partners. Part B of this publication contains the papers that were presented at the conference,1 in an edited form.
1 Except for the paper “Focusing on university training: Attitudes and comfort of pre-service early childhood teachers toward LG families” by Eleana Armao, Alexandra Sinagridi and Lida Anagnostaki. While thepaper was presented during the conference, the authors did want it to be included in the current publication.
By Dr. Konstantinos–Christos Daoultzis and Thanasis Theofilopoulos
Setting the scene
In Greece, the social and academic environments for LGBTQIA+ individuals have been shaped by evolving national and European policies (Law 5089/2024), though gaps in legal protection and social acceptance remain. The Greek government’s primary framework for LGBTQIA+ rights is outlined in the “National Strategy for LGBTQIA+ Equality” (European Commission, 2024) which aligns with the European Commission’s 2020 Action Plan. Despite these initiatives, the report indicates that Greek legislation still lacksafullycohesiveandprotective stanceonLGBTQIA+ rights.Lawsintendedtoprotect individuals against discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity, and expression are fragmented, leaving gaps in areas such as social security, healthcare, and, critically,education(ILGAworld).TheOmbudsman’srecentannualreports (Sotiropoulos, 2022, May 25) on equal treatment reflect an awareness of these issues but do not fully address cases specific to academic settings.
As a result, LGBTQIA+ students and faculty often navigate environments that are legally protected on paper but lack robust institutional support. Although discrimination in Greek universities is technically prohibited, practical enforcement is inconsistent, leaving many students vulnerable to harassment and exclusion.
“INCLUSIES” research in Greece
The Greek chapter of the “INCLUsive universities leading to inclusive SocietIES (INCLUSIES)” study focused on understanding the lived experiences of LGBTQIA+ students, faculty,andstaffinacademia.The studyemployedqualitativemethods,including photo-elicitation and autophotography, to gather personal stories from 11 participants across Greece. This approach allowed participants to visually and verbally articulate their experiences of discrimination and share insights into their needs for inclusivity.
Research results: Discrimination, visibility, and coping strategies
The Greek study revealed four key themes:
1. Discrimination, harassment, and exclusion: Most participants reported experiencing discrimination,ranging from microaggressions and stereotyping toexplicit incidentsof harassment. Notable cases involved transgender students being misgendered and excluded from activities. There were instances of students encountering derogatory comments from peers and faculty, reflecting deep-seated cultural biases. The experiences were particularly difficult in regions with limited exposure to LGBTQIA+ issues, where institutional support for marginalized identities is often insufficient.
2. Visibility and LGBTQIA+ representation in academia: Participants indicated a general lack of LGBTQIA+ visibility within Greek universities. While some institutions offer courses related to genderstudies, these initiatives are inconsistent and oftenlackdepth. LGBTQIA+ individualsare rarelyrepresented infacultyorleadership roles, limiting the presence of role modelsand hinderingmentorshipopportunities. The Greek academic environment is characterized by low visibility of LGBTQIA+ issues and limited public acknowledgment, creating a sense of invisibility for many individuals.
3. Coping mechanisms and support networks: In the absence of formal institutional support, participants described relying on personal coping strategies and external LGBTQIA+ organizations. Some sought assistance from Greek LGBTQIA+ advocacy groups, while others formed informal networks with supportive peers. These connectionsoffered a sense ofsolidarityandhelpedindividualsnavigate the challenges of an often hostile environment. However, the limited reach of these networks means that many students and faculty remain without adequate support.
4. Perspectives on collective action and inclusivity efforts: Participants expressed a strong desire for collective action to improve LGBTQIA+ inclusivity in academia. Suggested measures included establishing dedicated LGBTQIA+ resource centers, conducting ally training for staff, and implementing awareness workshops on campus. Furthermore, participants advocated for clear anti-discrimination policies and visible institutional support to foster a safer environment for LGBTQIA+ individuals. However, they also noted that while some universities promote inclusivity, followthrough on policies remains inconsistent.
Conclusion
The Greek report highlights the complexities of fostering LGBTQIA+ inclusivity within an academic context shaped by varied social attitudes and inconsistent institutional support. Discrimination remains challenging, often unaddressed by the existing policies or university administrations. Participants emphasized the need for a concerted effort to raise awareness and create safe spaces for LGBTQIA+ individuals within Greek academia. Establishing inclusive policies, promoting visibility through curriculum changes, and fostering allyship are critical steps toward transforming Greek universities into environments that support and celebrate LGBTQIA+ diversity. The research underscores the importance of building a unified approach to inclusivity, where policy aligns with
practice, enabling all students and staff to feel safe, respected, and represented in their academic communities.
References
European Commission (2024, Sept 22). Report on the implementation of the 2020-2025 LGBTIQ equality strategy. Available at: https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/d9e23ccc-4032-41d0-b20868650103ef8a_en?filename=Report%20LGBTIQ.pdf
Greek Parliament (2024). Law 5089/2024: Equality in Civil Marriage and Amendments to Other Provisions of the Civil Code Available (in Greek): https://www.kodiko.gr/nomologia/download_fek?f=fek/2024/a/fek_a_27_2024.pdf&t =8b5d66cd9804d7df2e104c2f9219bc14
ILGA world (n.d.). Greece database. Available at: https://database.ilga.org/greece-lgbti Sotiropoulos, V. (2022 May 25) LGBTQI Rights in Greece. Heinrich Böll Stiftung Thessaloniki. Available at: https://gr.boell.org/en/2022/05/25/lgbtqi-rights-greece
Exploring LGBTQI+ Inclusion in Italian Universities: Insights,BarriersandFuturePathways
By Dr. Laura Bugatti
1. The Current State of LGBTQI+ Inclusion in Italian Universities:
an Introduction
The status of LGBTQI+ individuals in the Italian educational environment reveals significant discrimination, as highlighted by various studies. The 'FRA survey' (FRA, 2020) noted that 10% of Italian LGBTI respondents in tertiary education experienced discrimination from university staff within the past year. Nationally, comprehensive statistics on LGBTI+ inclusion remain scarce, though surveys by UNAR (National AntiRacial Discrimination Office) and ISTAT (National Statistics Bureau) (2023) show that around 71.9% of LGB respondents reported discrimination in educational settings, predominantly perpetrated by peers (ISTAT-UNAR, 2023). A previous survey by ISTAT and UNAR from 2020-2021indicatedthat 46.9%ofLGBrespondentsin civil unionsfaced at least one discriminatory incident in school or university, with sexual orientation cited as a reason by 64.5% (ISTAT-UNAR, 2022). The 2011 ISTAT study found that 24% of LGB respondents experienced discrimination in educational settings, compared to 14.2% of heterosexual respondents (ISTAT, 2012).
So far, only a limited number of studies have been carried out at the national level specifically analyzing the level of discrimination and inclusion of LGBT+ people in the Italian academic environment: the EU project UNIDIVERSITY - Universities Towards
Diversity (2020-2022)2 aimed to assess discriminatory attitudes and behaviors in academia through surveys and interviews, confirming incidents of discrimination and highlighting a lack of visibility and training on LGBTQI+ issues. On the other hand, the national project UNIVERSITRANS(2017-2018)3 focused specificallyonmapping protective measuresfor trans students and staff, revealing a high degree of exclusion and limited access to gender self-determination tools.
Overall, these findings underscore a pressing need for improved awareness, training, and protective policies to foster an inclusive academic atmosphere. Universities inItalyaregraduallyimplementinginclusive practicestosupportLGBTQI+ students,staff, and faculty. While standardized practices for LGBTQI+ inclusion remain limited, initiatives like the "Carriera Alias," which allows individuals to be recognized by their preferred gender identity within academic institutions regardless of legal name changes, are being increasingly adopted by universities. Another model for fostering inclusivity is the "Operational Protocol for Countering Homotransnegativity and LGBTQI+ Inclusion" (2019), signed by institutions such as the University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, which includes measures like all-gender bathrooms, inclusive language, confidentiality agreements for students using the Alias Career, informational welcome packages, and various training initiatives.
Training models like "Actions to Counter Sexism and Homophobia" (ACSO), led by the University of Calabria in collaboration with other universities, focus on educating administrative staff to combat discrimination and promote inclusivity, reaching over 300
2 The project was co-funded by the European Commission within the Rights, Equality and Citizenship Program 2014-2020, Grant Agreement number: 963181, www.unidiversity-project.eu. See, Unidiversity –Universities Towards Diversity, National Report, Italy; Stamile, N. and Viggiani G. (2022). Essere LGBT in accademia: note da una ricerca sul campo, in Rinaldi C. (eds), Quaderni del Laboratorio Interdisciplinare di ricerca su Corpi, Diritti, Conflitti, PM Edizioni.
3 Universitrans is a project founded by the Osservatorio Nazionale sull’Identità di Genere (ONIG) e by Movimento di Identità Trans (MIT): for more info see www. universitrans.it. See also Russo, T. and Valerio, P. (2019). Transgenderism and gender identity: from nosographic manuals to contexts. A focus on Italian universities. Rivista Sperimentale di Freniatria, VOL. CXLIII, 2; Russo T., Addabbo T., Muzzioli S. and De Baets B. (2023). The LGBT plus University Inclusion Index and its application to Italian universities. Soft Computing
participants across multiple institutions (Luppi, et. al., 2020). Additionally, seminars, conferences, and workshops on LGBTQI+ issues, along with mandatory diversity training for technical and administrative staff, are increasingly offered by several universities. Finally, there isa notable growthinstudentassociationspromotingequalityandaddressing gender identity and sexual orientation.
2. INCLUSIES Research conducted in Italy
2.1. The Research Sample
Under the "INCLUsive universities leading to inclusive SocietIES (INCLUSIES)" project, the research conducted in Italy, based on methods of photo elicitation and auto photography, involvedthe participation of35 individuals recruited through student groups, institutional channels, and associations. Photo elicitation was utilized to gather participant responses through photographs during interviews. This approach was adapted tothe Italian cultural setting to ensure cultural sensitivity and the relevance of data collection. Specifically, images were carefully selected or adjusted to better reflect the experiences and cultural context of the participants, enhancing the authenticity and depth of their responses. The project focused on themes that included psychological abuse, physical violence, and support initiatives for LGBTQI+ rights within academic settings.
In parallel, auto photography involved participants in choosing or capturing images that represented their identity and lived experiences. This method provided personal insights into how participants viewed themselves and their roles within their social environments, contributing to a nuanced understanding of their perceptions and experiences.
These methodologies aimed to authentically represent the experiences of LGBTQI+ individuals, fostering empowerment and a self-determined depiction of their identity. Through this approach, the project promoted empathy, highlighted the
discrimination faced by the community, and supported awareness initiatives and advocacy efforts. The use of images helped document challenges, share personal stories, and reinforce community solidarity, contributing to broader educational goals and influencing public discourse and policy.
For dataanalysis,theprojectcombinedtraditional textualexamination withmodern technological tools. This integration ensured a thorough and multidimensional exploration of the collected data, providing robust insights into the narratives shared by participants. The average age of respondents was 24.7, ranging from 19 to 49 years, providing a wide generational perspective. Among participants, 19 identified their sex at birth as male, yet six distinct gender identities emerged, with 'male' being the most common. Regarding sexual orientation,'homosexual' was the most frequentlyidentified,thoughsix orientations were represented across the sample. Sapienza University of Rome was the primary academic affiliation (23 participants), though a total of nine universities were represented. The geographic reachcoveredtenprovinces,with strongrepresentationfrom Rome aswell as diverse locations across Northern, Central, and Southern Italy. Most participants identified as undergraduate students.
2.2. Unseen Struggles in Accademia: Barriers to LGBTQI+ Inclusion
The study confirms that despite some normative and cultural advancements, significant barriers to the social inclusion of LGBT+ people still persist. Homophobic violence, both verbal and physical, remains a serious and prevalent issue within universities, posing a threat to LGBTQ+ students' safety and well-being. Through testimonies gathered via auto photography, participants depicted an environment where indirect discrimination is common, especially regarding SOGISC issues. Experiences shared in these testimonies reveal the emotional toll of living one's identity in a space that, though intended to be inclusive, often lacks genuine acceptance and protection. Forinstance,incidentsinshared spaceslikeuniversityrestroomsextendbeyond
momentary exclusion, leading to lasting impacts such as changes in daily routines and a heightened fear for personal safety.
Feelings of isolation and frustration described by participants point to a subtle yet pervasive atmosphere of misunderstanding and prejudice in academic life. One participant used the metaphor of buildings enduring waves, likening their own resilience in the face of discrimination to these steadfast structures weathering a storm. This powerful image of buildings besieged by waves illustrates both the violence ofthe discrimination experienced and the resolve to persevere despite it. Another image sent by a participant, showing a winding path, represents the challenging and often solitary journey taken by those navigating an academic environment that remains resistant to change.
While some studentsreportedstepsforward suchasgender-inclusive policiesand facilities that foster a sense of safety incidents of homophobic vandalism, deadnaming, and exclusionpersist, underscoringongoingchallengestoequalityandinclusionwithin the academic context. Testimonies gathered through auto photography highlight both support and alienation; some students find solidarity among peers, yet others face prejudice from classmates and even professors who might otherwise be expected to support them. While no major incidents were reported by participants, female students noted a need for constant vigilance against misogynistic attitudes, and one transgender student described a distressing experience in which a professor insensitively discussed gender transition, leading to feelings of victimization.
2.3. Envisioning the Future: Pathways to LGBTQI+ Inclusivity in Universities
Students and participants in this research express a strong commitment to advocating for LGBTQI+ rights and fostering sensitivity within universities. The presence of homophobic graffiti and other discriminatory actions has sparked feelings of frustration and a call to action among students, who emphasize that universities should be bastions of
inclusivity and enlightenment. They advocate for initiatives like seminars, workshops, and awareness campaigns aimed at building respect and understanding.
While media representation has improvedLGBTQI+ visibility, participants believe universities should go further by fostering dedicated LGBTQI+ research, providing safe spaces like clubs and associations, and encouraging open discussions. This environment would allow students to express their identities without fear, countering discrimination's negative impact on mental health and well-being. Participants highlighted the need for tangible support, such as counseling services, educational events, and inclusive policies. A trans student’s experience with deadnaming during university elections underscores the necessity of respectful data management and procedures that protect individual identities. This and similar experiences underline the urgent need for protocols that ensure privacy and inclusivity across campus practices. Solidarity, active listening, and the normalization of diversity are viewed as fundamental for fostering a respectful academic community.
Students express a strong desire for support that feels deeply integrated rather than performative where understanding is shown through everyday interactions and where diversity is met with genuine, normalized acceptance. They highlight that fostering solidarity and unity is crucial for building a truly inclusive academic environment. Moreover, participants emphasize the need for training and educational programs that counter discrimination and promote active intervention against exclusionary behaviors. One powerful image fromthe study asetofhandsofvarying agesandappearanceslifting books serves as a metaphor for the strength found in diversity and the transformative power of knowledge in combating bias.
Together, these reflections underscore the principle that a community’s strength lies in its ability to embrace diversity, set aside judgment, find unity in mutual support, and call for an educational environment where diversity is viewed as a valuable asset.
Conclusion
The INCLUSIES research highlights the persistent discrimination and homophobic attitudesthat compromise the safetyandwell-being of LGBTQI+ individualswithinItalian universities. Although the journey toward genuine LGBTQI+ inclusion is fraught with significant barriers and challenges, participants emphasize the critical need for proactive measures that promote awareness, education, and solidarity. It is essential for universities to prioritize the development of supportive networks, safe spaces, inclusive policies, and comprehensive training programs that empower all individuals to express their identities freely. By cultivating a culture of empathy, respect, and active intervention against exclusionary practices, Italian universities can position themselves as leaders in this necessary evolution that can no longer be postponed.
References
European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights [FRA] (2020). A long way to go for LGBTI equality.
ISTAT (2012). La popolazione omosessuale nella società italiana.
ISTAT-UNAR (2022). Survey on Labour Discrimination against LGBT+ people (in Civil Union or formerly in union), https://www.istat.it/it/files//2022/05/REPORTDISCRIMINAZIONILGBT_2022_en.p df
ISTAT-UNAR (2023). Survey on Labour Discrimination against LGBT+ people (not in Civil Union), 2023, https://www.istat.it/it/files//2023/05/report-discriminazioni15maggio.pdf
Luppi E., Bochicchio V. & Scandurra C. (2020). Azioni di Contrasto al Sessismo e all’Omofobia (ACSO): un modello innovativo di diversity training per favorire il benessere organizzativo nelle università. Genere e re-esistenze in movimento. Soggettività, azioni, prospettive, https://hdl.handle.net/11585/779952
LGBTIQ+ in Lithuanian Universities: Realities and Challenges
By Dr. Gintarė Pocė and Professor Milda Ališauskienė
LGBTIQ+ in Lithuania: setting the scene
Statistical data, analysis, and scientific articles on the status of LGBTIQ+ people in the national academic environment are almost non-existent. However, various studies and statistics show that discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity, and sex characteristics (SOGISC), as well as homophobic attitudes, still prevail among Lithuanians. In 2020, the EU LGBTI Survey II, prepared by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, revealed the prevalence of homophobic attitudes and a lack of tolerance in Lithuania. 73 percent of survey respondents avoided often or always holding hands with their same-sex partner in Lithuania, and 55 percent felt discriminated against in at least one area of life in the year before the survey. It is essential to mention that only 16 percent of respondents are now often or always open about being LGBTI in Lithuania (European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights 2020). This data showed that LGBTIQ+ people in Lithuania could not feel free to express their sexual identity and feel safe in the country.
The Rainbow Rankings, which considered how laws and policies affect the lives of LGBTIQ+ people, showed that Lithuania ranks 22nd out of 27 countries in equality and non-discrimination, 15th in hate crime and discrimination, and 20th in legal recognition of gender (Rainbow Europe n/a). Lithuania is listed among nine European countries in 2021 experiencing growing resistance or regression in transgender rights, including the right to recognition of gender identity to gender equality (ILGA Europe 2021).
National LGBT Rights Organisation Lithuanian Gay League report in 2022 stated that the Lithuanian Government had not yet prepared a comprehensive strategy for
preventing and combating discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity. Action Plan for Promoting Non-discrimination 2017–2019 and Action Plan for Promoting Non-discrimination 2021-2023 did not include LGBTIQ+-related issues, measures, and specific recommendations (National LGBT Rights Organization Lithuanian Gay League 2022).
INCLUSIES research in Lithuania
“INCLUsive universities leading to inclusive SocietIES (INCLUSIES)” research in Lithuania focused on members of the Lithuanian academic community (university teaching staff and undergraduate, postgraduate, and PhD students). It aimed to map the existing situation in LGBTIQ+ individuals’ everyday lives in universities and outside of them in terms of discrimination according to SOGISC and the need for inclusive practices. The research was implemented in Lithuania from May to December 2023. Two innovative qualitative methods – photo-elicitation and autophotography were applied to understand the LGBTIQ+ individuals’ experiences and the need for inclusive practices in an academic environment. This research gathered stories from 17 individuals who study or teach at Lithuanian universities.
Research results: internal homophobia, silent discrimination and seeking support
In the following section, empirical research results are presented in four main topics, which are 1) discrimination, hate speech, and inappropriate behavior based on SOGISC in the academic environment; 2) the level of visibility of LGBTI+ individuals, issues and support in the academic environment; 3) strategies employed for overcoming and or subsiding discriminatory incidents; 4) perceptions regarding collective actions for
advocating LGBTIQ+ rights and awareness, sensitivity activities in the academic environment.
Most of the research participants shared that they had not experienced or noticed active, evident discrimination in academia, except for a transgender person who experienceddiscrimination regularly because of dead-naming and inappropriate comments about their looks. Also, according to the participants, “silent, hidden” discrimination was still prevalent in the Lithuanian academic environment. It manifested in internal homophobicattitudesamongstudentsandteachersandalackofknowledgeaboutinclusive language and practices.
Research participants found it challenging to discuss equal opportunities for LGBTIQ+ in an academic environment, as they did not have comprehensive information onthedocumentspromotingequalityandmeasuresimplementedintheiruniversities.Also, it was hard for research participants to speak about equal rights as some were not out and unsure if it was worth the price. Thus, research showed that the Lithuanian academic environment wasnot safe andinclusive for LGBTIQ+ people,astheywere uncertainabout coming out. Research participants stated they thought they would use different strategies to manage a discrimination incident and help themselves or another victim. However, as the study showed, the participants were unaware of the appropriate procedures and actions they could take in their academic communities to try to report an incident of discrimination or try to help a victim - all of them would use the strategies they had come up with. The above-discussed empirical data allows us to conclude that the Lithuanian academic environment usually does not provide accurate, concrete information on what to do regarding discrimination or inappropriate behavior and where to report if a discriminatory incident is experienced or observed. Thus, these research results add to a previous study that showed the existing gap between the declared openness to LGBTI+ individuals within Lithuanian universities and persisting stereotypes and discriminatory attitudes towards them (Ališauskienė et al. 2023)
As this research showed, LGBTIQ+ awareness raising (on LGBTIQ+ issues, inclusiveness, inappropriate language, etc.) would be the critical factor for the promotion of a safe and inclusive academic environment. Constant communication and collaboration between LGBTIQ+ individuals and the rest of the academic community and listening to the needs of LGBTIQ+ individuals are essential, too. Finally, the proactive activitiesof the university community and active messages that would publicly demonstrate the existence of, and the pursuit of, an inclusive academic environment could make a real change.
Conclusion
This chapter discussed the main aspects of LGBTIQ+ individuals’ inclusion in the academic environment in Lithuania, the state, and its society, which yet fails to ensure the human rights of LGBTIQ+ individuals and their inclusion.
As INCLUSIES research showed, there is hidden discrimination based on SOGISC in the Lithuanian academic environment, which manifests with internal homophobic attitudes, inappropriate language, and a lack of knowledge about inclusive language and practices among students and teachers. The research findings also suggested that the administrations of Lithuanian universities did not provide accurate, concrete information on what to do, how, and where to report if a discriminatory incident is experienced or observed. According to the research participants, the most important aspects of promoting a safe and inclusive academic environment were awareness raising, constant communication, and cooperation between LGBTIQ+ individuals and the rest of the community. It is also of utmost importance that the universities disseminate an active messagethatpubliclydemonstratessupportforpromotingasafeandinclusiveenvironment and the processes and actions of reporting discriminatory incidents. Thus, it might be concluded that the academic environment is yet failing the inclusion of LGBTIQ+ individuals. At the same time, in case of more successful attempts, it might serve as an excellent example for the rest of Lithuanian society still struggling to
include this vulnerable social group.
Original reference: “INCLUsive universities leading to inclusive SocietIES (INCLUSIES)” Research Handbook
References
Ališauskienė, M., G. Pocė & A. Tereškinas (2023) Inclusive and Safe Environment for LGBTI+ in Lithuanian Universities? Reflecting Realities and Challenges. Filosofija. Sociologija 34(2): 148-157. doi: 10.6001/fil-soc.2023.34.2.4
European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (2020). EU LGBTI survey II. Along way to go for LGBTI equality, https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/lgbtisurvey-country-data_lithuania.pdf (viewed 28 10 2023)
ILGA-Europe (2021) Annual Review of the Human Rights Situation of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex People in Europe and Central Asia. http://www.ilgaeurope.org/files/uploads/2022/04/ILGA-Europe-Annual-Report-2021.pdf (viewed 28 10 2023)
National LGBT Rights organization Lithuanian Gay League (2022). 3rd CYCLE UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW. Lithuania UPR 2022 – ADVOCACY SHEET. SITUATION OF LGBTI PERSONS IN LITHUANIA, https://www.lgl.lt/en/files/UPR1.pdf (viewed 15 10 2023)
Rainbow Europe (n.d.) CountryRanking. https://rainbow-europe.org/country-ranking#eu (viewed 28 10 2023)
INCLUsive
Part B: conference proceedings
LGBTQI+Stereotypes-InsightsfromaYouthSurvey
by Mariasole Bannò and Tommaso Fornasari
Introduction
Exploring LGBTQI+ identities and societal responses to school and university communities has gained significant attention in recent decades (Capobianco, 2020; Herek, 2009; Meyer, 2003). Despite progress toward equality and inclusion, LGBTQI+ individuals continue to face challenges, mainly due to the persistence of stereotypes (Plummer, 2015). Deeply integrated into social, cultural, and educational structures, these stereotypes contribute to prejudice and discrimination (Smith et al., 2017). For young people, particularly those in their formative years, exposure to these stereotypes can significantly shape their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviours, with both immediate and longterm consequences (Russell & Fish, 2016). Addressing these issues is essential for universities, particularly within the framework of their Gender Equality Plans, which prioritize integrating the gender dimension into research and educational programs. This integration fosters an inclusive academic environment and promotes equal opportunities for all genders, helping mitigate stereotypes' negative impacts on marginalized groups. LGBTQI+ stereotypes typically revolve around generalized assumptions about gender roles, sexual orientation, and personal characteristics (Clarke, 2019). Common stereotypes include beliefs that LGBTQI+ individuals possess "unnatural" qualities or deviate from traditional notions of masculinity and femininity (Connell, 2005). Such stereotypes marginalize LGBTQI+ individuals, positioning them as "other" (Poteat & Anderson, 2012). For young people, internalizing these stereotypes can reinforce harmful biases and foster a lack of empathy toward those who do not conform to heteronormative standards (Pew Research Center, 2020).
Educational settings, where young people spend much of their developmental years, often perpetuate these stereotypes both directly and indirectly (Kosciw et al., 2018). Curricula may lack comprehensive representations of LGBTQI+ experiences or, worse, may reinforce stereotypesthroughomission or skeweddepictions(Snappet al.,2015). Peer interactionsfurtherdisseminate these stereotypes,asyoungpeople relyonsocial cuesfrom their classmates to form opinions and judgments (Pascoe, 2011). Consequently, the school and university environment becomes a breeding ground for either perpetuating harmful stereotypes or cultivating inclusivity and understanding (Kosciw et al., 2018).
Understanding the nature and prevalence of LGBTQI+ stereotypes among young people is crucial for addressing the underlying causes of stigma and discrimination (Herek, 2009). Research has consistently shown that exposure to stereotypes at a young age influences attitudes well into adulthood, affecting personal relationships and professional opportunities(Russell & Fish,2016).ForLGBTQI+ individuals,these stereotypescanlead to social isolation, mental health challenges, and barriers to participation in education and employment (Meyer, 2003). In contrast, environments that challenge these stereotypes and promote acceptance can foster resilience and provide a supportive framework for LGBTQI+ youth (Clarke, 2019).
This study focuses on the prevalence of LGBTQI+ stereotypes among students aged 20 and under, offering insights into how these stereotypes shape attitudes and behaviours (Deese & Dawson, 2013). The study is part of the Gender Equality Plan of the University of Brescia (2022-2024), specifically within the area aimed at integrating the gender dimension in research and teaching programs. The specific strategic objectives are to develop the educational offering to enhance knowledge and skills related to gender equality and to build and strengthen the integration of the gender dimension in student orientation.
Drawing on data from more than 600 participants from diverse socio-economic and ethnicbackgrounds, the researchaimstoidentifythe specificstereotypesthat persistwithin
this demographic and analyze how these beliefs influence young people's attitudes and behaviours toward the LGBTQI+ community (Plummer, 2015).
Early Emergence and Impact of LGBTQI+ Stereotypes: The Role of Education and Socialization
Existing research reveals a range of common stereotypes about LGBTQI+ individuals, with studies indicating that these biases often emerge early in life. Research by Kosciw et al. (2018) suggests that LGBTQI+ youth, especially in educational settings, are frequently subject to negative stereotypes, which often portray them as deviant, abnormal, or hypersexual. These stereotypes are deeply embedded in cultural norms and are reinforced through media representations, family teachings, and peer interactions (Dabra & Prasad, 2021; Smith et al., 2017). Such stereotypes not only dehumanize LGBTQI+ individuals but also foster environments where homophobia and transphobia are normalized, leading to adverse psychological outcomes for both LGBTQI+ individuals and their peers (Russell & Fish, 2016).
Research consistently shows that exposure to and endorsement of stereotypes can significantly shape attitudes toward LGBTQI+ people. For example, Herek (2000) identified a correlation between stereotype endorsement and negative attitudes, with individuals holding stronger prejudices against those perceived to deviate from heteronormative standards. These attitudes are often reinforced in youth populations through peer conformity, bullying, and exclusionary behaviours (Bacchini et al., 2021; Poteat & Anderson, 2012). Studies have also found that youth who hold stereotypical beliefs are more likely to engage in discriminatory behaviours, such as harassment or verbal abuse, against LGBTQI+ individuals (Wong et al., 2019). The impact of these stereotypes extends beyond individual relationships, affecting the overall climate of schools and communities by perpetuating intolerance and reducing the sense of belonging for LGBTQI+ students (Kosciw et al., 2018).
The socialization of youth plays a crucial role in shaping their understanding of gender and sexual diversity. Scholars such as Pascoe (2011) argue that educational settings are significant sites where gender norms and stereotypes are produced and reproduced. Within schools, the curriculum, peer interactions, and educator attitudes toward LGBTQI+ issues can either challenge or reinforce stereotypes (Yadava & Bhattacharjee, 2023). Research has shown that when schools actively promote inclusive policies and integrate LGBTQI+ topics into the curriculum, students are more likely to develop positive attitudes and behaviours toward LGBTQI+ individuals (GLSEN, 2019). Conversely, the absence of such measures can lead to the perpetuation of harmful stereotypes and a lack of understanding of gender and sexual diversity (Snapp et al., 2015).
It isalso essential to consider the intersectionalityofLGBTQI+ stereotypes, mainly how these stereotypes are influenced by other social identities such as race, class, and gender. Studies by Calabrese et al. (2015) suggest that LGBTQI+ youth of colour, for example, experience unique forms of stereotyping that combine racial and sexual biases, exacerbating their marginalization. The intersectional nature of these stereotypes adds layers of complexity, making it imperative for researchers to address how multiple identities shape the lived experiences of LGBTQI+ individuals and influence how stereotypes are formed and maintained.
Methodology and Data Analysis of LGBTQI+ Stereotype Prevalence Among Youth: A Quantitative Study
The study is part of the University of Brescia's Gender Equality Plan (2022-2024), focusing on integrating the gender dimension into research andteaching. It aligns with two key objectives:enhancingeducational offeringstoimproveknowledgeandskillsongender equality and strengthening the integration of gender perspectives in student orientation. The study employs a quantitative research design to examine the nature and prevalence of LGBTQI+ stereotypes among students aged 20 and under. The primary aim is to identify
specific stereotypes that persist within this demographic and analyze how these beliefs influence young people's attitudes and behaviours toward the LGBTQI+ community. The methodology was designed to provide a robust analysis of the prevalence of these stereotypes and their impact on attitudes, utilizing a structured survey instrument administered to over 600 participants from various educational institutions.
Participants for this study were selected using a stratified sampling method to ensure a diverse representation of students in terms of socioeconomic background, ethnicity, and geographic location. The final sample consisted of 618 participants, aged between 13 and 20 years, recruited from secondary schools. The stratification was designed to capture a wide range of experiences and perspectives, reflecting the heterogeneity of the population under study. This approach helped ensure that the findings could be generalized to a broader population of young students.
The primary data collection tool was a comprehensive survey composed of multiple-choice and Likert-scale questions. The survey measured participants' understanding, beliefs, and attitudes towards LGBTQI+ identities, focusing on stereotypes and their potential influence on behaviours. The questionnaire was divided into three main sections:
1. Demographic Information.
2. Exposure to LGBTQI+ Stereotypes.
3. Attitudes and Behaviors Toward LGBTQI+ Individuals.
Data collection was conducted over four weeks, and the survey was administered online. A secure platform was used to ensure participants' confidentiality and ease of access. Informed consent was obtained from all participants or, in the case of minors, from their parents or guardians. All respondents were assured that their responses would remain anonymous and they could withdraw from the study at any point.
The data were analyzed using both descriptive and inferential statistics4 Descriptive statistics were employed to summarize the prevalence of specific LGBTQI+ stereotypes within the sample, including the proportion of participants who endorsed or rejected various stereotypes. Frequency distributions and measures of central tendency (mean, median, mode) were calculated for the Likert-scale questions to provide an overview of the general attitudes and beliefs present in the sample. Correlation analyses were done.
Findingsfrom the Study:Gender, Education, and AcademicEngagement as Key Factors Influencing LGBTQI+ Stereotypes and Tolerance Among Youth
The analysis of the questionnaire data provides insight into the persistence of LGBTQI+ stereotypes and prejudices among young people, particularly about factors such as gender, education, and academic inclination.
One of the most striking findings relates to the differences in gender tolerance. The data show that women are generally more progressive in their attitudes toward LGBTQI+ individuals compared to men. This aligns with existing literature suggesting that women, who often experience discrimination themselves, tend to be more empathetic and supportive ofothermarginalizedgroups.In contrast,mendisplayedmore traditionalviews, with a lower level of tolerance towards LGBTQI+ individuals. Surprisingly, participants who identified as "other" or preferred not to specify their gender also demonstrated lower acceptance levels. This outcome may reflect a statistical anomaly, as these categories were grouped, potentially conflating individuals from different experiences.
The data reveal a significant correlation between the type of educational institution attended and the level of tolerance towards the LGBTQI+ community. Students from
4 The complete analyses are available upon request.
humanities-focused high schools displayed higher acceptance levels than their peers from technical and professional schools. This finding could be attributed to the greater emphasis on theoretical knowledge andcultural educationin humanities programs, whichmayfoster a more open-minded perspective. Similarly, students enrolled in science-related programs showed lower levels of empathy, potentially indicating that students in these fields may not engage with the same degree of social or cultural issues as their humanities counterparts.
Another important trend that emerged from the data is the relationship between academic engagement andtolerance levels. Students who reported a higher interest intheir studies and a more outstanding commitment to academic success were generally more accepting of LGBTQI+ individuals. This suggests that a higher level of education and critical thinking may play a role in reducing prejudice, as these students may be more exposed to diverse ideas and more likely to question societal stereotypes. In contrast, those with less academic interest tended to harbour more prejudices, reflecting a broader pattern where lower cultural engagement correlates with greater levels of stereotyping.
The questionnaire also explored specific LGBTQI+ stereotypes, such as the perception that gay men are effeminate or that lesbian women have masculine behaviours. Across the sample, responses indicated that these stereotypes are still present, though their prevalence varied by gender, academic focus, and school type. For example, male respondents were more likely to endorse these stereotypes compared to female respondents,and studentsintechnical andprofessional schoolswere more likelytoexpress discomfort with public displays of affection between same-sex couples.
Conclusion
Studying LGBTQI+ stereotypes among younger populations is critical for understanding the social attitudes and behaviours that shape inclusivity and equality (Herek, 2009). Stereotypes, as oversimplified and generalized beliefs about a group,
reinforce societal biases, leading to marginalization and discrimination (Poteat & Anderson, 2012). Numerous studies have shown how these stereotypes contribute to stigma, particularly during the crucial identity formation and socialization stages of youth (Meyer, 2003). This study builds on previous research by offering a more nuanced understanding of how young people’s beliefs are formed and contribute to broader dynamics of inclusion and exclusion (Clarke, 2019).
The findings highlight the persistence of LGBTQI+ stereotypes among youth, with prejudices varying based on gender, educational background, and academic engagement. Women, students from humanities-focused institutions, and those with solid academic interests were generally more accepting, whereas men and students from technical backgrounds displayed more traditional views. This suggests that exposure to diverse perspectives and inclusive educational environments plays a crucial role in fostering acceptance and reducing stereotypes. However, persistent prejudices indicate the need for further education and awareness efforts.
These results have important implications for universities, especially regarding their Gender Equality Plans. Universities must integrate comprehensive content on gender and LGBTQI+ issues into their curricula to promote acceptance and reduce harmful stereotypes. This aligns with Gender Equality Plans objectives to foster inclusivity and equality in academic settings. By developing policies and programs that challenge stereotypes, universities can ensure that all students feel supported and respected, regardless of gender or sexual orientation.
Whilethisstudyoffersvaluable insights, certainlimitationsmust beacknowledged. The self-reported nature of the survey may introduce bias, and the sample may not fully represent all geographic or educational settings. Future research should address these limitations by expanding the sample and incorporating qualitative methods such as interviews or focus groups to deepen the understanding of LGBTQI+ stereotypes. Future studies should also focus on intersectional approaches to foster environments that promote respect, diversity, and equality.
References
Bacchini, D., Esposito, G. & Affuso, G. (2021) 'The impact of personal values, gender stereotypes, and school climate on homophobic bullying: A multilevel analysis', *Sexuality Research and Social Policy*, 18, pp. 598-611.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-020-00491-w
Calabrese, S.K., Meyer, I.H., Overstreet, N.M., Haile, R. & Hansen, N.B. (2015). 'Exploring discrimination and mental health disparities faced by black sexual minority men usinga minority stress framework', *Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity*, 2(3), pp. 223-231. https://doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000123
Capobianco, S.L. (2020). *Queer representation in international education: A queer theoretical framework for inclusion*. ERIC. Available at: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED606760.pdf
Clarke, V. (2019). 'LGBTQ+ psychology: Mental health and well-being of sexual and gender minorities', *Annual Review of Clinical Psychology*, 15(1), pp. 127-151. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-050718-095638
Connell, R.W. (2005) *Masculinities*. 2nd edn. University of California Press.
Dabra, S. & Prasad, P. (2021) 'A gap analysis of the perception of college teachers and students towards the LGBT community', *International Transaction Journal of Engineering, Management, & Applied Sciences & Technologies*, 12(4), pp. 1-10.
Deese, M.A. & Dawson, B.L. (2013). 'Changing attitudes toward LGBT students: An analysis of an awareness training paradigm aimed at increasing pro-LGBT attitudes', *Interdisciplinary Journal of Undergraduate Research*, 2(7).
GLSEN (2019) The 2019 National School Climate Survey: The experiences of LGBTQ youth in our nation’s schools*. GLSEN. Available at: https://www.glsen.org/research/2019-national-school-climate-survey
Herek, G.M. (2000) 'The psychology of sexual prejudice', *Current Directions in Psychological Science*, 9(1), pp. 19-22. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00051
Herek, G.M. (2009) 'Sexual stigma and sexual prejudice in the UnitedStates: A conceptual framework', in Hope, D.A. (ed.) *Contemporary perspectives on lesbian, gay, and bisexual identities*. Springer, pp. 65-111. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-09556-
1_4
Kosciw, J.G., Clark, C.M., Truong, N.L. & Zongrone, A.D. (2018) The 2017 National School Climate Survey: The experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer youth in our nation’s schools. GLSEN. Available at: https://www.glsen.org/research/2017-national-school-climate-survey
Meyer, I.H. (2003) .'Prejudice,social stress, and mental health inlesbian, gay, andbisexual populations: Conceptual issues and research evidence', *Psychological Bulletin*, 129(5), pp. 674-697. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.5.674
Pascoe, C.J. (2011) Dude, you’re a fag: Masculinity and sexualityin high school. 2nd edn. University of California Press.
PewResearch Center (2020). Attitudestoward same-sexmarriage and LGBTQrights.Pew Research Center. Available at: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020
Poteat, V.P. & Anderson, C.M. (2012). 'Developmental changes in effects of intergroup contact on high school students' attitudes toward sexual minorities', *Journal of Youth and Adolescence*, 41(6), pp. 739-750. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-011-9695-2
Russell, S.T. & Fish, J.N. (2016). 'Mental health in lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) youth', *Annual Review of Clinical Psychology*, 12(1), pp. 465-487. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-021815-093153
Smith, E., Jones, T., Ward, R., Dixon, J., Mitchell, A. & Hillier, L. (2017). From blues to rainbows: The mental health and well-being of gender diverse and transgender young people in Australia. Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society, La Trobe University.
Snapp, S.D., McGuire, J.K., Sinclair, K., Gabrion, K. & Russell, S.T. (2015). 'LGBTQinclusive curricula: Why supportive curricula matter', *Sex Education*, 15(6), pp. 580596. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681811.2015.1042573
Wong, C.F., Schrager, S.M., Holloway,I.W.,Meyer,I.H.& Kipke,M.D.(2019). 'Minority stress experiences and psychological well-being: The impact of support from and connection to social networks within the Los Angeles House and Ball communities', *Prevention Science*, 20(1), pp. 167-177. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-018-0936-2
Yadava, S. & Bhattacharjee, J. (2023). 'Exclusion of LGBT from higher education: Perceptions of different stakeholders', in Wimberly, G. (ed.) *Global LGBTQ+ concernsin a contemporary world: Politics, prejudice,and community*.IGI Global,pp. 58-74. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-7621-4
Homophobia in Greek Universities: Ways of Negotiating
Masculinities During Emerging Adulthood. Sites of DisciplineandResistance
By Theodosis Gkeltis
A Moment Captured in a Photo
While searching for material to narrate my personal story as an openly gay man who politicized his sexual identity in the Greek university, I recalled this photo. Looking at it, a smile formed on my lips, and I’d like to start with it.
Athens, 2018
In the photo, I am at Athens Pride 2018, holding a sign that reads: “The academy
/ can’t accept that Hermione gets the best grades.” The phrase
“to fysáei kai den kryónei” (“το
) is a Greek idiom used when someone has to settle for an undesirable situation, even though they wish things were different.
Is this the case in the Greek academy? Any one-word answer would be too simplistic and bound to fail.
Topic of Presentation
The purpose of this presentation is to highlight the stories of some “witches”, perceived as such by patriarchy and heteronormativity, who lived, studied, and socialized within the Greek academyfrom 2010untiltoday.These years,markedbymultiplecrises economic, health, housing, and inflation are characterized by contradictions. On the one hand, visibility and representation for LGBTQI+ individuals have grown; on the other hand, gender hierarchies and homo/transphobic violence have intensified (Papanikolaou, 2019).
The Interviews
The interviews took place in relaxed cafés chosen either for their queer-friendly atmosphere or their central location. My interviewees knew me from LGBTQI+ activist circles in Athens; we were already connected on social media, and we had some level of friendship.They were aware that I had previously conductedresearch relatedto gender and sexuality, which gave our discussions a comfortable tone. These interviews were shaped by our intellectual and emotional exchanges (Giannakopoulos, 2021)
One interviewee, Idoní (Ηδονή), explicitly mentioned enjoying the process, while others expressed their thoughts through smiles and body language). My interviewees selfidentify as LGBTQI+ individuals and openly discuss their identity.
Ethical Considerations
There are audio recordings from all interviewees, who explicitly consented to their use for this presentation. Pseudonyms were used to protect their privacy, except for Idoní (Ηδονή), a trans woman who wished to appear by her chosen name for visibility reasons. The interviewees' places of origin and study were also altered.
What I Can and Cannot Say
This presentation attempts to “translate into text” the voices of LGBTQI+ students (Gkeltis, 2019), opening a window into their lives (Jeffries, 2023), and narrating their journeys through the university. It seeks to give voice to multiple marginalized individuals while acknowledging the limits of what we can say. We cannot articulate a collective narrative for all LGBTQI+ students. We cannot give a voice to those who did not make it to university due to discrimination. We cannot speak for those whose internalized
oppression keeps them away from LGBTQI+ spaces. Nor can we give voice to those far from the metropolis of Athens. Discussing homophobia and transphobia in the university would seem bitter or ironic to my homeless LGBTQI+ interviewees, who shared their experiences of homelessness and housing exclusion with me in 2019.
Reflections and Memories from My University Experience
For the first time (and I ask for your understanding), I am attempting to narrate scenes and memories from my experience in the Greek academy and connect them with stories from activists in my personal network, particularly LGBTQI+ rights activists.
I began my studies at the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Greece’s oldest and largest university, in 2008. As a child from a working-class family, I was the first in both my immediate and extended family to experience such social mobility. My success was celebrated modestly, with a small financial contribution that was just enough to furnish a narrow almost prison cell-like room that I shared with my sister, who was ten years older than me. With that small amount, I was able to update my wardrobe in preparation for university classes. As much as I tried to build my closet, I also tried to step out of it.
University marked a turning point in my biography, not only because of the class shift but also because it became a public space for negotiating my sexual identity as a gay man. My first coming out happened three months before my enrollment in university, just after graduating from high school. Strategically, I chose the summer after high school for this act of liberation and self-identification, to ensure that any possible rejection from my social network would not affect my university entrance exams. Publicly expressing my identity in high school was culturally unthinkable. I could not imagine it; I had never seen it represented anywhere. As Stuart Hall might say, can you be something you’ve never seen (Gkeltis, 2021)?
Transformation at University: Oppression, Resistance, and Empowerment
The first person I talked about my sexual identity at university was Maria. Maria is what we call in “kaliarda” a specific sociolect familiar to older trans women and gay men an “adelfomana” (ally). Charismatic, smiling, warm an ocean of love in motion. It was evident that she would become my person. Soon, we started hanging out, and equally soon came the questioning about whether A., a fellow student, was gay. Maria didn’t hesitate to ask him. Personal space wasn’t a familiar concept to her. After initial awkwardness and denial, A. eventually admitted it, and Maria loudly cheered, repeatedly saying, “Bravo, A!” A. would soon become my best friend at university. That “bravo” is etched in my memory.
“The
University is for Greeks Only” or “Love is Free”?
The central theoretical principle of thispresentationisthat genderandsexualitycan only be approached through an intersectional lens, treating them as busy intersections where key identities and hierarchies such as class, race, ability, and body structure intersect. In my mind, this theoretical premise isn’t all that theoretical. It feels more embodied, specific, and localized. It reminds me of A. from the earlier story. A., coming from a working-class family in rural Greece, moved to Athens to study at the Faculty of Philosophy. Socially shyat first, a bit fearful, a bit dreamy,a bit feminine, a bit “Turkish.” At least, that’s what one of our professors called him during a racist rant ina lecture when she askedA.where he wasfrom.Toavoidbeingidentified,A.reflexively responded that he was from Turkey, which wasn’t true. His dark complexion made the professor exclaim, “Out with the Turks from the university! The university is for the children of Greeks.” Who would have thought that A. would be recognized that day as a “faggot” in rebellion, and, in fact, a Turkish faggot?
Twice rejected, twice mocked, twice marginalized. A.'s story brings to mind the intersections of inequalities and the complexity of power dynamics.
At Athens Pride in 2012, A. and I went together and took many pictures. Really many. On the day A. decided to post them on his personal Facebook profile, he got confused and accidentally uploaded them to a group we had for students from the same year. A. turned off his phone and went to sleep, unaware that he had just set the stage for a heavy dose of homophobia during our final year at university. Our classmates, seeing the photos in the school group, started erupting. “Why are you showing us these?” “Shame!” “Are you really future educators?” Boys tagged other boys, and chaos started. The group’s administrator called me, asking what to do and whether she should delete the racist comments. I told her to leave them. A few days later, I received my response through the words of a popular professor of ours, who, while handing out exam papers, said over the microphone, “Love is free.” That was also the slogan of Athens Pride 2012. This act surprised my classmates to their core.
Ally Professors
This improvised alliance takes us to the story of M. M. grew up on a remote island in Greece and studied pedagogy in a large city outside of Athens. He encountered significant difficulties in negotiating his sexual identity. Raised in an extremely homophobic environment, it’s no wonder he struggled. He spoke to me about the stereotypes he had internalized and the problematic beliefs he had embraced. Things changed when M. began a postgraduate program connected to gender studies. There, he found the vocabulary to articulate his experience, and there, he found a professor who not only supported him academically but also empowered him personally. The coming outs began, and a therapeutic and political journey followed. M. became involved in political groups, socialized, and transformed. For him, the university became a place of growth and flourishing. As M says:
«The role of my professor was very significant. She was supportive on many levels. She showed up with two CDs full of references and said, "Here you'll find everything you need." She was there for me. We built a relationship of trust. While writing my thesis, I made my first coming out. She gave me access to a social network of researchers and activists. She supported and encouraged me to write and speak about issues of gender and sexuality. My first language for expressing my experiences was academic. I realized this years later. My first word related to sexuality was "performativity." Being able to talk about my LGBTQ+ identity was impossible in school»
The Tear of P.
In 2016, I had just completed my master's degree in history and traveled to Rethymno to present my thesis on the history of the LGBTQI+ movement in Greece at a graduate student and doctoral candidate conference. The university event coincided with the city’s first self-organized and radical Pride. Two in one! At the event, I was honored by the company of P., whom I knew from Colour Youth. After my speech, P. shed a tear. The explanation he gave was that he hadn’t expected us to be listened to with respect. He didn’texpectthatthistopiccouldholdspaceinanacademicconference.P.hadexperienced homophobic bullying in school, and in the provincial town where he studied, he never had the opportunity to see his identity reflected in public spaces.
Homo/Transphobic Professors
Leaving A. and my first degree behind, I continued with a master's degree in history, a subject I hadn’t delved into during my undergraduate studies. On the path to my thesis, I experienced intense contradictions. On one hand, professors expressed their support and warmly recommended me to their colleagues. On the other hand, these same professors would describe a politician as having a “drag face” (a derogatory term for a woman who resembles a trans woman) or would comment, “Soon women will be writing about football, and 'faggots' about the military.”
These contradictions are perfectly illustrated by the story of Idoní (Ηδονή). An Albanian working-class woman, she experienced institutional discrimination and, after much effort, managed to enter an art department in higher education. There, she encountered contradictions, misunderstandings, and the awkwardness of latent transphobia. She was publicly bombarded with intrusive questions and experienced uncomfortable discussions prompted by professors, fighting to be addressed by the name
Rethymno 2016
shehadchosen.Nothingwastakenforgranted,nothingwaseasy, andnothingwasobvious. The extra effort she had to make to claim what should have been basic rights became exhausting. At times, she was the target of silly advice to “be careful” or to avoid “provoking,” while at other times she faced institutional gaps. For example, where would she stay in student housing when her identification documents didn’t match the gender she livedandidentifiedwith?Thesuccessofherstrugglewasduetobothher strongpersonality and the support of student communities.
E. is a lesbian who studied social sciences in a town in southern Greece. During a recent meeting at a network of anti-racist scholars, and upon learning about my presence here today, she shared an experience from university. In one class, a homophobic student stated that if she ever had to serve an LGBTQI+ individual as a professional, she would refuse because it went against her values. Instead of showing how unscientific, unethical, and ultimately immoral that statement was, the professor supported the student and gave her more space in the class. The semester turned into a period of constant abuse for LGBTQI+ students, not only through the professor’s tolerance but also through her active support.
Institutional gaps
Idoní (Ηδονή) is called upon to confront institutional omissions and gaps. Housing in student dormitories, the absence of protocols at the university for inclusive policies, and the significant lack of educator training raise the issue of homophobia and transphobia to abroaderlevelofpolicies.Beyondtheinterpersonalaspectofthephenomenon,theabsence of institutional support is a serious concern for LGBTQ+ individuals. She says:
«I fought for my right to housing. The housing department staff did not automatically accept my request to stay with women. There was a lot of awkwardness. They told me they were facing a situation like mine for the first time. Student unions suggested an exception by placing me in a single room. But I wanted this to lead to broader change for future trans students at the university.»
Student Residences, Αthens
Conclusions
I completed these lines just a few hours ago. I sent a message to my good friend M., asking if he had ever experienced homophobia at university. M. is a lawyer, dynamic, and passes as straight. He replied, “of course.” The weight of that certainty is overwhelming. It reveals that homophobia and transphobia are experienced as culturally expected social forces. A scenario that could always materialize. Part of a collective biography,acollectivetrauma,acollectivememory.Butalsopartofacollectiveresistance, a mobilization, an opposition. A tear for our acceptance, like the one from my friend P. A tear for our battles and our solidarity.
References
Giannakopoulos, K. (2021). Topothetiméni anthropología, sexoualikótita kai synaisthímata (in Greek) [“Situated anthropology, sexuality and emotions”. Feminist.
Gkeltis,Th.,(2019).LOATKIástegoikaidíktyastegastikísypostírixis(inGreek)[“LGBTI homeless and housing support networks”. In: Katoikía kai Koinonía: Provlímata, Politikés kai Kinímata (in Greek) [“Housing and Society: Problems, Policies and Movements”]. Athens: Dionikos.
Gkeltis, Th. (2021). O omofylófilos ántras mésa apó tin próti ekdotikí período tou AMFI (in Greek) [“The homosexual man through the first publishing period of AMFI”]. In: “Ygeía, Kávla kai Epanástasi” [“Health, Boner and Revolution”]. Athens: Asini. Jeffries, M. (2023). Black and queer on campus. New York: New York University Press.
Papanikolaou, D. (2019). Tha penthoúme pánta san paidiá…” Ratsismós, omofovía kai thanatopolitikí (in Greek) [“We will always mourn like children..." Racism, homophobia and death politics; again’]. Feministiqa.
Trigger Warnings on LGBTQI+ Violence in Media: AcademicPoliciesandPracticesforGreekClassrooms
By Afroditi Kairaki and Jordan Paterson
Introduction
This conference paper presents preliminary findings and proposed research from our postdoctoral research project which investigates the implications of trauma-informed practices and trigger warnings within university classrooms. We examine the significance, discourse, debate, and consequences of implementing “trigger warnings” in academic settings, drawing from international case studies in Canada and the United States. While our research broadly addresses a variety of trauma-related issues affecting diverse communities including racism, sexism, ableism, sexual violence, self-harm, and eating disorders this paper specifically highlights the experiences and challenges faced by the LGBTQI+ community, which are particularly relevant in today’s context (Mathieu, 1985; McCabe, 2009).
By critically examining LGBTQI+ issues in relation to trauma-informed pedagogies in universities, we wish to improve our understanding of LGBTQI+ experiencesand advocate for trauma-informed practicesthat foster inclusivityand support. Considering the prevalence of trauma-risk themes within a wide range of media presented in classrooms, we argue for the necessity of trigger warnings and trauma-informed approaches in Greek universities. As such, the field of reference for our research is restricted to the academic sector. The results of our finalized research in the future may also highlight the need to establish trigger warnings when using media in primary and secondary education in Greece, as the cascading influence of post-secondary practices often shapes broader educational policies. In this sense, we acknowledge trauma-affected
students and instructors as well as LBGTQI+ community members and wish to provide this evidence-based resource even beyond the primary, secondary, and post-secondary classrooms to the audio-visual industry’s education and advocacy networks. However, we alsoquestionthecurrentproposedorestablishedframeworkswithinCanadaandtheUnited States. Our cross-comparative, evidence-based research intends to objectively evaluate the effectiveness of trigger warnings within trauma-informed pedagogy and their potential educational outcomes for Greek teachers and students, rather than merely confirming preexisting biases.
The objective is to align our research with the needs of the Greek academic community, ensuring it meets international quality standards, especially in light of the upcomingestablishment ofprivatizednon-state universitiesinGreeceand relatedlegal and policy frameworks. With the introduction of these privatized universities, Greek public institutions will face increased competition by privatization and require new educational policies to survive. By ensuring that trauma-informed pedagogical research aligns with international educational standards Greek public universities can remain competitive, relevant, andinclusive thusensuringthat private institutionsalsocomplywith Greek educational standards.
Addressing the Knowledge Gap: Trauma-Informed Pedagogies and Trigger Warnings in Greek Academic Institutions
Presently, in Greece, there is no established or recommended policy framework in place for trauma-informed teaching and learning in classrooms that use visual media (Global Education Monitoring Report Team, 2020)
Nor are there trigger or content warnings broadly used as teaching tools. Despite the growing recognition and ostensive need for diversity and inclusion resources and trauma-informed practices in educational contexts globally, Greek academic institutions currently exhibit a significant knowledge gap in implementing these pedagogies regarding
trigger warnings in educational media. This gap is particularly evident in the absence of systematic approaches to address unacknowledged and often coded traumatizing content in media that depicts LGBTQI+ discrimination, stereotypes, and violence (Wollen, P., 1998). Recognizing this lack of knowledge and research, we turn to case studies from Canadian and U.S. media and educational contexts, where these practices have been extensively debated and employed over a long period.
Given this apparent lack of an established policy framework for trauma-informed teaching in Greece andthe significant knowledge gap inaddressingtraumatizingcontent especially regarding LGBTQI+ issues this research study raises several important questions. What are the potential implications of implementing trauma-informed practices and trigger warnings in university classrooms? How can these practices help create more inclusive educational spaces that acknowledge the needs of trauma-affected students and instructors? Furthermore,howmight the introductionoftrauma-informed strategiesextend beyond the classroom, supporting the audiovisual industry’s educational and advocacy networks in tackling sensitive or potentially harmful content?
Inconsidering the specific context ofGreekacademicinstitutionswe alsoask, what barriersmight exist tointegratingthese practiceseffectively,andwhere doknowledge gaps in current implementation also exist? Furthermore, we believe it is essential to critically analyze cinematic representations, particularly those that contain disturbing or triggering content.
Methodology and Theoretical Framework
Our methodology involves collecting data through interviews, surveys, and an analysis of institutional and government legal and policy frameworks. We then analyze the contentofmedia representationsto identifyandanalyze potentiallytrauma inducingtrigger elements. We then employa combinationofcase studiesanddiscourse analysistoexamine the current use of trigger warnings in Canada, Greece, and the U.S. While our theoretical
framework integrates trauma theory, social learning theory, critical pedagogy, and representational theories. These frameworks help us interpret our findings by exploring how media content, policy frameworks, and educational practices intersect to impact trauma-affected individuals. This approach allows us to connect our analysis to real-world implications and propose relevant practices for Greek classrooms.
Historical Perspectives and Criticism of Trauma-Informed Practices
As asserted by the theorist Ricciotto Canudo, Cinema was formally recognized as “the Seventh Art” in 1911. However, according to Canudo, cinema has never fully shed its secondary function as a mass communication medium. In plain fact, mass communication has continuously been expanded at every stage of its development. While it achieves aesthetic autonomy and integrity distinct from other art forms, it has commensurately increased its potential to desensitize viewers ethically. This paradox where cinema operates both as a high artistic medium and as a tool of mass culture and communication can risk viewers becoming desensitized to ethical and representational concerns. Today’s massdistributionandconsumption offilmsinonlinemediaexacerbatesthisdesensitization process of the audience's ethical or moral sensibilities. The term “mass” refers not only to an unshaped audience concerning class, gender, or race but more profoundly in terms of experience and social identity (Berger & Luchmann, 2003; Williams, 2015). In this regard, the decoding of audiovisual texts emerged as a research domain in the early '60s as a field exploring social representations. Serge Moscovici (1961) acknowledged social representations as a means of reading and interpreting socio-psychological reality (Moscovici, 2000) Cinema and today’s mass media serve in the online metaverse as a medium and tool through which individuals or social groups perceive and internalize their surrounding world, concurrently socially constructing a system of expectations and predictions of this world (Berger & Luckmann, 2003; Butler, 2008).
The impact of cinema onthe belief system of the audience became a major research focus within postmodern philosophy which continues today.5 Mass media, including cinema, standsasa foundationalcultural factorinbothdevelopedanddevelopingsocieties' self-image as nations creating a moral critical demand upon scholars to interpret and frame this accelerating technological development of mass media and communications (Bhabha, 1990).
Film studies in the academy now leverage powerful critical tools such as feminist theories, discourse analysis, semiotic analysis, and media linguistics to examine and interpret various social representations and intersectional identities including gender, homoerotic desire, male/female gaze, mental illness, learning disabilities, fertility, female/adolescent sexuality, companionship, historical periods, immigrant/refugee experiences, and more (Goutsos & Bella, 2022; Kairaki, 2019; Wollen, 1998). Underthese conditions, industry-related terms and practices emerged in cinema that prefigured our current media landscape and created the viewer’s understanding and expectations. For example, the early age-related classifying systems (ratings), or even the categorization of thefilmworkintothematiccategories(genres),createdviewerexpectationsandemotionalpsychological anticipations of the films they had not yet seen. These early historical formations in cinema and mass media have now developed into the “trauma-informed” practices related to cinema studies we see in some countries today (Bajwa et al., 2020).
5 Essential texts include: “Simulacra and Simulation” by Jean Baudrillard; “The Society of the Spectacle” by Guy Debord; “Film as Philosophy” by Rupert Read and Jerry Goodenough; “Cinema 1: The MovementImage” by Gilles Deleuze; “Cinema 2: The Time-Image” by Gilles Deleuze; “The Image” by Daniel Boorstin; “Postmodernism, or, The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism” by Fredric Jameson; “The Power of Movies: How Screen and Mind Interact” by Colin McGinn; “Cinema and Experience: Siegfried Kracauer, Walter Benjamin, and Theodor W. Adorno” by Miriam Bratu Hansen.
The Role of Trigger Warnings and Trauma-Informed Practices in Combating LGBTQI+ Discrimination and Violence
A trigger warning or content advisory notice is a communication designed to help individuals anticipate or avoid specific content (Haslam, 2017 May 19). Unlike traditionalcontent ratings(MPAAratingsfor parental guidance)6,triggerwarningsaddress the potential emotional impact of content, inciting viewers to anticipate or avoid certain materials and elicit learning (Rich, 2014) These warnings are part of the broader traumainformed pedagogy that recognizes the widespread effects of trauma globally. This practice emerged from evidence-based treatments for PTSD among veterans and has since expanded to cover various forms of trauma, including abuse, sexual violence, and discrimination (Linski, 2019). The key goal is to differentiate trigger warnings from terms like content warnings or high-risk content warnings.
“Triggering” content, originally studied in PTSD research, refers to stimuli that cause the individual to re-experience symptoms related to past trauma (Van der Kolk, 2015). This differs from content that is intellectually challenging or uncomfortable, which can nevertheless promote learning. Research shows that triggering content negatively impacts students' ability to cope and succeed academically (Morton, 2018). Thus, traumainformed pedagogy that uses of trigger warnings, aims to frame trauma mindfully and minimize unnecessary provocation of pre-existing traumas, thus promoting equitable and inclusive learning environments (Bajwa, et al., 2020).
As mentioned, critical tools like discourse analysis, semiotic, and linguistic methods are used to identify LGBTQI+ content that may require warnings. In particular the authors believe trigger-warnings are particularly important for content containing antiLGBTQI+ rhetoric or coded representations, which may retraumatize individuals with personal experiences of discrimination or anxiety. Anti-LGBTQI+ rhetoric, including
6 Motion Picture Association, [Canada] Inc., 2023
derogatory language and the erasure of queer identities through heteronormative representations, can psychologically disturb viewers and reinforce harmful social normativity under the male “gaze” (Mulvey, 2005). For example, in the Greek classic cinema context, in The Parisian Lady (1969), where Rena Vlahopoulou plays Pelagia Karaboubouna, a seamstress struggling to meet the demands of her clients, we see the character Leonidas, played by Chronis Exarhakos, pretending to be gay to help Pelagia appeal to a wealthier clientele in the affluent Kolonaki neighborhood. A queer analysis of Leonidas’ character reveals how his fabricated gay identity is used as a comedic device, reinforcing stereotypes about gender performance and queerness as something malleable or even frivolous (Fragaki & Goutsos, 2005). Through the lens of semiotic analysis, the film conveysimplicit messagesabout the social hierarchiesbetweenurbanclassandsexual orientation, positioning queerness as performative and ultimately serving heteronormative goals of upward mobility (Lindner, 2017)
Discourse analysis reveals how the film employs humour to navigate taboos around queerness while reinforcing heteronormativity, thus presenting Leonidas’ “gayness” as a temporary and artificial role. This reflects broader Greek societal anxieties surrounding queerness at the time, framing it as an identity that can be switched on and off to suit social purposes, rather than as a legitimate expression of LGBTQI+ identity. Similarly, in TheodorosandtheDouble (1962), Theodorosis portrayed asa father clinging to conservative and patriarchal values. This is symbolized by his constant invocation of “The Double!!” as a form of control over his daughter’s hopes and desires. From a media linguistics perspective, his phrase operates as a discourse marker for patriarchal authority, signifying a refusal to acknowledge the evolving identities of younger generations by threatening violence (ie. “The double” - Greek expression). The film's representation of gender roles and familial hierarchy can be deconstructed using intersectional analysis, which shows how these traditional values intersect with class, gender, and generational tensions. The daughter’s silencing through “The double” represents the suppression of her individual autonomy and herright toself-expression,with Theodorosembodyinga broader
social resistance to progressive gender roles and the questioning of male authority. Therefore, the use of trigger warnings prefacing such films wouldpotentially prevent retraumatization of the viewer and provide options to students and instructors.
The Canadian Model: Debates and Legislation on Trauma-Informed Practices
The debate is ongoing and complex and this complexity emerges within multiple media sectors (education, entertainment, communication, TV and streaming) regulating content in different forms (Bridgland et. al., 2023). Since 2014 a debate has raged in North America pitting trigger warning usage against free speech in universities (Bower, 2023). Opponents of so-called “political-correctness” or “wokism” view Diversity Equity and Inclusion recommendations and trauma-informed trigger-warnings as censorious practices that undermine cinematic art, and free speech and lead it toward a sterilized homogenization (Khalid & Snyder, 2021).
Since 2023, following the Biden administration’s overturning of Trump’s Executive Order on Anti-DEI policy. U.S. conservative state law makers have reacted by passing at least 65 anti-DEI bills in line with the goals of the previous Trump administration. Therefore, pedagogical strategies that promote the use of trigger warnings related to these issues are also canceled or restricted. Where liberal progressives view DEI as creating and sustaining environments that support students, and faculty who have been traditionally underrepresented or discriminated, conservatives view DEI as a restriction of their free speech and a form of “woke reverse discrimination” (American Civil Liberties Union, 2023).
In light of the debate, in the Canadian province of Quebec, the Minister of Education tabled Bill-32 with clear definitions for academic freedom as “the right of every person to engage freely and without doctrinal, ideological or moral constraint” in all school-related activities but student unions have pushed back (CBC News, 2023). Federal
lawmakers, which have passed the recent Bill C-11 (AKA The Online Streaming Act), which is the first amendment to Canada’s Broadcasting Act since 1991, have also come under attack over Canadian content rules that critics say can censor online content (CBC News, 2024). In Canada, film ratings and classifications are governed by provincial agencies, with the Motion Picture Association of Canada (MPA) collaborating with the Canadian Radio Film and Television Commission (CRTC) to ensure films comply with industry standards. While trigger warnings are not part of the classification system, ratings inform their design by educators and advocates.
In Greek legislation, the evaluation of the appropriateness of a film is now carried out based on Law 3905/2010, which requires the assessment and subsequent classification ofthe film before itsrelease incinemas.A typical recent exampleinGreece where a trigger warning was not used is what happened last year when a teacher showed her students a film containing a scene in which two little boys kissed (Shower Boys, 2021). The parents claimed the scene made their children physically ill and that they should have beenwarned (The Common Sense, 2023).
The current modernization of the institutional framework for cinema, within the context of Greece’s developmental policies, defines the principles of national policy in the field of cinema and establishes an updated institutional framework, considering the developments occurring in the audiovisual sector in recent years. The high-risk areas are mostly classic films where heterosexual love reigns supreme, and queer characters are either silenced or embellished, according to the constraints of golden age censorship like the Hays Code. (Athanasatou, 2001) Many classic films, governed by the Hays Code until the 1960s, portrayed LGBTQI+ characters negatively or not at all. These films are still widely studied in media schools, raising the question of whether they require trigger warnings.Disney’suse of content warningsfor racist depictionsinitsolder filmsillustrates a similar approach. The Hays Code would fade in the 1960s, when community claims intensified,culminating in the NewYork Stonewall events of1969whenreplacedbyMPA and CRTC institutions. Not long after, the landmark books on queer reading in cinema,
Screening the Sexes: Homosexuality in the Movies (1972) by Parker Tyler and The CelluloidCloset-HomosexualityintheMovies (1981) by Vito Russo, and in the following years queer film representations become more realistic and less abusive (new queer cinema)7 (Rich, 1992).
Among many issues, the protagonists of such classic movies often become bearers of institutionalized sexism, evident in the dialectic devaluation and subjugation of the LGBTQI+ community. This constitutes a closed belief system, where gender power relations become more apparent, accompanied by a rhetoric that becomes criminal when these cinematic representations normalize LGBTQI+ violence. Illustrative is the approach taken by The Walt Disney Company for classic animated films, where the opening titles state that the program includes negative representations and/or mistreatment of people or cultures (content advisory notice for racism). If “oldies” contain such triggering topics, covertly neutralizing counterarguments, and diminishing age-related signifiers, is there a need for a pre-warning regarding potentially disturbing content in these films, especially since they continue to be popular among younger generations? And how can the concept of trigger warnings in the academic classroom be expanded as a scaffolding for broader societal and cultural needs in the Greek context, particularly concerning the ongoing LGBTQI+ discrimination?
Conclusion
The authors’ focus is on acknowledging trauma-affected students and instructors while exploring whether trigger warnings can help mitigate socially harmful behavior related to LGBTQI+ violence and discrimination triggered by media content. Inaccurate cinematic representations shape perceptions and influence the collective unconscious
7The term new queer cinema is introduced by film critic and theorist Ruby Rich, in a 1992 article for the Village Voice , which was republished in Sight and Sound , to define and describe a movement in queerthemed independent filmmaking in the early 1990s.
(Berger & Luckmann, 2003; Mulvey, 2005) While gender relations have long been analyzed in film, the authors believe the reproduction of LGBTQI+ stereotypes requires further exploration.
In contemporary Greek society, gendered violence, as seen in the tragic deaths of Vangelis Giakoumakis and LGBTQI+ activist Zak Kostopoulos, underscores the urgency of addressing issues of trauma in media education. Recent advancements, such as the recognition of LGBTQI+ rights and the legalization of gay marriage, reflect progress toward inclusivity. However, the ongoing privatization of universities highlights the need to modernize pedagogical tools and create an inclusive educational environment that addresses the diverse needs of students as Greek public institutions try to keep pace. The prevalence of LGBTQI+ violence calls for this work to be done now, including examining how media shapes societal attitudes. Trigger warnings in academic settings provide an opportunity to address these broader social challenges. This research aims to explore the feasibility of creating inclusive educational spaces in Greek universities by creating educational resources that incorporate trauma-informed practices and trigger warnings for LGBTQI+ content in film and media. The authors intend to release the research findings of this post-doctoral study in the following year.
References
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), 2023. Anti-DEI efforts are the latest attack on racial equity and free speech. Available at: https://www.aclu.org/news/freespeech/anti-dei-efforts-are-the-latest-attack-on-racial-equity-and-free-speech
[Accessed 5 July 2023]
Athanasatou, G. (2001) Ellinikos Kinimatografos (1950-1967) Laïki Mnimi kai Ideologia (in Greek) [“Greek Cinema (1950-1967): Popular Memory and Ideology”] Athens: Finatec.
Bajwa, J. K., Kidd, S., Abai, M., Knouzi, I., Couto, S. & McKenzie, K. (2020). Traumainformed education support program for refugee survivors. Canadian Journal for the Study of Adult Education, 32(1). Available at: https://cjsae.library.dal.ca/index.php/cjsae/article/view/5452 [Accessed 9 August 2024].
Berger, P. & Luchman, T. (2003). I Koinoniki Kataskevi tis Pragmatikotitas. Mia Pragmateía stin Koinoniología tis Gnósis (in Greek) [“The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise on the Sociology of Knowledge”]. Translated by Athanasiou. Athens: Nisos.
Bhabha, H.K. (1990). Introduction: Narrating the nation. In: H.K. Bhabha, ed. Nation and Narration. London: Routledge, pp.1-7.
Bower, L.J. (2023). The woman in black: A defense of trigger warnings. Journal of Criminal Justice Education. DOI: 10.1080/10511253.2023.2264370
Bridgland, V.M.E., Jones, P.J. & Bellet, B.W. (2023). A meta-analysis of the efficacy of trigger warnings. Clinical Psychological Science https://doi.org/10.1177/21677026231186625.
Butler, J. 2008. Bodies with Meaning: Demarcations of Gender in Discourse. Translated by Marketou, P. Athens: Ekremes.
CBC News (2023). Quebec’s proposed academic freedom bill worries critics. CBC News, March 14. Available at: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/academic-freedombill-tabled-1.6410128 [Accessed 2 June 2023].
CBCNews(2024).CanadaintroducesBillC-11toregulateonlinestreamingservices. CBC News. Available at: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/c11-online-streaming-1.6824314 [Accessed 11 November 2023].
(The) Common Sense, 2023. Shower Boys: Pós mia tainía ánoixe ton ávolo diálogo (in Greek) [“Shower Boys: Πώς
Available at: https://thecommonsense.gr/en/2023/06/03/shower-boys-
-διάλ/ [Accessed 22 October 2024].
Fragaki, G. & Goutsos, D. (2005) Gender Adjectives and Identity Construction in Greek Corpora. York: University of York.
Global Education Monitoring Report Team (2020). Inclusionandeducation:allmeansall. UNESCO. DOI: https://doi.org/10.54676/JJNK6989
Goutsos, D. & Bella,S. (eds.)(2020). Koinonioglossologia (inGreek) [“Sociolinguistics”]. Athens: Gutenberg.
Haslam, N. (2017). A short history of trigger warnings. Psychlopaedia. Available at: https://psychlopaedia.org/society/republished/whats-the-difference-between-traumaticfear-and-moral-anger-trigger-warnings-wont-tell-you/ [Accessed 11 July 2024].
Kairaki, A. (2019). Short film as a pedagogical tool. In: P. Delikari, ed. Bridges of Communication in the Educational System. Ars Libri, pp. 91-102.
Khalid, A. & Snyder, J.A. (2021). The Data Is In - Trigger Warnings Don’t Work. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Available at: https://www.chronicle.com/article/thedata-is-in-trigger-warnings-dont-work?cid=CDP-articlebottom [Accessed 19 December 2023].
Lindner, K. (2017). Film Bodies: Queer Feminist Encounters with Gender and Sexuality in Cinema. London: I.B. Tauris and Company.
Linski, C. (2019). Assisting student veterans with hidden wounds. In: J. Hoffman, P. Blessinger, & M. Makhanya, eds. Perspectives on Diverse Student Identities in Higher Education: International Perspectives on Equity and Inclusion. Vol. 14, pp. 29-45. Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S2055-364120180000014004
Mathieu, N.C., (1985).Quand céder n'est pas consentir. Cahiersdel'Homme, 24(1), pp.7381.
McCabe, J. (20090. Feminism and Cinema. Translated by Pyrpasou, E. Athens: Pataki.
Morton, B. M. (2018). The grip of trauma: How trauma disrupts the academic aspirations of foster youth. Child Abuse & Neglect, 75, 73–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2017.04.021
Moscovici, S. (2000) Social Representations: Explorations in Social Psychology Cambridge: Polity Press.
Moscovici, S. (2008). Psychoanalysis: Its Image and Its Public. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Mulvey, L. (2005). Optical and Other Pleasures. Translated by Koulentianou, M. Athens: Papazisi.
Rich, R. (1992). Article in Village Voice. Reprinted in Sight and Sound
Rich,R. (2014).Thinking about triggers,thumbs,sex, anddeathfrom Film Quarterly. Film Quarterly, 67(4), pp.5-8.
Russo, V. (1981). The Celluloid Closet: Homosexuality in the Movies. New York: Harper & Row.
Tyler, P. (1972). Screening the Sexes: Homosexuality in the Movies. New York: Da Capo Press.
Van der Kolk, B.A. (2015) The Body Keeps the Score: Brain, Mind, and Body in the Healing of Trauma. United Kingdom: Penguin Publishing Group.
Williams, R. (2015) Structures ofFeeling: Affectivityand the Study ofCulture. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Wollen, P. (1998). Signs and Meaning in the Cinema. London: British Film Institute.
Literary Identity Texts, Creative Writing and Possible
SelvesinanAcademicContext:aninclusivepractice
by Maria Α. Stamataki
Academic Environment is a multi-collective framework that has dynamic characteristics(Fraser,2017:103-124).Althoughit setslimits,leavesfree spacefor creative works (Fan & Cai, 2022:4667-4676). Supplementary, it considers heterogeneity as a normal feature and is not driven to silence differences, which means that universities undermine homogeneity, with a large variety of manipulations. First of all, academic professors do not adopt only one teaching book but choose a wide range of literature from their field, so that assessment to be based on multiple learning resources. Academic success, also, is regarded as a factor of innovation, that’s why axiomatic statements are questioned in order to all be gathered. After all academic environments as agents of meaning and cohesive spatialities of collective identities create opportunities, dealing with various transactions and collaborations (Booij et al., 2017:547-578; Shin & Zhou, 2007:1709-1721).
Academic knowledge uses many approaches, however the question of what methods are more effective does not accept only one answer, because scientific reasoning is accessed through specific intrapersonal (cognition, motivation, and emotions) and interpersonal(teacher-studentsandstudent-student)interactionallearningpathways,which follow mental/perceptual (meta)cognitive processes, practices of individual and collective criticism and, appropriately chosen, emotional links that function as experiential baits (hooks) (Hilpert & Marchand, 2018:185-202). Overall the meeting with new academic knowledge is mediated, through graded cognitive scaffolding paths, which follow the
process: Prior knowledge, introduction of new knowledge in the form of a question or reflection, that accepts controversial answers -agreement or disagreement- leading to validation, deny or combination selections (Skyttner, 2006).
Among academic works, there are several variations on forms; individual, collaborative, laboratory, research, using formal and informal communication skills, peer learning, academic feedback, design for different levels, aiming at measurable results, validity, purposeful goals, cognitive skills, further research and excellence (Hyland,2004).
Literary academic works add to previous forms of creative working. So, empirical communication, teaching-learning connections, projects, and mainly Creative Writing are used, promotingauthenticity, auto–research,qualitative results, and insightswithin broader contexts such as social, economic, historical, etc. (Ivanic, 1998; Jones et al. 1999).
Laboratory creative tasks use Creative Writing as a research tool, a practical method for social-cultural research, which aims at the emergence of documentary interpretation,at the understanding of the role of language, and the role of perspective (Sklar, 2013:47-60).
For these purposes, it uses dual routes models of learning and self-excavation methods, supports individual meaning and subjectivity, owing to work in liminal fields (between real and invented worlds), and inclusive fruitful environments. The written texts are mostly identity / creative/critical texts (Mottram, 2009:229-251). In the imaginary world blurring boundaries resulted in the emergence of a third space that is centered in interactions, where mergers are created between fantasy and reality, personal and social or informal and official issues. What matters is to negotiate images, social-cultural realms, social divisions, conditions of an identity crisis, and demystification processes of traumatization or stigmatization (Leavy, 2014:8-71).
Working in hybrid – third spaces
Academic environments create hybrid community spaces, both face-to-face and virtual or inventioned third spaces, impacting the way in which people engage with one
another (Rutherford, 1990:207-221). Moreover, the third space facilitates different forms of reading: detailed personal study (deep reading), collaborative reading–criticism (social reading), and intellectual inquiry. It also, enhances interactions between groups (transcultural, trans-national, trans-generational), whereas it secures the anonymity of users (Gutierrez, 2000:286-303). In this working status the selves aren’t presented, they are represented or substituted, which clarifies why university is the ideal environment for the shape and activation of possible selves, trying to configure answers as who I am and what I can do. As a result, third spaces convey messages in texts that reflect the journey of self discovery (Gutierrez, 2008:148-164).
Identity texts for example, are representations of individuals’identities, combining experiences, aspirations and cultures, which take place in reflective spaces such as institutional environments and narrative spaces that challenge power dynamics and social demands (Cummins et al., 2015:555-581). They are referred to various forms of text: written narratives, digital media, spoken word, other creative expressions, having their origins to personal meanings, following a route from inner toexternal world. Identitytexts are not a neutral communication action, given that they reflect on tensions faced around gender-related societal expectations or highlight the expected roles that are openly acknowledged by society (Slaughter & Choi, 2024:1-21).
In general, they emphasize the importance of cultural narratives or witnesses, encourageindividualstosharetheirperspectives, and give honor andvalidation to students' backgrounds through engagement and diverse ways of knowing and being. Creative Writing is connected to Identity Texts by using the tools of expression and experience, activating the mechanisms of simulation, comparison, experiment, and the shape of hero types/ archetypes (patterns of behaviors and motifs), that embark on a quest of achievement, overcoming obstacles (Rahman et al., 2024:838-848).
The possible selves (PSs) theory
Possible Selves are elected versions of oneself that a person aspires to be, combining elements of real and invented characters. They represent goals and the realization of one’s capabilities that are not yet fully actualized (Erikson, 2007:348-358).
Another characteristic is their changeable shape in circumstances, which means that possible selves are shaped over time as individuals gain experiences, insights, and opportunities. They motivate decision-making in two ways: to strive for positive efforts or to avoid negative ones, moreover align behavior with ideals, helping transitions from current self to possible self (Markus and Ruvolo, 1989:211-241).
The construction of Possible Selves is based on differentiated, narrative mechanisms of personal myths and central themes, identifications, comparisons –correlations, and acts of persistence, following either abstract, simple, or concrete strategies8 (planning interventions), by visualising future possibilities, qualities, and social contributions, without excluding emotion tones and motive talks (Markus and Ruvolo, 1992:95-124). It is worth pointing out that the Possible Selves’ envision is influenced on self-schemas, which are auto–cognitive generalizations9, according to Hazel Markus’ theory, that organize processes of past, intrapersonal/interpersonal experience and lifemeaning narratives that play a significant role to the creation of PSs. Self – schemas are
8 A concrete strategy plan of PSs tailoring present features, future goals, conscious actions and continuous assessment, using sequential ordering and teleological reasoning.
9 I strongly doubt that self–schemas are generalized auto–cognitive schemata. They are, from my point of view, open–ended and dynamic self–concepts, based on past experiences, but constantly reformulated in response to new changes or shifts, reflecting differentiations or enrichment factors to one’sidentity over time. To put it simply, self–schemas are cognitive mental frameworks that shape how we perceive and interpret the world, influenced not only by general societal norms but also predominantly by acquired, fragmented concepts of self. From the perspective of fragmented auto–schemas, the self is not a generalized entity or system but a dynamic construct made up of multiple voices or identities, a key component of the Dialogical Self Theory (DST) (Hermans – Konopka, 2010. Raggatt, 2000: 65 – 90) which argues that the self is not a coherent identity, but rather a multiplicity of narratives and I-positions, involving agreements, disagreements or negotiations between these positions, which are situated within a broader cultural and social context, such as societal norms, cultural beliefs and interpersonal relationships.
composed of a collection of individual characteristics derived from fiction, linguistic, narrative, collaborative and empirical research, other experiences, and hermeneutic perceptual networks (Markus, 1977: 63-78; Martinez, 2024:1-19). Moreover, Possible Selves are created from a net of characteristics and relevant thoughts to what a person wants to be and what fears to live, representing dominant and uncommon social traits or habits (Turner & Hooker, 2019:1-6).
Possible Selves are also a methodological tool of Creative Writing. Pessoa with a high willingness to explore new ways to poetically experience the world used Possible Selves as a tool of literary writing. Pessoan heteronyms are synthetic selves who live, simultaneously and in sequence, as a plurality of distinct subjects, with the intention of human flourishing and human self-enrichment (Ganeri, 2024:41-74)10 .
At this point, it is a crucial factor to distinct Potential – Possible selves. Both types highlight future goals and aspirations for one''s future self. However Possible Selves shape two different types: the Ideal Self and the Feared one, which are centered on dreams or fears that are related to failure or success, to desirable or undesirable outcomes. As conclusion, Possible Selves are broader motivational mechanisms since they encompass multiple self–life scenarios (Erikson, 2018:13-26). On the other hand, Potential Selves are more concrete concepts based on skills and capabilities, exploiting opportunities or developing a growth mindset by capabilities (Markus & Nurius, 1986:956-957). Once our lives are profoundly affected by the digitalisation of the work process, new types of selves emerge, Virtual Selves (VSs), which are online Personas, public and observable, shaped specifically by technology, curated and flexible, and are bound to affect online interactions (Mancini et al., 2017:275–283). Avatar-mediated worlds challenge offline selves, so a virtual identity tends to be divided between accurate, idealized/enhanced self or adapting alternative or negative aspects of the self, which depicts the user’s plasticity or dilemmas
10 Pessoa’s theory of the human subject has its origins in the nature of self-found in classical India. His Indian ideal might be seen as a new type of panpsychism or cosmopsychism in the spirit of Coleridge and Whitman. Refer to Ganeri, 2024: 125–146.
among authenticity and attraction (Behm–Morawitz, 2013:119-128). The difference between Virtual and Possible Self is that the last is established by aspirations and stable visions, leading to a private and internal form, following a self–guide development. Even though it is remarkable that, in our contemporary era digital environment and physical are interacting, so virtual selves tend to affect possible selves (Kukshinov, 2015:73-82)
“Creatical”11 writing laboratory texts & possible selves (PSs)
Given these points, elements of literary characters could shape aspects of Possible Selves (PSs) through simulations and fictional narratives (Mathies, 2020:325-345).
Reading creates meaning by the attribution of an individual’s content as a result of critical, interpretive commentaries and useful metacognitive strategies (Frazier et al. 2021:297318). Critical texts focus not only on evaluating the thematic, morphological, and aesthetic textual values but on highlighting outcomes, observing improvements, results in effectiveness, and personal feelings. So, a sense of agency is shaped by pre-eminent meanings based on subjective preferences, that involve the reader in purposeful transactions, related through intertextual markers sub-themes, identified contradictions or fieldsofresistance indominant patternsofbehavior,allowingnewvoices,usuallysilenced, to speak (Altintas et al., 2020).
Especiallysignificant, Creatical Writing Laboratory Texts involvemergingcreative and critical discourses, within the framework of a laboratory setting for academic contexts. Hence, fiction and its readiness to try new ways blend communication, reflection factors, and dialectical logic, which, among others, can be represented in complex digital and computer-generated structures.Acharacteristic paradigm of an intellectual, academic page
11 The term Creatical conveys the idea that critical and creative thinking is a combined process with complementary dimensions between developing arguments and generating new ideas. Firstly, it appeared in the book: Johnson, K. G. (1991).Thinking Creatically.ASystematic, InterdisciplinaryApproach to CreativeCritical Thinking. Englewood: Institute of General Semantics.
that promotes comparisons and classifications of concrete or abstract ideas, objects, and events, allied with texts, (non)fictional, written or not, against silence, challenging dominant narratives is Criticism12, a host page with critical and creative texts written by students, undergraduates and postgraduates of the Department of Communication, Media and Culture of Panteion University. Its context is divided into three distinct categories: Literature, Journalism, andCriticism,whereasitssourcesare the academic critical labtexts that establish, for student use, digital heterotopias, spaces of freedom, where invention, expressiveness, and innovation go hand in hand. Accordingly, students far more than individual members join an inclusive community, where the minimization of discrimination, inequalities, and exclusions becomes a reality, promoting attitudes of acceptance of diversity.
Notably, such hybrid digital spaces enhance the interactions of individuals and groups (group dynamics), they are forced to identify alternative explanations and make new links that discover possibilities. Depending on the problem – statement of “creatical” laboratory exercises, each member, individually or within a group, chooses a text, a critical point of view and isolates textual features, whatever noticeable elements he/she deems appropriate to associate, expanding himself/herself with textual manipulations (Morley, 2007:36-63). Control of preferences, group connections multiple critique, and experimentations are promoted through fictional figures of potentiality (Ramage, Bean, & Johnson, 2006:78-79, 408-410; Ramey, 2014:46-47). Overall, “creatical” writing in academic contexts leads students to generate intellectual expansions of individuality that critically use parts of the textual ethos, determined by their beliefs and values or other appealstoemotionPossible Selves,withina safe, socialenvironment,onaccount of deeper levels of understanding, relevant to the varieties of behaviors, attitudes, and choices (Martínez, 2014:110-131)
12The Criticism's creator, host and administrator is Dr. Arseniou E., Professor of Modern Greek Philology at the Department of Communication, Media and Culture of Panteion University. The page can be accessed at https://criticism.gr/topics/dimiourgiki-kritiki/
Possible selves (PSs) and gender expression
Once sexuality is a way of expression and a human preference that differs from person to person, we should accept the social conditions of multiple gender expressiveness beyond binary divisions: male, female, gay, trans, etc. (Egan, Perry, 2001: 451-63 FaustoSterling, 2020:244-268). Possible Selves on behalf of what we don’t know contribute to increasingpointsof proximity(sexualityisalsounderstoodasacultural spatiality),through Symbolic Interactionism and Enactivism (Neville, 2018:1-15). Moreover, Possible Selves allowabroaderconceptionofgenderidentitiesor gender–fluididentitiesthatdonotstrictly adhere to gender norms. Individuals might envision multiple Possible Selves, encompassing a wide spectrum of gender expressions (Anders, Olmstead, 2019:18591876). Therefore Possible Selves in defense of other sexualities (self is conceived as an integration of different selves) can obtain knowledge, understanding, acceptance, and self–empowerment, using tools to check or manage sexual expression, gaining a sense of self, identity, voice, direction, and purpose (Knox, 2006:61-77; Cameron, 1999:179-189).
Identity Texts and similar Academic Creative Writing, especially in laboratory literary environments, through intersectional text analysis, reflective learning experiences, merging other communicative factors as journaling, exploit the power, the privilege, and the intersectionality that invented imaginary worlds offer, promoting auto excavating methods (Kordeš & Demšar, 2018:219-229), writing skills or/and deep learning (Basalla, Schneider & Brocke, 2022:99-109). Consequently, text strategies give credibility to the argument and the arguer, leading to acceptance, overcoming doubt, and self–limiting behaviors. Literature-based strategies, through collaboration and teamwork, within safe and privileged academic conditions, activated by Creative Writing, challenge dominant narratives, text issues of racism, sexism, homophobia, and heteronormative assumptions, buildingstudentsasenseofcommunity,asenseofbelonging,andstrongidentitycoherence in order to resist more effectively societal stereotypes and marginalization (Riessman, 2008; Stein & Markus, 1996:349-384).
Conclusions
Academic environments create heterotopias, hybrid–third spaces, where scientific issues are taught both with individual and group methods. Especially in laboratory-based training, Creative Writing techniques might be used as teaching and research methods, by using expressive writing and processes that combine cognitive skills, criticism, and sentimental values. Literary Studies connect real with imagined worlds often through technology innovation, providing self-representations that are not related to Knowledgebased assessment, but in literature discussions among different perspectives in a network of self–schemas and possible selves.
Possible Selves -distinct from Potential and Virtual Selves- are imaginary mental representations of the self in which people check and choose only the characteristics that will show them the way to effectiveness and success. Using self-inquiry, conceptual blendingin a cognitive andemotional state, invention, andinteraction with others, students evaluate and (re)create Possible Selves to explore the most convincing and useful individual characteristics to transfer them from the imaginary to the real world as integral parts of their personality. As a result, fiction becomes a transformative narrative experience,empathy, andengagement, and can buildcommunities of learningand research within safe and privileged conditions, activated through Creative Writing, which becomes a tool of prioritization DEI: diversity, equity, and inclusion.
References
Altintas, E., Karaca, Y., Moustafa, A. & El Haj, M. (2020). Effect of Best Possible Self Interventionon Situational Motivation andCommitment in Academic Context, V69(2), Learning and Motivation, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lmot.2019.101599
Anders, K. M. & Olmstead,S.B. (2019). AQualitative Examinationofthe Sexual Possible Selves and Strategies of First-Semester College Students: How Sexual Possible Selves
are DevelopedDuringtheTransitiontoCollege.ArchSex Behav.48(6), pp. 1859-1876. https://doi.10.1007/s10508-018-1332-2
Anthis, K. S., Dunkel, C. S., & Anderson, B. (2004). Genderand identitystatus differences in late adolescents’ possible selves. Journal of Adolescence, 27, pp. 147–152. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263395331_Motivation_Gender_and_Possib le_Selves
Basalla, M., Schneider, J. & Brocke, J. (2022). Creativity of Deep Learning: Conceptualization and Assessment, pp. 99-109. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358874891_Creativity_of_Deep_Learning_ Conceptualization_and_Assessment
Basow S. A., & Howe K. G. (1980). Role-model influence: Effects of sex and sex-role attitude in college students. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 4, pp. 558–572. https://doi.10.1111/j.1471-6402.1980.tb00726.x
Behm-Morawitz, E. (2013). Mirrored Selves: The Influence of Self-Presence in a Virtual World onHealth,Appearance,andWell-Being. Comput. Hum.Behav.29, pp.119–128.
Booij, A. S., Leuven, E. & Oosterbeek, H. (2017). Ability peer effects in university: evidence from a randomized experiment. Rev. Economic Stud. 84, pp. 547–578.
Cameron, J. E. (1999). Social identity and the pursuit of possible selves: Implications for the psychological well-being of university students. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 3(3), 179–189. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2699.3.3.179
Cross, S., & Markus, H. (1991). Possible selves across the lifespan. Human Development, 34, pp. 230-255.
Cummins, J., Hu, S., Markus, P. & Montero, K. M. (2015). Identity Texts and Academic Achievement: Connecting the Dots in Multilingual School Contexts. Tesol Quarterly V 49, n 3, pp. 555-581.
Eccles J.S., Barber B., & Jozefowicz D. (1999). Linking gender to educational, occupational, and recreational choices: Applying the Eccles et al. model of achievement-related choices. In Swann W. B, Langlois J. H., & Gilbert L. A. (Ed.),
Sexism and stereotypes in modern society: The gender science of Janet Taylor Spence, pp. 153–192. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10277-007
Egan, S. & Perry, D. (2001). Gender Identity: A Multidimensional Analysis With Implications for Psychosocial Adjustment. Developmental psychology, 37, pp. 451-63.
Erikson, M. G. (2007). The Meaning of the Future: Toward a More Specific Definition of Possible Selves. Review of General Psychology, 11(4), pp. 348-358. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.11.4.348
Erikson, M. G. (2018). Potentials and challenges when using possible selves in studies of student motivation In Possible Selves and Higher Education – New Interdisciplinary Insights, (ed) Henderson, H., Stevenson, J., Bathmaker, A. – M., pp.13-26. Routledge https://doi.org.10.4324/9781315104591-2
Erkut, S., Marx, F., Fields, J. P. & Sing, R. (1999). Gender, culture, and ethnicity: Current researchaboutwomenandmen.InL.A.Peplau&S.C.DeBro(Eds.),Raisingconfident and competent girls: One size does not fit all, pp. 83-101. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.
Fan, M. & Cai, W. (2022). How does a creative learning environment foster student creativity? An examination on multiple explanatory mechanisms. Curr Psychol 41, pp. 4667–4676 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-020-00974-z
Fausto-Sterling, A. (2020) Sexing the body: Gender politics and the construction of sexuality, pp. 244-268. NY: Basic Books, New York.
Fraser, B. (2007). Classroom learning environment. Handbook of research on science education. edn. Edited by K A, NG L. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 103–124.
Frazier, L.D., Schwartz, B.L. & Metcalfe, J. (2021). The MAPS model of self-regulation: Integrating metacognition, agency, and possible selves. Metacognition Learning 16, pp. 297–318 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-020-09255-3
Ganeri, J. (2024). Fernando Pessoa: Imagination and the Self, pp. 41 – 74 (online edn, Oxford University Press,) https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197636688.001.0001
Gutierrez, K., Baquedano-Lopez, P. & Tejeda, C. (2000). Rethinking diversity: Hybridity and hybrid language practices in the third space, Mind, Culture, and Activity, 6(4), pp. 286-303.
Gutierrez, K., (2008). Developing a Sociocritical Literacy in the Third Space. Reading Research Quarterly, V43 n2, pp. 148-164.
Harter, S. (1990). Self and identity development. In S. S. Feldman & G. R. Elliott (eds.), At the threshold: The developing adolescent, pp. 352-387. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Hermans, H. & Hermans-Konopka, A. (2010). Dialogical Self Theory. Positioning And Counter-Positioning In A Globalizing Society. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Hilpert, J. C., & Marchand, G. C. (2018). Complex systems research in educational psychology: Aligning theory and method. Educational Psychologist, 53(3), pp. 185–202. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2018.1469411
Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary Discourses: Social Interactions in Academic Writing. University of Michigan Press.
Ivanic, R.(1998). Writingandidentity: The discoursal construction of identityinacademic writing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing
Jones, C., Turner, J. & Street, B. (1999). Students Writing in the University: Cultural and Epistemological Issues. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing
Kemmelmeir, M., & Oyserman, D. (2001). Gender differences of downward social comparisons on current and possible selves. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 31, pp.289–302.
Knox, M. (2006). Gender and possible selves. In Dunkel, C.& Kerpelman, J. (eds.), Possible selves: Theory, research and applications, pp. 61–77. New York: Nova Science.
Knox, M., Funk, J., Elliott, R., & Greene Bush, E. (2000). Gender differences in adolescents’ possible selves. Youth and Society, 31, pp. 287–309.
Knox, M. (1996). The possible selves of adolescents. University of Toledo.
Kordeš, U. & Demšar, E. (2018). Excavating belief about past experience: Experiential dynamics of the reflective act. 13, pp. 219-229. Constructivist Foundations.
Kukshinov, E. Y. (2015). The Virtual Self and Possible Immersive Consequences of Uncharacteristic Self-Presentation in the Virtual Environment, International Journal of Cyber Behavior, Psychology and Learning, V 5, n4, pp. 73 – 82 https://doi.org/10.4018/IJCBPL.2015100106
Leavy, P. (2014). Method Meets Art: Arts-Based Research Practice, 2nd Edition. New York: Guilford Publications.
Mancini, T. & Sibilla, F. (2017). Offline Personality and Avatar Customization. Discrepancy Profiles and Avatar Identification in a Sample of MMORPG Players. Comput. Hum. Behav, 69, pp. 275–283.
Markus, H. R. & Ruvolo, A. (1992). Possible selves and performance: the power of selfrelevant imagery. Social Cognition, 10(1), pp. 95–124.
Markus, H. R. & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, pp. 224–253.
Markus, H. R. & Ruvolo, A. (1989). Possible selves: Personalized representations ofgoals. In L. A. Pervin (Ed.), Goal concepts in personality and social psychology, pp. 211–241. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Markus, H. R., & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves. American Psychologist, 41, pp. 954–969.
Markus, H. R. (1977). Self-schemata and processing information about the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35(2), 63–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/00223514.35.2.63
Martínez, M. A. (2014). Storyworld Possible Selves and the Phenomenon of Narrative Immersion: Testing a New Theoretical Construct. Narrative. 22, pp. 110-131.
Martínez, M. A. (2024). Creative writing and storyworld possible selves. New Writing, pp. 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/14790726.2024.2377538
Martinez, R. & Dukes, R. (1991). Ethnic and gender differences in self-esteem. Youth & Society, 22, pp. 318-338.
Mathies, S. (2020). The Simulated Self – Fiction Reading and Narrative Identity. Philosophia 48, pp. 325–345 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11406-019-00079-3
Morley, D. (2007). The Cambridge Introduction to Creative Writing, pp. 36 – 63. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mottram, J. (2009). Asking questions of art: Higher Education, research and creative practice. In Smith, H. & Dean, R. (eds.), Practice-led Research, Research-led Practice in the Creative Arts, pp. 229-251. Edinburgh University Press.
Neville, L. (2018): ‘The Tent’s Big Enough for Everyone’: online slash fictionas a site for activism and change, Gender, Place & Culture, 25, pp. 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1080/0966369X.2017.1420633
Oyserman, D. & Destin, M. (2010). Identity-based motivation: Implications for Intervention. The Counseling Psychologist, 38, pp. 1001–1043.
Oyserman, D. & Markus, H. (1990). Possible selves and delinquency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, pp. 112-125.
Raggatt, P. T. F. (2000). Mapping the dialogical self: Towards a rationale and method of assessment. European Journal of Personality, 14, pp. 65–90.
Rahman, M. A., Handrianto, C., Kenedi, A. K., Ilhami, A. & Ghafar, Z. N. (2024).
Exploring the Interplay between Writing Practices and Identity Formation in Academic Contexts. Journal of Digital Learning and Distance Education, 2(12), pp. 838-848. https://doi.org/10.56778/jdlde.v2i12.233
Ramage,J.D.,Bean, J.C. & Johnson,J. (2006).The Allyn andBaconGuide toWriting, (4th ed.) pp. 78-79; 408-410. New York: Pearson Longman, White Plains.
Ramey, L. (2014). Creative Writing and Critical Theory, pp. 46-47. In The Handbook of Creative Writing, Earnshaw, S. (Ed), 2nd ed. Edinburgh University Press.
Riessman, C. K. (2008). Narrative methods for the human sciences. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Inc.
Rutherford, J.(1990).TheThirdSpace: InterviewwithHomiBhabba,inJ.Rutherford(ed.) Identity: Community, culture, difference. Lawrence and Wishart, pp. 207-221.
Shepard, B., & Marshall, A. (1999). Possible selves mapping: Life-career exploration with young adolescents. Canadian Journal of Counseling, 33, pp. 37–54.
Shin, S. J. & Zhou, J. (2007). When is educational specialization heterogeneity related to creativity in research and development teams? Transformational leadership as a moderator. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(6), pp. 1709–1721. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.6.1709
Sibilla, F. & Mancini, T. (2018). I am (not) my avatar: A review of the user-avatar relationships in Massively Multiplayer Online Worlds. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, V 12(3), article 4. https://doi.org/10.5817/CP2018-3-4
Sklar, H. (2013). The Art of Sympathy in Fiction: Forms of ethical and emotional persuasion. (Linguistic Approaches to Literature (LAL); V 15, pp.47-60. John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia. http://benjamins.com/#catalog/books/lal.15/main
Slaughter, Y. & Choi, J. (2024). The Affordances of Identity Texts with Adult Students with Limited or Interrupted Formal Education. English Teaching & Learning, pp.1-21. Springer Publishing https://doi.org/10.1007/s42321-024-00184-x
Skyttner, L. (2006). General Systems Theory. Problems, Perspectives, Practice (2nd ed.). World Scientific.
Stein, K. F. & Markus, H. (1996). The role of the self in behavioral change. Journal of Psychotherapy Integration, 6(4), pp. 349-384
Thorne, A. & Michaelieu, Q. (1996). Situating adolescent gender and self-esteem with personal memories. Child Development, 67, pp. 1374-1390. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0044118X00031003002?icid=int.sjabstract.citing-articles.64
Turner, S., & Hooker, K. (2019). Possible Selves Theory. In: Gu, D., Dupre, M. (eds) Encyclopedia of Gerontology and Population Aging, pp. 1 – 6. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69892-2_106-1
INCLUSIES - INCLUsive universities leading to inclusive SocietIES - is a Project funded under the Erasmus Plus Program, KA220-HED
EmpoweringFutureEducators:AddressingGender-Based Violence and LGBTQI+ Issues through Non-Formal EducationPractices
By Grigorios Moschopoulos, Tzortzina Likskedai and Evangelia Rafaela Koukouftopoulou
Introduction
Although a large body of scholarship views education as a means of social and/or political change (Freire,1995) little attention has been drawn to the micro-level of the educational practices (e.g. content, goals, methodology, etc) that can actualize this ideal, especially in Greek higher education. In this context, our student-led initiative at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki represented a practical response to the growing need for educational programs that address gender-based violence and LGBTQI+ issues and foster and promote safer, more inclusive spaces in higher education. This research investigates the impact of this student-led initiative and examines (a) how different educational methodologies impact addressing gender-based violence and LGBTQI+ issues in higher education, (b) how interventions enhance participants' understanding and role as agents of change, and (c) the role of student initiatives in creating safer spaces for LGBTQI+ individuals.
1. Some Context: Previous Research and Theoretical Background
Non-formal education, which was a central part of our theoretical and methodological constellation during this intervention, emerged in response to the
limitations of formal education systems, which struggled to meet the increasing social demand for training and learning opportunities (Trilla, 1992, as cited in Lafraya, 2011).
This concept gained momentum in the late 1970s, during a period referred to as a "global education crisis," which underscored the need for educational alternatives beyond conventional school environments (Lafraya, 2011). Coombs and Ahmed (1974) were instrumentalin definingnon-formaleducationasorganized,systematicactivitiesthatoccur outside formal educational structures, targeting specific demographics, including both adults and children.
The European Commission’s "Education and Training 2010" initiative highlighted the importance of recognizing all learning forms, including non-formal education, and advocating for systems to validate such learning. The unique characteristics of non-formal education, as outlined by the European Commission and the Council of Europe (2004), emphasize its voluntary, participative, and learner-centered nature. Rather than competing with formal education, non-formal education provides valuable alternative learning opportunities and settings, thus reinforcing and expanding the educational landscape to better meet the evolving needs of society. It complements formal education by providing innovative, interactive learning experiences that engage the intellectual, emotional, and behavioral aspects of learners (Młynarczuk-Sokołowska, 2022).
The nature of non-formal education, as described above, is compatible and aligns with some foundational aspects of critical pedagogy, feminist pedagogy, and anti-oppressive education; theories, and educational paradigms which have highly shaped our pedagogical identities. For instance, critical pedagogy envisions the educational process as an empowering one that will enable students to identify ideology and “false consciousness” and to act toward emancipation (Bonidis, 2020). On the same wavelength, feminist pedagogies call for questioning and challenging power dynamics and imbalances in education and society, and norm-critical and anti-oppressive pedagogies attempt to do so by uncovering normative formsofknowledge andaddressingthemultiplicityofoppression (Bromseth and Sörensdotter, 2013; Kumashiro, 2000).
2. The Intervention
Inspired by these academic debates and the need to engage with them practically, we created a student-led initiative in April and May 2024, focusing on LGBTQI+ issues, gender-based violence, and gender equality. The initiative emerged in response to a significant gap in the university curriculum, which largely neglects queer and feminist education. Determined to address this, we aimed to create a community committed to learning, advocacy, and action, bridging these educational gaps while empowering individuals to work towards a more inclusive society. The program targeted undergraduate and graduate students from the Department of Philosophy and Education at Aristotle University of Thessaloniki and featured lectures on Feminist Pedagogy, anti-oppressive education, and supporting theoretical frameworks. Experiential workshops provided a hands-on approach to recognizing and preventing gender-based violence, creating safer spaces, and understanding intersectionality. The program spanned 16 hours over seven sessions and involved 27 students.
The first two sessions covered Feminist Pedagogy, Human Rights, Gender-Based Violence, Sexual Education, Anti-Oppressive Education, Intersectionality, and LGBTQI+ issues through lectures, discussions, and reflective journaling. The next three sessions focused on workshop methodology, encouraging students to propose ideas and explore techniques for maintaining engagement ineducational settings (Tudor, 2013). The studentcentered, collaborative methodology fostered active participation and emphasized critical teaching skills, including feminist education, experiential learning, and peer-to-peer methodologies (Kenny, Ralph, and Brown, 2000).
3. Methodology
Asareflectiveevaluationofthisinitiative,thestudyaimsatexploringthefollowing research questions:
1. How do participants think different forms of educational methodologies (e.g. formal, non-formal, mixed) can/cannot help them address gender-based violence and LGBTQI+ issues in higher education?
2. How did this intervention on gender-based violence and LGBTQI+ issues enhance participants’ understanding of these topics and their role as agents of change?
3.1 How do participants envision safer spaces for LGBTQI+ individuals in higher education?
3.2 What impact can student initiatives have in this process?
To answer our research questions, we gathered both quantitative and qualitative data through 16 questionnaires and 5 in-depth interviews, although our focus during the analysis is a qualitative one which aligns with our feminist epistemological standpoints (Lykke, 2010). The use of the questionnaires was only to get data from more participants and to create a cartography of their positionalities (for example whether they identify as queer or not). Also,most of the questionnaire questions requiredqualitative responses (text written by participants).
All the data was analyzed using qualitative Thematic Analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2012) to identify common patterns and themes circulating participants’ discourses, a process that is useful in qualitative educational and social research due to its applicability to new and context-specific topics (Isari & Pourko, 2015). It is important to mention, not only as a limitation but also as an accountability reference that situates the knowledge produced here (Haraway, 1988) that 4 out of 5 interviewees and 7 out of 16 questionnaire respondents identify as LGBTQI+ people.
4. Analysis
In this section, we present part of the results that occurred after the (thematic) analysis of the data retrieved from the questionnaires and the five interviews. 5.1. corresponds to the first research question while 5.2. and 5.3. answer the second research question. Finally, 5.4. and 5.5. address the third research question.
4.1. Formal vs non-formal
Regarding the first research question aiming at investigating the students’ ideas of how different educational methodologies can or cannot help them address gender-based violence and LGBTQI+ issuesinhighereducation, participants’viewshave indicatedhow, to them, formal education is not an effective way to address these issues. Even though we could safely claim that participants’ views on an exclusively formal education is negative (no questionnaire respondents or interviewees have been in favor of it), when it comes to an exclusively non-formal education model, things become a bit more complicated.
More specifically, the analysis of the questionnaires revealed that almost all participants (93,8%) believed that the most effective way to address these issues in higher education is a mix of formal and non-formal education.
However, during the interviews with the five participants, their discourse was mainly focusing on non-formal education,with minor to no references to formal education or its combination with non-formal methodologies. The most important and frequently referenced aspects of non-formal education, which appear to be interconnected, were the following three:
(1) the experiential nature of the workshops
(2) the sense of community and safety non-formal education methodologies create
(3) the mobilization of cognitive, emotional, and physical processes among participants which led to a better understanding of the topics and made it easier for participants to remember/recall knowledge and experiences; two aspects that are usually central in contextualizing a successful educational process.
Indicative of these aspects are the following quotes:
“However, with non-formal education, I believe that I learned more things (...). Most of the time, in formal education, it’s hard for every person to speak due to, for example, limited time, but in these workshops, which were basically non-formal education, we had this freedom to speak” (Zoe)
“With experiential workshops you don’t forget something you hear or something you do” (Irene)
Turningourgaze towardsthe waysstudents’participationinthisseriesofworkshops has affected their understanding of these topics and their role as agents of change, two themes arise. First, the transformation that participants’ beliefs, ideas, and knowledge around these topics have undergone. As a result, this transformation appears to mobilize an urge for action and change.
4.2. Transformation
It is interesting to start off by noticing that almost all questionnaire respondents (15/16) have said that their knowledge and stances on these topics have changed:
Diving deeper into this finding with the qualitative data we collected, a recurring theme among participants is the content of the seminars and workshops on one hand, and, on the other hand, the self-reflexivity, and critical lens that the seminars and workshops offered to them via the interaction and discussions among participants:
“Intersectionality is one of the topics that I had never encountered, and I was happy to get to know about it during the seminar” (questionnaire respondent)
“I felt that (this intervention) has shifted me a lot and it for sure did that to other participants too from what I remember from our discussion (...) I put myself into a process to question what I was thinking, to see new perspectives, to evaluate those things again” (Elpida)
“I happened to go from one side (fully agree with an argument during an experiential workshop) but to hear an argument from a fellow student and think (about my argument) again and not be so absolute, and moved towards the middle” (Irene)
4.3. Action - Becoming agents of change
What appears to follow this transformation process that participants describe, is their activation as agents of change. All questionnaire respondents stated that it is likely, very likely, or certain that they will be utilizing knowledge and skills they have acquired during the workshops in their everyday and academic life
For example, Elpida stated that this process has touched them:
“While I was emotionally distant from these topics, it brought me again closer to them and it created the will to do something (to take action)”
Similarly, Sofia and Irene mentioned specific actionstheyconsider takingto actively foster safer spaces such as “participating in feminist-related action” (Sofia) and “sharing/reposting news and information related to LGBTQI+ issues, asking, using, and bringing awareness about the use of right pronouns” (Irene) Overall, the responses of the participants exude the feeling that they perceive the university not only as a place of learning but also of action:
“It showed me that the university is not just a place where we go to attend lectures, take notes, go home, and study for exams. It showed me that we can actively do things” (Irene).
4.4. The assemblage of a safer space
Another important and valuable finding is the ways participants envision safe and inclusive spacesinhighereducationand beyond.Participants’responsesprovide aninsight into the nuances they see in safe and inclusive spaces and showcase the multiple layers a safe space that could be grouped into the following three aspects:
Personal aspect:
"But I believe that the way I express myself, helps others to understand that I am a safe space where they can express themselves as well” (Sofia).
"We can absorb information more easily when we feel comfortable, and we can interact much more meaningfully when we feel at ease” (Daphne).
Institutional aspect:
“[there should be an] Inclusion Policy agreed among the university’s community” (Daphne)
“There should be rules/common agreements among the members [of the university’s community]” (Elpida)
Communal aspect:
“Ask the other person how they feel included. Because I may be experiencing inclusion in a specific way but you may be experiencing it in another way.” (Sofia)
For instance, Zoe and Irene added that “in a safe academic space, all these things (e.g. sexist jokes and comments, racist comments, misgendering) should not exist.”
4. 5. Student initiatives and active participation
A common reference regarding student initiatives was that their existence is a need for (mainly) students and how this need is created by the problematic aspects of academic life and the lack of institutional support regarding safe spaces for queer individuals. For instance, Daphne said:
"I feel that the need for student initiatives is there. Because if there were some consideration [for these issues], I don't think there would be such a need and initiative for creating such interventions. Therefore, the fact that there is a need simultaneously indicates that there is also a problematic situation”.
Additionally, participants seemed to recognize how important student initiatives are in mobilizing them since these are not top-down processes imposed by the university authorities or professors (i.e. not seen as a mandatory task or exam) but rather as a space for them to develop and express themselves and their needs:
“First of all, I was happy that this started from fellow classmates. It wasn't guidance from above (professors/university). It was a student initiative, so I liked that it happened and I wanted to support it” (Irene).
Overall, the participants were really excited when talking about the possibilities that such initiatives have in building communities and fostering inclusion and safer spaces. As a questionnaire respondent said:
“1) Take action as members that participate in a community, so they care about it 2)
Cultivation of sense of belonging and community”.
5. Discussion
This study offers important insights into how participants of a student-led initiative on gender-based violence and LGBTQI+ issues view the value of different educational methodologies (formal/non-formal), how their understanding of gender and queer topics has shifted, and how they envision safer spaces in higher education.
The emergence of non-formal education due to the failures of formal education systems (Lafraya, 2011) mirrors sentiments expressed by participants, who viewed nonformal educational methods not as a replacement but as a necessary complement to formal education. While formal education provides a broad foundation of knowledge, non-formal education allows for specialized, contextualized, and emotionally engaged learning experiences. The study demonstrates that non-formal education’s learner-centered, participative, and experiential approaches effectively engage students on critical social issues like gender-based violence and LGBTQI+ rights. These findings reinforce the importance of integrating non-formal educational methodologies into academic settings, not as a competitor to formal education but as a complement that addresses its limitations and fosters a more inclusive learning environment.
Lastly, this transformation translated into action. Participants expressed a strong desire to apply what they learned in both academic and everyday lives, viewing their role as active and dynamic. This finding aligns with literature on feminist, critical, and antioppressive pedagogies and their transformatory nature (Kumashiro, 2000; Lykke, 2013).
Their understanding of these topics shifted, empowering them to promote inclusive practices, such as using correct pronouns and advocating for LGBTQI+ rights. They saw the university as a place not only for learning but for initiating social change through personal, communal, and institutional actions for safer and more inclusive spaces.
Conclusion This research highlights the need to address LGBTQIA+ issues and gender-based violence within higher education. It specifically shows the effectiveness of combining formal and non-formal educational methods to raise awareness and empower students and educators. A student-led initiative central to this study played a pivotal role in expanding participants' understanding while instilling a sense of purpose, community, and agency. The initiative deepened their knowledge and inspired them to take action, viewing the university as a space for education and activism. Participants see themselves as agents of change, committed to creating safer, more inclusive spaces for all. Through this initiative, the potential for student-led actions to foster positive social change has been clearly underscored.
References
Bonidis, K. (2020). Modern 'critical' pacifist pedagogical discourses: emergence, limits, breaks, and transformations. An autobiographical narrative. In: Bonidis, K. Th. & Zarifis, G. K., eds. Pedagogy, Educational Science, Educational Sciences: Epistemological and Methodological Issues. Thessaloniki: Grafima Publications. Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2012). Thematic analysis. In: H. Cooper, P.M. Camic, D.L. Long, A.T. Panter, D. Rindskopf, and K.J. Sher, eds. APA handbook of research methods in psychology,Vol.2: Researchdesigns: quantitative, qualitative,neuropsychological,and
biological. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, pp. 57-71. https://doi.org/10.1037/13620-004.
European Commission and Council of Europe, 2004. Characteristics of non-formal education. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Available at: https://rm.coe.int/2012compendium-non-formal-education/168077c10b [Accessed 21 Oct. 2024].
Freire, P. (1995) Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Translated by M.B. Ramos. New York: Continuum.
Haraway, D. (1988). Situated knowledges: the science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies, 14(3), pp. 575-599. https://doi.org/10.2307/3178066.
Isari, F. & Pourkos, M. (2015). Qualitative research methodology: applications in psychology and education. Athens: SEAB.
Kenny, M., Ralph, S. & Brown, M. (2000). The importance of reflection in experiential learning with community and youth workers for the learning age. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 19(2), pp. 115-125.
Kumashiro, K. (2000). Toward a theory of anti-oppressive education. Review of Educational Research, 70(1), pp. 25-53.
Lafraya, S. (2011). Intercultural learning in non-formal education: theoretical frameworks and starting points. Available at: https://www.youthpolicy.org/uploads/documents/2011_Intercultural_Learning_NonFo rmal_Education_Frameworks_Eng1.pdf [Accessed 21 Oct. 2024].
Lykke, N. (2010). Feminist studies: a guide to intersectional theory, methodology and writing. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203852774.
Lykke, N. (2013). Intersectional gender pedagogy. In: A. Lundberg and A. Werner, eds.
Gender studies education and pedagogy. Gothenburg: Swedish Secretariat for Gender Research.
Młynarczuk - Sokołowska, A. (2022). Intercultural non-formal education: what the children think. Intercultural Education, 33(1), pp. 82-98. https://doi.org/10.1080/14675986.2021.2018171.
Tudor, S.L. (2013). Formal - non-formal - informal in education. In: 5th International Conference EDU-WORLD 2012 - Education facing contemporary world issues. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 76, pp. 821-826.
INCLUSIES - INCLUsive universities leading to inclusive SocietIES - is a Project funded under the Erasmus Plus Program, KA220-HED
Artificial Intelligence and Education/Research: OpportunitiesandChallengesforLGBTQI+People
By Despoina Natsi
Introduction
Healthcare, finance, autonomous vehicles, education, retail, manufacturing, and entertainment are just some of the areas where AI is being used to transform industries and improve efficiency. In education, AI has the potential to revolutionise learning environments by providing personalised instruction, improving accessibility, and optimising curricula. However, the integration of AI into education is not without its challenges, especially for marginalised/underrepresented communities. This paper explores the impact of AI in education and research, focusing specificallyon the impact onLGBTQI+ students. While AI hasthe potential tocreate more inclusive learning spaces, it can also perpetuate biases and fail to address the unique needs of LGBTQI+ people. By examining issues such as algorithmic bias, lack of representation, and insufficient sensitivity to diverse identities, this paper highlights both the risks and opportunities of AI in promoting a more equitable educational environment for LGBTQI+ individuals.
1. Definitions and conceptualizations
Artificial intelligence (hereafter AI) exists when machines can perform activities that are typically performed by humans: AI can adapt and deal with new situations, it has problem-solving capabilities, it can answer questions or even design plans and perform various other functions (Chen, et al., 2020) Another scholar defines artificial intelligence
as the study of human, animal, and machine intelligence and the attempt to integrate it into artificial media, such as computers and computer-related technologies (Chen, et al., 2020).
The OECD definition as recommended by the Artificial Intelligence Council is a follows: “a machine-based system that, for explicit or implicit objectives, infers, from the input it receives, how to generate outputs such as predictions, content, recommendations, or decisions that can influence physical or virtual environments. Different AI systems vary in their levels of autonomy and adaptiveness after deployment” (Varsik & Vosberg, 2024)
From these definitions, it is clear that the common basis for the definition of AI is that human-like functions can be performed by computer-related technologies, machines and information and communication technologies.
Queer theory challenges the prevailing framework that treats heterosexuality as the norm. Introduced by Teresa de Lauretis in 1991, queer theory encompasses three key concepts: firstly, rejecting the assumption that heterosexuality is the default form of sexuality; secondly, challenging the notion that lesbian and gay studies is a distinct academic discipline; and thirdly, emphasising the links between racism and sexism (McAra-Hunter, 2024). Queer theory is particularly relevant to the current discussions as it has the potential to influence the digital landscape and promote data justice.
This research focuses on higher education. UNESCO defines higher education as encompassing “all types of education (academic, professional, technical, artistic, pedagogical,long-distance learning,etc.) providedbyuniversities, technological institutes, teacher training colleges, etc., which are normally intended for students having completed a secondaryeducation, andwhose educational objective istheacquisitionofa title, a grade, certificate, or diploma of higher education” (UNESCO, 1998).
2. Education/research in the AI era and LGBTQI + people Artificial Intelligence in Education
The integration of AI into education began in the 1950s with the introduction of computer-aided teaching. Since then, the technology has evolved and led to the development of intelligent tutoring systems (ITS), which are now widely used for teaching and learning (Chan & Tsi, 2023)
The OECD categorizes AI in education into three areas: 1. Learner-centred: Enhancesstudent learning withadaptivetoolslike ITS,simulations,andsupport for special needs. 2. Teacher-centred: Assists teachers with tasks like assessment, material collation, and classroom management, boosting teaching efficiency. 3. Institutional tools: Improve operational efficiency at the institutional level, such as smart admissions, identifying atrisk students, and data-driven decision-making. Many tools, though repurposed for education, were not originally designed for students (OECD, 2024). This study takes into account the OECD categorisation, as the list of challenges and opportunities below applies to teachers, students, and administrative staff.
2.1. Opportunities of AI in education for LGBTQI + people - Time and efficiency
One of the most important opportunities for the use of AI in education is to free up more time for educators, students as well as for administrative staff. AI has the capability to assist teachers and administrative staff in student assessment, as developmentsin natural language processing facilitate applications such as plagiarism detection, assessment scoring, and automated feedback provision, allowing them to concentrate on higher-level responsibilities like curriculum development and student mentoring. As for students, as AI technologies continue to advance, they hold promising potential for personalized and adaptive learning and real-time feedback (Chan & Tsi, 2023). This opportunity has to do
with all people involved in tertiary education and research, it is however very important for LGBTQI+ people as well.
2.2. Enhancement of students engagement
A 2016 study showed that the use of AI systems and innovative technologies such as humanoid robots, chatbots and virtual reality systems resulted in higher student engagement and performance compared to traditional classrooms (Chan & Tsi, 2023). In addition,theycan provide interactive, personalized, andimmersive learningenvironments. Wheninclusionisadded,LGBTQI+ studentscanhaveabetterexperience inthe classroom, feel more included and encouraged, and improve their efficiency. According to OECD AIpowered tools, such as chatbots, have the potential to play a role in promoting inclusivity (OECD, 2024). They can offer rapid, universal access to information and support mental health. As these technologies evolve, they might play an increasingly significant role in fostering inclusive and equitable learning environments.
2.3. Gamification of learning for LGBT students
Gamification is the integration of game mechanics into a non-game environment. The features that make a game entertaining are used to increase the user's engagement, depending on the environment the user is currently in. So depending on whether the user of a gamified application is part of a work environment, is participating in the learning process, or is the target group of a marketing strategy, the experience is enhanced (Zahedi et. al., 2021). Customised avatars can enhance the experience of students and lecturers and make them feel part of the academic community. Avatars can be inclusive, when students design themselves, byaddingthe skincolour, hairstyle,clothes,etc. theywant.Conversely, non-adapted avatars run the risk of being created according to the pattern of heteronormativity and cis-normativity.
2.4. Inclusive curricula
AI has the potential to transform education by promoting the inclusion of LGBTQI+ students through the development of more equitable curricula. Traditional curricula often reflect the biases of their creators by unintentionally perpetuating societal prejudices or neglecting the specific needs of marginalised groups such as LGBTQI+ individuals. AI can close these gaps by analysing existing material for implicit bias and recommending revisions to ensure diverse representation. For example, AI can generate word tasks and examples that avoid gendered language (e.g. him and not they/them) to promote inclusion in subjects such as maths and science. In addition, AI-driven tools can create content that reflects a broader range of identities and experiences and integrate LGBTQI+ perspectives into various fields of study, including gender and queer studies. In this way, AI can help to break down existing stereotypes, create role models for LGBTQI+ students and create a learning environment in which all students feel seen and valued, ultimately promoting their academic engagement and personal development (Owoeye et. al., 2023).
2.5. Challenges of AI in education for LGBTQI + people Bias and Discrimination in AI Algorithms
While AI holds great promise for creating a more inclusive educational environment, it also carries significant risks, particularly through algorithmic bias, which can negatively impact LGBTQI+ students. Algorithmic bias occurs when AI systems developed based on historical data or societal patterns perpetuate discrimination by producing unequal outcomes for marginalised groups. In education, this bias can manifest in algorithms that disproportionately misclassify or overlook LGBTQI+ students due to their underrepresentation in the data or misinterpretation of non-normative gender identitiesand sexual orientations (EuropeanUnionAgencyfor Fundamental Rights,2022).
For example, AI tools designed to personalise learning experiences may unintentionally reinforce gender binaries or exclude LGBTQI+ perspectives if they are basedonbiasseddatasets.Inaddition,algorithmsthattrackstudentachievementorsuggest educational resources could unfairly restrict access to certain opportunities based on assumptions associated with sexual orientation or gender identity, reinforcing systemic inequalities. These issues emphasise the need for critical oversight and more diverse data sets to ensure that AI does not reproduce or reinforce existing biases in education.
2.6. Privacy and Safety concerns
AI-driven educational platforms pose a significant risk to LGBTQI+ students, particularly in terms of outing and increased surveillance. These platforms often collect and analyse vast amountsofpersonaldata,whichposesthe riskofAIsystemsinadvertently revealing sensitive information such as a student's gender identity or sexual orientation (Center for Democracy & Technology, 2023). In environments where students are not yet readytocome out, orwhere LGBTQI+ identitiesare stigmatisedoreven criminalised, such disclosures can lead to serious consequences, including discrimination, social isolation or harm. Furthermore, the use of AI tools to increase surveillance in education systems can create anunsafeenvironment for LGBTQI+ students (Fordham Institute, 2023). If personal data, including online interactions or behavioural patterns, is shared with parents, schools or authorities, students in regions where LGBTQI+ identities are criminalised may face unwanted scrutiny or even legal action (The Ark HQ, 2023). This increased surveillance undermines the privacy and safety of LGBTQI+ students and exacerbates the risks associated with digital data collection in educational institutions.
2.7. Limited Inclusivity in Content and Recommendations
AI-driven curricula and learning platforms can reinforce heteronormativity by not sufficiently considering LGBTQI+ history, culture, or perspectives. Despite the potential of AI to personalise educational experiences, algorithmic biases or insufficiently diverse training data can lead to recommendations for reading material, assignments, or activities in which LGBTQI+ issues are not represented (OECD, 2024). This exclusion results in LGBTQI+ identities being removed from the curriculum, limiting students' access to diverse perspectives andcontributing to anarrow, heteronormative worldview. In addition, AI systems used in education often struggle to process and understand inclusive language, such as gender-neutral pronouns like "they/them" or references to different family structures (Lauscher, 2022). Thislimitation canleadtomisinterpretations or reinforcement of traditional gender norms that can alienate LGBTQI+ students and hinder the development of an inclusive classroom environment. These challenges highlight the need for more inclusive and representative AI training data and algorithms that can recognise and accommodate the full spectrum of identities and experiences.
2.8. Inadequate representation in Vurtual Learning Environment
AI-driven virtual classrooms run the risk of not creatingLGBTQI+ friendly spaces, so students may feel unrecognised or uncomfortable. Inclusive visual cues, such as pride flags or pronoun options, are essential to creating supportive environments, yet many AIdriven platforms lack these affirming features (World Economic Forum, 2023). This absence can result in LGBTQI+ students not feeling fully seen or affirmed in virtual learning environments, which exacerbates feelings of marginalisation. Furthermore, cultural and regional differences pose another challenge, especially in regions where LGBTQI+ issues are stigmatised or censored. AI systems deployed in such regions can inadvertently censor or block LGBTQI+ educational content, denying students access to
important information and resources that affirm their identity (MIT, 2023). This lack of access to inclusive educational materials not only limits students' learning opportunities, but also reinforces societal discrimination. This emphasises the importance of developing AI systems that take into account different cultural contexts while prioritising inclusion and representation.
2.9. Teacher and Staff Training
AI tools in education can suffer from a lack of sensitivity to LGBTQI+ issues, especially if teachers and staff are not adequately trained to recognise how AI can perpetuate prejudice or be non-inclusive (Datacamp, 2024). Without proper training, teachers may unwittingly rely on AI platforms that reinforce heteronormative and cisnormative assumptions ormarginaliseLGBTQI+ identities, exacerbatingthe challenges these students already face. This could lead to instructional practises that overlook or dismiss the unique needs of LGBTQI+ students and further alienate them from the educational process. In addition, AI-based assessments, grading systems, or AI tutors may provide feedback that is not sensitive to diverse gender and sexual identities. Such systems may misinterpret students' responses, fail to use inclusive language, or lack the cultural competence to provide positive feedback. This insensitivity can negatively impact the learning experiences of LGBTQI+ students and affect their sense of belonging. This emphasises the need for AI tools that are trained on inclusive data and for teachers to receive adequate training on LGBTQI+ issues when implementing AI (OECD, 2023).
3. Conclusions and further discussion
3.1. Ethical Use of AI in LGBTQI+ Advocacy
LGBTQI+ students are often underrepresented in AI research in education, which means that systems may not adequately address their specific needs. Many AI studies and developments focus on general educational outcomes without considering the particular challenges of LGBTQI+ individuals. This research gap makes it difficult for stakeholders to ensure that AI tools are developed and implemented ethically, taking into account how bias can impact marginalised communities (OECD, 2023). As a result, AI systems may be developed without sufficient input from the LGBTQI+ perspective, resulting in platforms that do not effectively represent or support these students. This underrepresentation emphasises the need for a more inclusive research agenda that actively includes LGBTQI+ voices and prioritises the development of AI systems that do justice to the diversity of student identities and experiences (Harrington et. al., 2019).
3.2. Digital Equity / Inclusivity
Digital equity in education promotes fairness by ensuring that all students have equal access to digital technologies, skills, and resources. Consequently, digital tools to promote equity provide additional learning materials for students who need extra support tofully engage in their educational experiences. Meanwhile,digital inclusionaddressesthe barriers to participation that arise from students' diverse backgrounds. Technologies that promote inclusion are tailored to recognise, embrace, and celebrate these differences so that students feel accepted and valued. This approach not only enhances their well-being and sense of belonging but also upholds the principles of non-discrimination (Varsik & Vosberg, 2024). AI tools must be developed with input from LGBTQI+ communities to address the unique challenges they face.
References
Center for Democracy & Technology (2023). Off task: EdTech threats to student privacy and equity in the age of AI. https://cdt.org/insights/off-task-edtech-threats-to-studentprivacy-and-equity-in-the-age-of-ai/
Chan, C. K. Y. & Tsi, L. H. Y. (2023). The AI revolution in education: Will AI replace or assist teachers in higher education? The University of Hong Kong.
Chen, L., Chen, P. & Lin, Z. (2020). Artificial intelligence in education: A review. IEEE Access, 8, 75264-75278. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2988510
Datacamp. (2024). AI in education: Benefits, challenges, and ethical considerations.
European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. (2022). Bias in algorithms, artificial intelligence and discrimination.
Fordham Institute. (2023). AI is a serious threat to student privacy. https://fordhaminstitute.org
Harrington, C., Erete, S. & Piper, A. M. (2019). Deconstructing community-based collaborative design: Towards more equitable participatory design engagements. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 3(CSCW).
https://dl.acm.org
Lauscher, A., Crowley, A. & Hovy, D. (2022) Welcome to the Modern World of Pronouns: Identity-Inclusive Natural Language Processing beyond Gender. In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 1221–1232, Gyeongju, Republic of Korea. International Committee on Computational Linguistics.
McAra-Hunter, D. (2024). How AI hype impacts the LGBTQ+ community. AI and Ethics, 4, 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-024-00423-8
MIT (2023). How AI might shape LGBTQIA+ advocacy. https://www.media.mit.edu
OECD (2023). The inclusion of LGBTQI+ students across education systems: An overview. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org
OECD (2024). The potential impact of artificial intelligence on equity and inclusion in education.
Owoeye, F., Sheidu, A., John, A., Ayodele, O. & Ajayi, E. (2023). The role of artificial intelligence in curriculum development and management. AIMS Digital, 11, 37-46. https://doi.org/10.22624/AIMS/DIGITAL/V11N2P4
The Ark HQ. (2023). AI privacy concerns in schools: A guide for school leaders. https://thearkhq.com
UNESCO (1998). World Declaration on Higher Education for the Twenty-first Century: Vision and Action and Framework for Priority Action for Change and Development in Higher Education. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000141952
Varsik, S., & Vosberg, L. (2024). The potential impact of artificial intelligence on equity and inclusion in education. OECD Artificial Intelligence Papers, No. 23. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/15df715b-en
World Economic Forum (2023). This is how AI can support diversity, equity, and inclusion. https://www.weforum.org
Zahedi, L., Batten, J., Ross, M., Potvin, G., Damas, S., Clarke, P. & Davis, D. (2021).
Gamification in education: A mixed-methods study of gender on computer science students’ academic performance and identity development. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 33, 1-34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-021-09271-5
Heuristics and Adaptations in Bystanderism: Understanding Mechanisms of Social Inertia and Intervention
By Thodoris Eracleous
Introduction
The LGBTQI+ community faces substantial barriers and hurdles that take the form of a targeted attack on their individuality. This marks the importance of the surrounding environments, in defending individual sovereignty for members of the community, both LGBTQI+ and otherwise. Foremostly, research indicates that heterosexual bystanders' intentions to intervene are influenced by their familiarity with people from the specific targeted group, their proximity towards those involved, personal attitudes towards LGBTIQ+ individuals, and exposure to social justice education.
This paperis a conductive review of political psychologyliterature, whichattempts to illuminate a threefold question: What are the cognitive heuristics that drive bystanderism? What moral foundations justify the equidistant, ‘whataboutism’ stance taken by large majorities? What positive emotions might drive discrimination and social inertia, and hence, how are those rectified and understood without segregating people?
Its contribution is a streamlined framework that guides our understanding of bystanderism, and by doing so, distinguishes the role of bystanders and perpetrators in the discrimination against the LGBTQI+ community. In doing so, it focuses on understanding these people, as a prerequisite to navigating the pathway towards reconciliation, harmonisation and inclusion of LGBTQI+ people in academic settings and broader conceptions of society.
1. Moral Reasoning, Efficacy Perceptions, and Social Inertia
Bystanderism in the context of LGBTQI+ discrimination is often analysed through two core lenses: moral reasoning and efficacy perceptions. However, these dimensions must be understood within the broader context of social inertia, which acts as a powerful force maintainingthe status quo. This section critically examines how moral reasoning and efficacy perceptions are shaped by, and interact with, social inertia highlighting the nuanced interplay between individual and structural factors that influence bystander behaviour.
1.1. A Methodological note
In social science research, measuring the absence of an effect such as bystander inaction or failure to intervene poses significant methodological challenges. Traditional statistical methods like null hypothesis significance testing (NHST) are designed to detect the presence of effects, often through the rejection of a null hypothesis. However, identifying and interpreting the absence of an effect requires more nuanced approaches. One issue is that null results can arise for various reasons: the effect may truly be absent, the measurement instruments may lack sensitivity, or the sample size may be insufficient to detect subtle effects (Lakens, 2017). In such cases, failing to reject the null hypothesis does not necessarily provide evidence of absence but could indicate a lack of power or methodological limitations. Nonetheless, the literature largely relies on theoretical and inferential models, and less so on experimental designs, reasonably due to the sensitivity and post-event reports of victims and bystanders. Moreover, it is important to note the variability between cultures, in conceptions and norms of group dynamics, discrimination and intervention. Cross-cultural behavioural models often struggle to concurrently consider personal and cultural components together (Leung & Cohen, 2011). Hence, understanding a society-wide response is complicated, without condensing ‘bystanders into a homogeneous mass, and conversely, disperse the
collective intoindependent,incomparableindividuals.More so,it isevenmore challenging to consider the within-culture and between-culture variations without committing the same phallacies: condensing bystanders or perpetrators to a set of incomparable culture-specific variants, or overgeneralise its conception in such a waythat it canencapsulate popular case studies.
1.2. Conventional Views and Limitations
Traditional perspectives on bystander behaviour, such as Kohlberg's (1981) theory of moral development, posit that individuals intervene based on their internalised moral values. According to this view, failure to act in the face of discrimination reflects a lack of moral maturity or development. Individuals at lower stages of moral development may prioritise personal convenience or group loyalty over abstract principles of justice, thus avoiding intervention.
Yet, there is a significant limitation in the traditional view: it underestimates how the fearofuncertainty and social riskaversioncantempermoral action.People oftenprefer maintaining the predictability of the status quo, even when they recognize its moral flaws (Bar-Tal, 2007). As such, moral reasoning cannot be understood in isolation but must be viewed in relation to the social context that either encourages or discourages intervention. In contrast to the emphasis on moral reasoning, modern research highlights the critical role of efficacy perceptions the belief in one's ability to effect meaningful change. Bandura’s (1997) theory of self-efficacy asserts that people are more likely to take action when they feel competent and believe their actions will have an impact. For example, bystanders may recognize the moral wrongness of anti-LGBTQI+ discrimination, but if they perceive that their intervention will be ineffective or unsupported, they are likely to remain passive. Critically, the intersection of efficacy perceptions and collective behaviour should be emphasised. While individual self-efficacy is important, recent findings suggest that collective efficacy the shared belief in a group's capacity to effect change can mitigate
social inertia (Benight & Bandura, 2004). Bystanders are more likely to intervene if they believe others will support their actions. Therefore, efforts to increase active bystanderism must focus not only on enhancing individual efficacy but also on fostering a collective culture of responsibility.
In that, social inertia provides a crucial backdrop to understanding both moral reasoning and efficacy perceptions. Defined as the resistance to change within groups or societies, social inertia is reinforced by entrenched norms, group dynamics, and institutional structures. Conformity and groupthink play key roles in maintaining social inertia, as individuals often align their behaviours with the group to avoid standing out or facing social repercussions (APA, 2021). This is particularly relevant in discriminatory environments, where speaking out might challenge dominant social norms and invite personal risk.
Finally, it is important to consider how risk aversion interacts with both moral reasoning andefficacy perceptions. Bystanders may avoidinterventionnot only due to fear of social exclusion but also because of the uncertainty surrounding potential outcomes (Bar-Tal,2007).The fearof doingthe"wrongthing" orfacingnegativeconsequencesoften outweighs moral reasoning, especially in socially conservative environments where discrimination may be implicitly accepted.
While social inertia provides a compelling explanation for bystander passivity, it is important not to adopt a purely mechanistic or deterministic view. Individuals retain agency, and despite strong social pressures, some people resist conformity and choose to act. Understanding what differentiates these individuals whether it’s higher moral reasoning, stronger efficacy perceptions, or simply a greater willingness to tolerate social risk is crucial for creating interventions that encourage active bystanderism.
When it comes to subtle or non-obvious discrimination, bystanderism becomes even more complex. Unlike overt acts of discrimination, such as verbal slurs or physical aggression, subtle discrimination often manifests in microaggressions or unconscious biases. Since these incidents don’t fit the traditional mould of overt discrimination,
bystanders may fear overreacting or being seen as overly sensitive (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2005). These behaviours, while seemingly minor or ambiguous, yet, further reinforce harmful stereotypes and marginalisation. Bystanders in these situations may struggle to recognise the need for intervention, as the line between acceptable and discriminatory behaviour is often blurred.
This ambiguity can lead to bystander paralysis, where individuals are unsure whether theyshouldact,especiallyiftheact of discriminationisnot immediatelyperceived as harmful or if it is disguised as humour or casual banter (Sue et al., 2007). Moreover, social norms around politeness and conformity often exacerbate bystander inaction in the face of subtle discrimination. Yet, this points further back to the very act of discrimination, and its source, which counter to the popular narrative is driven by a plethora of emotions and motives.
Traditionally, discrimination and bystander inaction are understood through the lens of negative emotions, such as fear, anger, and hatred. However, recent research suggests that positive emotions, such as pride, enjoyment, and a sense of belonging, can also fuel active discrimination, especially when it is socially sanctioned or embedded ingroup norms. These emotions, while generally seen as benign, can play a complex role in perpetuating harmful behaviour, particularly within the context of LGBTQI+ discrimination.
While the traditional view of discrimination emphasises negative emotions like hatred and fear, positive emotions such as pride and enjoyment can also significantly drive discriminatory behaviour, particularly in social contexts that normalise exclusion. In the case of LGBTQI+ discrimination, these positive emotions can complicate bystander responses and fuel active participation in harmful acts. Particularly, group-based pride often contributes to discrimination when individuals feel their social, religious, or cultural identity is being threatened. Rooted in collective narcissism (Golec de Zavala et al., 2013), this sense of superiority can prompt individuals to justify marginalisation of LGBTQI+ individuals as a means of protecting group values.
However, variation still exists: not all expressions of group pride lead to exclusionary behaviour. Exposure to inclusive norms and differing individual values can moderate this effect (Bäck & Lindholm, 2014), highlighting that some individuals channel pride into inclusivity rather than exclusion. This connects back to subtle discrimination, where group loyalty or fear of undermining cultural values often prevents bystanders from interveninginseeminglyambiguousscenarios. The interplayofgrouppride and subtle bias reinforces the need for bystanders to be aware of the micro-dynamics of discrimination to act effectively.
1.3. Emotions and discrimination - the basis behind bystanderism
In addition to pride, although regrettable, exclusion or microaggressions are often manifest as “harmless fun.” The social bonding that occurs through shared jokes or group participation reinforces harmful behaviours, making bystander intervention more difficult. This is often masked by humour, reducing the likelihood ofintervention. Here, the positive reinforcement of group approval can drive both perpetrators and bystanders to downplay harm or stay silent (Sue et al., 2007).
However, individual variability is again crucial. Research shows that bystanders who possess greater empathy or self-efficacy are more likely to resist group pressures and challenge discriminatory behaviour (Nickerson et al., 2020). This underscores the importance of self-efficacy, in empowering bystanders to overcome the social inertia that often accompanies collective enjoyment of discriminatory acts. Moreover, it highlights the duality of these acts where ‘humour’ and ‘attack’ are two sides of the same coin.
Specifically, when individuals engage in discrimination while experiencing positive emotions, they often face cognitive dissonance the tension between their behaviourandtheirinternal moral compass. Thisdiscomfort isfrequentlyresolvedthrough rationalisation, allowing perpetrators and passive bystanders to justify their actions as harmless or even morally justifiable (Bar-Tal, 2007; Festinger, 1957). As seen across the
analysis of moral foundation, this dissonance often leads individuals to downplay the harm of subtle discrimination, creating a cycle of rationalisation that normalises exclusion.
2. Cognitive Heuristics in Bystanderism
Extending from the moral and emotional mechanisms surrounding discrimination and bystanderism, it is pivotal to complete the puzzle by acknowledging thought and cognition; particularly, heuristics (Tversky & Kahneman, 1973). Cognitive heuristics are mental shortcuts that allow individuals to make quick judgments, particularly in complex or uncertain situations. In the context of LGBTQI+ discrimination, these heuristics can either facilitate bystander action or contribute to inaction by distorting the perception of harm or responsibility. By understanding both cognitive shortcuts and the variability (noise) in judgments, we can better grasp the biases that drive bystanderism.
2.1. From the availability of information to the abundance of ‘noise’
The availability heuristic,first introducedbyTverskyandKahneman(1973), posits that individuals judge the likelihood of an event based on how easily examples of similar events come to mind. In the case of LGBTQI+ discrimination, bystanders may be less likely to intervene if they cannot readily recall previous instances where similar acts (e.g., microaggressions) led to significant harm. As a result, bystanders might underestimate the severity of subtle discrimination, particularly when it manifests in ways that deviate from overtly harmful stereotypes.
This traditional understanding of the availability heuristic is expanded by more recent literature, including Kahneman's work on "noise" (Kahneman et al., 2021). Noise refers to the inconsistency in human judgement across similar situations. In bystanderism, the variability in how individuals interpret ambiguous situations of LGBTQI+ discrimination may be influenced by noise some bystanders may judge subtle actions as
non-threatening, while others recognize the potential harm. Noise in judgement adds a layer of complexity, making it more challenging for bystanders to consistently recognize the harm of subtle or non-obvious discrimination, further reducing intervention rates. This bringsusbackto howitsambiguity makesit harder for bystanderstoact.The lackofclear, memorable examplesofharm caused bymicroaggressionsreducestheircognitive salience, reinforcing passive bystanderism.
Simultaneously, the representativeness heuristic refers to individuals’ tendency to judge the probability of an event based on how closely it fits an established stereotype (Tversky & Kahneman, 1974). In cases of LGBTQI+ discrimination, bystanders may expect overt acts of violence or verbal abuse, overlooking more subtle forms of exclusion that do not fit their mental image of "real" discrimination. This posits an additional layer for microaggressions not aligning with stereotypical images of victimisation, leading bystanders to dismiss them as insignificant or not requiring intervention. These biases can cause bystanders to misinterpret or underplay the severity of discrimination that falls outside these stereotypical bounds.
Both the availability and representativeness heuristics are drivers of unconscious attitudesorstereotypesthat shape judgmentsandhence,behaviour.These biasescontribute to the variability (noise) in bystander responses to LGBTQI+ discrimination, as individuals’ unconscious biases often lead them to minimise harm or defer responsibility. For example, if a bystander holds implicit biases against the LGBTQI+ community, they may unconsciously downplay the severity of discrimination, reducing their likelihood of intervening.
Conclusion
In the broader architecture of social interaction, the relationship between behaviours, emotions and heuristics is not merely a cognitive quirk but a profound guide to how societies evolve or stagnate in their treatment of marginalised groups. The
passive bystanderism witnessed in the face of LGBTQI+ discrimination is, at its core, a product of cognitive shortcuts that shape the way we perceive and act in ambiguous social situations. Human beings are not entirely rational creatures. We act based on experience, intuition, and the availability of mental models that tell us what situations look like and how to navigate them.
As such, if LGBTQI+ individuals remain unseen or unheard, society will continue to operate with mental models that dismiss their struggles. The literature points that familiarity, the closeness we develop with others, is not just an accidental byproduct of social interaction but a critical tool in transforming passive bystanders into active defenders. This underscores the importance of individuals not only embracing their own identities but also being willing to share them, even when they feel vulnerable. The presence of LGBTQI+ individuals and their active bystanders, affiliated groups, and supporters, as visible members of society challenges the social inertia that keeps passive bystanderism in place, forcing a reevaluation of previously accepted norms and biases. When people who once adhered to prejudice or inaction are confronted with the undeniable humanity of those they once disregarded or aspects of people they are familiar with that they are disregarding, in terms of their LGBTQI+ identity or affiliation. And it is through this process of tension, challenge, and eventual transformation that familiarity turnsintoempathy,andempathyintointervention.Inthe end,ourabilitytochangedepends on accepting the profound truth that we are models for each other. By allowing ourselves to be seen, we guide others in reshaping their heuristics, breaking the chains of social inertia, and creating a society where intervention in the face of injustice is the norm, not the exception.
References
American Psychological Association (2021). Groupthink and social conformity in group decision-making. APA. Available at: https://www.apa.org (Accessed: 09 October 2024).
Bäck, E. A., & Lindholm, T. (2014). ‘Defending the ingroup: Motivated reasoning in the context of group identity’, Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 17(2), pp. 157–178.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. W.H. Freeman.
Bar-Tal, D. (2007). Living with the conflict: Socio-psychological analysis of the Jewish society in Israel. Cambridge University Press.
Benight, C. C., & Bandura, A. (2004). ‘Social cognitive theory of posttraumatic recovery: The role of perceived self-efficacy’, Behaviour Research and Therapy, 42(10), pp. 1129–1148.
Dienes, Z. (2014). ‘Using Bayes to get the most out of non-significant results’, Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 781.
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press.
Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (2005). ‘Understanding and addressing contemporary racism: From aversive racism to the common ingroup identitymodel’, JournalofSocial Issues, 61(3), pp. 615-639.
Golec de Zavala, A., Cichocka, A., & Iskra-Golec, I. (2013). Collective narcissism moderates the effect of in-group image threat on intergroup hostility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(6), 1019–1039. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032215
Kahneman, D., Sibony, O. & Sunstein C. R. (2021). Noise: A Flaw in Human Judgment William Collins.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1973). ‘Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability’, Cognitive Psychology, 5(2), pp. 207-232.
Kahneman,D.,& Tversky,A.(1974). ‘Judgment underuncertainty: Heuristicsandbiases’, Science, 185(4157), pp. 1124-1131.
Kohlberg, L. (1981). Essays on Moral Development, Vol. I: The Philosophy of Moral Development. Harper & Row.
Lakens, D. (2017). Equivalence tests, Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8(4), pp. 355-362.
Leung, A. K.-y., & Cohen, D. (2011). ‘Within- and between-culture variation: Individual differences and the cultural logics of honor, face, and dignity cultures’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(3), pp. 507-526.
Maier, M., & Lakens, D. (2021). Justify Your Alpha: A Primer on Two Practical Approaches. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 5. Nickerson, A. B., et al. (2020). ‘Predictors of active bystander behavior in situations of bullying’, Journal of Adolescence, 79, pp. 76-84.
Sue, D. W., Capodilupo, C. M., & Torino, G. C. (2007). ‘Racial microaggressions in everydaylife: Implicationsfor clinicalpractice’, AmericanPsychologist,62(4), pp.271286.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973). ‘Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability’, Cognitive Psychology, 5(2), pp. 207-232.
Veenstra, R., et al. (2010). ‘The dynamics of bullying and victimization in adolescence: A longitudinal study’, Journal ofApplied Developmental Psychology, 31(3), pp. 227-235.
Contributors’ CVs
Dr. Milda Ališauskienė is a Professor of Sociology at Vytautas Magnus University, Lithuania. Her research areas include religious diversity, gender, sexuality, religion, and politics in post-communist societies, as well as non-belief and nones. She has published more than 40 scientific publications and contributed to collective monographs on secularization, social exclusion, and religious diversity in Lithuania. In 2021-2023, she led the international Baltic research program project „Religion and Gender Equality: Baltic and Nordic Developments.“ Since 2021, she has been a chair of the COST Action 20107, “Connecting Theory and Practical Issues of Migration and Religious Diversity.” From 2020 to 2022,she coordinatedthe implementationofthe UniDiversityproject inLithuania. Since 2022, she has been one of the coordinators of the INCLUSIES project implementation in Lithuania.
Mariasole Bannò is an Associate Professor of Management at the University of Brescia, where she focuses on teaching and research in business economics and sustainability. Specializing in corporate strategies and diversity management, she has led numerous research projects examining the impact of corporate policies on sustainable development. Bannò is the author of various scientific publications and textbooks in management and serves as a consultant for several Italian and international companies on growth strategies and sustainability. Her academic dedication also extends to gender and LGBTQI+ issues. Contact info: mariasole.banno@unibs.it
Laura Bugatti is a research fellow in Comparative Private Law and Coordinator of Legal Clinics at the University of Brescia – UNIBS (Italy). She holds a PhD in Comparative Law from the University of Milan (Italy). Since 2022, she has served as a legal expert in consumer law for the Brescia Chamber of Commerce. Her main fields of research include
professional regulation, with a particular focus on the legal profession, legal education, legal ethics, LGBT+ inclusionand non-discrimination,and European Private Law. She has published several articles on these topics and regularly participates as a selected speaker at national and international conferences. She has coordinated or participated in various research projects, both nationally and internationally.
Konstantinos - Christos Daoultzis (PhD), is a postdoctoral researcher in Psychology at the Department of Psychology of PanteionUniversity. He received his PhD in Psychology, specializing in Social Psychology with a focus on Interpersonal Relationships, from Panteion University in 2022. His publications, research, and community interventions are centered on the Psychology of Interpersonal Relationships, with an emphasis on their quality, satisfaction,well-being, andsexuality.Hiswork,particularlyinthe fieldofGender Role Conflict, hasbeen recognizedbyProfessorof Psychologyandoriginatorofthe theory of Gender Role Conflict, Dr. James O'Neil. He participates in the "INCLUSIES" project as aresearcherandatrainer.Heisamemberofscientificsocieties(theHellenicPsychological Society and the American Psychological Association). He has been a member of the organizing committee of the 18th Hellenic Psychological Society Conference and has served as programme leader for undergraduate and postgraduate Psychology programs in private educational institutions.
Thodoris Eracleous is a political psychologist, having obtained a Psychology BSc from the University of Bath, and currently a postgraduate student in the Department of Political Science & History, at Panteion University. His professional experience lies in social research, initially as a research assistant at the Psychology of Entrepreneurship Research Lab (PERL) at University College London and subsequently as a project manager and researcher for EU-funded projects. He has served as a project manager and researcher for private organisations and university laboratories. He has research experience in collective action, migration, cognitive science, political and organisational psychology. His research
interests lie in applied psychology, mainly in the psychosocial analysis of identity and cognitive processes, as well as the evolution of learning and labour in the age of Artificial Intelligence.
Tommaso Fornasari is a researcher at the Department of Economics and Management at the University of Brescia, specializing in Business Economics. He completed his academic journey at the same university,earninga PhD in "Institutions andEnterprise: Value,Rules, and Social Responsibility." His research interests cover sustainability, corporate social responsibility, and gender diversity on corporate boards. Contact indo: tommaso.fornasari@unibs.it
Theodosis Gkeltis, as a senior educator, social worker, and scientific associate with Orlando LGBT, brings extensive experience and dedication to advancing LGBTQ+ rights and education. He is a founding member of Colour Youth, where he has actively contributed to community empowerment and social change. His scholarly work includes authoring three chapters in collective volumes that are widely taught in universities across Greece, and he has collaborated on prestigious research projects with institutions such as Oxford University and the Onassis Foundation. His publications include "The Gay Man Through the First Publishing Period of AMFI" in Health, Kaula, Revolution (Asini, 2021), "DesireIsNotPoliced:GayMenandTransWomen'sExperienceofPoliceViolence and Community in the 1980s" in Inclusion & Resilience Fundamentals of Psychosocial Support for Sexual Orientation, Identity, Expression and Gender Characteristics (Gutenberg, 2020), and “LGBT Homeless and Housing Networks Support" in Society and Housing: Problems, Policies, and Movements” (Dionikos, 2019).
Afroditi Kairaki is a filmmaker and post-doctoral researcher at the Department of Communication, Media and Culture of Panteion University. Her publications in scientific volumes and magazines and her presentations at Hellenic and international conferences concern postmodern cinema, trigger practices warning, in the interdisciplinarity of cinema
and literature, in social representations in cinema, in the history of the short film. In 2021 she published her first essay entitled Postmodernism and New Hollywood (Egokeros publications)while herstudyonthe historyofthe short film inGreece isunderpublication. She has directed two short films (6 ½, 2011, 34th Drama Short Film Festival, At the schoolyard, 2020, 13th Greek Documentary Festival, Chalkida). She works in film production and writes film scripts (2011, Publishing Award, t- short). She was a member of the Micro Jury of the 8th Kastelorizo Documentary Festival and a member of the Organizing Committee of the Scientific Conference Film Criticism in Greece: Historical and Methodological Approaches (Panteion University, Ionian University, Université de Poitiers). Since 2004 she works in the civil servant as a teacher and has attended numerous seminars on video production in the classroom coordinating educational programs with related topics. For the last three years, she has been working at the Department of Communication, Media and Culture of Panteion University.
Evangelia Rafaela Koukouftopoulou is an undergraduate student at the School of Philosophy and Education at AUTH. She has actively participated in seminars and workshops on gender-based violence and LGBTQI+ issues and has taken part in Erasmus projectsinItaly,Romania,the Netherlands, andGreece,focusing onpeace,discrimination, activism, queer spaces, hate speech, and gender. She has researched and written a thesis titled "Discussing Gender-Based Violence and Sexual Abuse: Experiential Educational Practices for Their Prevention." She is deeply involved in feminist pedagogy, experiential and non-formal education methodologies, and educational practices aimed at preventing and addressing gender-based violence. She is also the co-founder of the initiative "εμphilo."
Georgina Likskedai is a postgraduate student pursuing a Master's in School Pedagogy at the School of Philosophy and Education at Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (AUTH), after completing her BA in Philosophy and Education. She has facilitated seminars on
peace, gender, and environmental awareness in collaboration with the Antigone Information and Documentation Center. Additionally, she has volunteered at the Lighthouse of the World, where she worked closely with Roma children. Her expertise includes non-formal education methodologies, particularly in human rights, gender identities, and equality. Through these methods, she aims to empower youth and foster stronger relationships among them. She is also the co-founder of the initiative "eμ-philo.
Grigorios (Greg) Moschopoulos is a graduate of the Department of Philosophy and Education at Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (BA) and the master’s program in 'Gender Studies: Intersectionality and Change' at Linköping University (MA). Their research interests include social justice issues, gender-based violence, queer studies, and homophobia/transphobia and their intersection with other forms of oppression. These interests reflect their academic work, their participation in training courses, seminars and international conferences, and their engagement with NGOs like ANTIGONE and student initiatives such as “PHYLIS AUTh” and “eμ-philo” as a research member. They aspire to further develop their research and academic career while bridging the gap between academia and activism, transforming universities and other spaces into safer and more inclusive environments.
Despoina Natsi is a legal expert, researcher, and human rights trainer. She studied Law at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki and holds a LL. M in International Legal Studies from the same university where she is also a PhD in Law Candidate. Her doctoral thesis is on artificial intelligence and gender equality. Her academic interests are (in)equality, in particular gender equality and its interrelation with other academic disciplines, e.g. twin transition. She has joined the White Research team since July 2022, where she works as a researcher and EU project consultant. She has extensive experience in research, project implementation, and proposal writing and she has been involved in several EU-funded projects (Horizon2020, Horizon Europe, Erasmus +, EPIM). As a lawyer and/or human rights trainer she has collaborated in the past with the Heinrich Boell Foundation, the
Council of Europe, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, and the Greek Council for Refugees, among others. In the past, she has worked as an intern at the Greek Embassy in Berlin and at Internationale Begegnung in Gemeinschaftsdiensten e.V. (IBG).
Jordan Paterson is a Vancouver based Canadian Writer, Director and Producer whose filmsfocusonstoriesofmigrationandthesocialdynamicsofcommunitiesthroughhistory. A graduate of Simon Fraser University's film program, Paterson has directed a multitude of award-winning documentaries showcased in festivals and TV broadcasts worldwide, including ARTE, ZDF, CBC, Knowledge Network, TVO, Bravo! Canada, Fairchild TV, Omni TV Rogers, Guangdong Television (GDTV China), CCTV 10 (China), and TV5. Notably, his documentary "Tricks on the Dead,” shedding light on Chinese migrant labour during the First World War, received the BC Must See Audience Award at the Vancouver International Film Festival (VIFF 2015). The film also earned the Best International coproduction at the Guangzhou International Documentary Film Festival (GZDOC 2016), three Canadian BC Leo Awards, two Yorkton Golden Sheaf Awards, and two Canadian Screen Awards (Canada’s annual Film and Television Awards competition). In 2019, Paterson co-producedthe documentary"The World isBright," delvinginto the intersection ofmigrationandmentalhealth.Thisproject receiveda nominationfor Canada'sprestigious Ted Rogers Best Feature Length Documentary at the 2021 Canadian Screen Awards and received the Canadian Emerging Filmmaker Award at the Hot Docs International Documentary Film Festival. Paterson’s most recent five-part documentary series, awarded Best History Documentary at the China Academy Awards of Documentary Film (CAADF 2023), is a Canada-China co- production, examining the life of the iconic communist Canadian surgeon, Dr. Norman Bethune in the anti-fascist inter-war years in Spain and China. In 2012, Paterson created Rare Earth Media Inc. with a focus on documentary productions on social issues, migration, politics and history.
Gintarė Pocė, PhD in sociology from 2020, is a researcher at the Social Research Center
(Vytautas Magnus University, Lithuania). Her research interests include religion and media, religion and gender, discourse analysis, queer migration, and LGBTIQ+ inclusion.
She is a researcher and trainer in the INCLUSIES project. Also, G. Pocė isa Project Expert at the V. Kavolis Transdisciplinary Research Institute and Science Communication Coordinator of COST Action “Connecting Theory and Practical Issues of Migration and Religious Diversity” (COREnet) CA20107.
Maria A. Stamataki is a scholar of literature, researcher, poet, and active teacher in Secondary Education. Her research and teaching encompass poetry and poetics, creative writing, literary theory, experimental and hybrid writing practices, ideas of the self, Modern Greek Literature since nowadays, and aspects of mythology, such as mythical approaches as the scientific method, myth-criticism, hermeneutics of myth, and function of symbols. Work of hers has appeared in Greek and Universal Conference Proceedings, and articles in the daily and online press with literary themes from a “creatical” point of view. She has a postgraduate specialization in Creative Writing (M.A.) and an academic backgroundinArchaeology(B.A.),additionally,sheisaPhDcandidateinLiteraryStudies. Her current research is about urban literary representations in modern poetry, with a focus on culture topics, communication–cognitive skills, geo-poetics, and urban culture. Since 2021, she organizes, edits, and coordinates creative writing seminar-workshop circles. Along with the above, her interests include learning–teaching methods, techniques of creative, expressive writing (adolescent/adult learning), journalism, and multimodal learning.
Thanasis Theofilopoulos has studied Sociology at Panteion University. He isthe recipient of three Master's Degrees with Honors from Panteion University (MA in Social Exclusion and Minorities - Department of Sociology and MA in Gender, Society, PoliticsInterdepartmental Postgraduate Program)and Harokopio University (MSc in Management of Natural and Human-Induced Disasters - Department of Geography). Since 2014, he has
served as a project manager, researcher, and trainer for a variety of EU-funded initiatives that address gender and LGBTQI+-related concerns. As a scientific supervisor of the National Network of Counselling Centers and Shelters for women who are survivors of gender-based violence (GBV), he is currently employed at the Research Center for Gender Equality (KETHI). He is also employed as an assistant project manager and researcher on EU-funded projects at Harokopio University (Department of Geography), Panteion University (METHEXI Laboratory), and NGO Symplexis. He also served as a member of the inaugural Gender Equality and Anti-Discrimination Commission of Harokopio University for a full term from 2021 to 2024.
