Library and Information Science Professionals as Community Action Researchers in an Academic Setting: Top Ten Directions to Further Institutional Change for People of Diverse Sexual Orientations and Gender Identities

The need for progressive change in people’s attitudes and behaviors is essential for a communitywide acceptance of lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transgenders, and questioning (LGBTQ) individuals. This article examines our role as library and information science (LIS) professionals working in an academic environment to promote equality of sexual minorities by taking community action and creating social awareness and acceptance on their behalf. Findings based on qualitative studies and action research conducted in the University of Tennessee at Knoxville (UTK) help identify typical barriers and challenges faced by local LGBTQ individuals toward self-fulfillment and social and political empowerment. Research participants share their marginalizing experiences that paint a picture of slow acceptance reflected in the lukewarm campus and community climate of support toward LGBTQ individuals. It forms the contextual motivation for the authors as openly gay LIS professionals to promote “top ten” prioritized community actions of “what do we need to do” and “how do we do it” on behalf of people of diverse sexual orientations and gender identities. Current directions of progress made in the UTK academic environment over a period of two years are shared in this paper. Future efforts are also identified that require extending traditional library functions of information provision to reflect contemporary nontraditional expectations of relevance that include proactive social justice efforts for libraries and LIS professionals to come out of the closet in support of people of diverse sexual orientations and gender identities. Library and Information Science Professionals as Community Action Researchers in an Academic Setting: Top Ten Directions to Further Institutional Change for People of Diverse Sexual Orientations and Gender Identities Bharat Mehra and Donna Braquet LIBRARY TRENDS, Vol. 56, No. 2, Fall 2007 (“Gender Issues in Information Needs and Services,” edited by Cindy Ingold and Susan E. Searing), pp. 542–565 © 2007 The Board of Trustees, University of Illinois 543 mehra & braquet/institutional change Introduction There is a natural (though untapped) intersection between the role of library and information science (LIS) professionals and community action researchers owing to a common service-based ethics, focus on needs of local communities, and attention to rigor and details in praxis (Black & Muddiman, 2005; Maack, 1997). However, historically binding expectations dictated by public perception and internalized by LIS professionals, as mere storehouses of world knowledge and information providers (McCook and Jones, 2002) have limited the discipline from playing a more proactive role in shaping progressive social changes at the local, regional, and national levels (Harris, 1973; Muddiman, 1999). This paper identifies ten directions that LIS professionals need to pursue in academic settings, via social action and community mobilization (Mehra & Srinivasan, 2007; Venturella, 1993), in support of people of diverse sexual orientations and gender identities. Pursuing action-oriented outcomes will insure that LIS professionals act to acknowledge, address, and eventually eliminate social and cultural prejudices. They can counter individual, organizational, institutional, and communitywide discrimination, and rectify information service support disparities faced by sexual minorities. “What we need to do” and representative strategies of “how to do it” are based on our ongoing work at the University of Tennessee at Knoxville (UTK), wearing simultaneous dual professional hats as: (1) LIS professionals involved in information creation-organization-dissemination processes and LIS education, and (2) self-identified gay community activists involved in conducting research. The context of the study emerges from our experiences at the UTK as gay faculty members, immersed in an encompassing heterosexist environment within the academy and surrounding local communities, and our springboard for action is based on opportunities presented in our roles as LIS professionals. We are positioned to address imbalanced facets of power in the following areas: Institutional policy development • Political lobbying • Curriculum and course planning • Creation of culturally sensitive training workshops • Promotion of safe space programs • Advertising and promotion for positive visibility • Development and access (print and electronic) to appropriate infor• mation resource collections (local and non-local) Development and use of community-based social and digital technologies • Our role as community action researchers is helping us: recognize and value our experiences to bring change in the academic environment; network and build voice for those traditionally silenced owing to a cloak of “invisibility”; participate in different venues, events, and settings in order 544 library trends/fall 2007 to consolidate strategies for promoting social change across the campus and community; and provide concrete steps for action to change the disenfranchised realities experienced by research participants in the UTK and neighboring communities. Our role as LIS professionals is providing us: critical and reflective skills to understand the information creationorganization-dissemination processes and their potential applications to fulfill individual and collective needs; and, creative directions and strategies to tap into available opportunities that translate the concept of “information is power” into actual practice, improving the everyday life experiences of those considered “invisible” on the margins of society. Research Methods Cognitive psychologists recognize the power of stories to construct memory, meaning, emotion, and personal and collective identity (Bower & Clark, 1969; Bruner, 1990; Wyer, 1995). This paper articulates our experiences and presents glimpses from our story as LIS community action researchers conducting LGBTQ research to further social action at the UTK and the surrounding regions. The paper also identifies collected community narratives defined in terms of gathered stories shared by our research participants during the process of research, and identifies action items that take shape, and get actualized, based on reflective analysis of the intersections between our experiences and those of our participants (Mankowski & Rappaport, 2000; Rappaport, 1995). Community narratives are presented in this paper as scenarios or typical experiences that capture a collective point of view about the prevailing campus climate, barriers and challenges, actions that need to be undertaken for institutional change, and strategies to make the vision a tangible reality. Our knowledge, experiences, and competencies as LIS professionals have helped us recognize the embedded information needs that are situated within the larger complex problems of LGBTQ inequality as reflected in our participants’ scenarios. Our ability to plan, and design, culturally responsive library and information support services to influence imbalanced facets of power in favor of people of diverse sexual orientations and gender identities is a unique contribution as LIS professionals. The unconditional faith in this vision and the organizational drive to design information support services for LGBTQ populations, in relation to social justice and community action, is what distinguishes our research and actions on behalf of LGBTQ equality from those undertaken by researchers and/or activists in other fields. An important point to acknowledge: our experiences as participant researchers were instrumental in initially exposing us to the prevailing heterosexist mindset and climate. Our awareness has since shaped the process of our research to mobilize community action and promote equity and justice for people of diverse sexual orientations and gender iden545 mehra & braquet/institutional change tities. The power of our own experiences in shaping our motivations, for example, was evident in our introduction to the conservative climate at the UTK during the spring 2005 new faculty orientation, where we raised a question about a lack of representation of ethnicity, gender, and sexual orientation in the University’s Equal Employment Opportunity/Affirmative Action Statement and Tagline. The representative from the UTK’s Office of Equity and Diversity commented that the inclusion of race and people of diverse national origins as well as sex in the UTK policy encompassed the notions of ethnicity and gender respectively, while the absence of the term “sexual orientation” was attributed to the political and conservative bent of the University’s Board of Trustees. Observing this limited response helped us understand the context in which we were immersed. We recognized what seemed to be, at the time, limited formal avenues for progressive action on behalf of sexual minorities and others. This encounter also made us resolute in our decision to bring out of the proverbial closet, the concerns of people of diverse sexual orientations and gender identities, and individuals from other disenfranchised populations. It inspired us to vocalize the need to address equity and fairness for all in the various arenas that we participated in, and this eventually contributed to the current and ongoing collaboration between us (the two authors) on community action research on behalf of LGBTQ individuals in the region. Collecting community narratives during our LGBTQ research provided a valid and authentic method for us as LIS professionals to tap into the community knowledge, build accurate and representative information resources, and extend our traditional LIS roles to community action for making progressive institutional changes in our academic environment. The following additional goals have been achieved in this process of storytelling and documentation of community narratives in this paper: (a) to initiate and record connections between LGBTQ research, action, and social change; (b) to share lessons we learned as LIS community action researchers while conducting LGBTQ research; and (c) to identify ten vital actions that LIS professionals need to take in order to address inequities experienced by people of diverse sexual orientations and gender identities in academic settings. Moreover, in this process of telling our stories and documenting community narratives, the significance of our role as LIS community action researchers is to be duly noted (Harper & Schneider, 2003). As community action researchers in LIS settings, we tapped into opportunities and openings provided to us as LIS professionals that subsequently shaped the direction of research, questions of inquiry, and the action-oriented strategies for bringing progressive changes in the community. Also, as gay researchers belonging to the group that was the focus of our research, we were able to acquire a deeper understanding of the context of study that gave us an “insider-outsider” perspective invaluable throughout the research process. The following is a brief discus546 library trends/fall 2007 sion of the two methods that were most useful to us as community action researchers—participant observation and ethnographic interviewing. Participant observation involves the researchers taking part, actively and/or passively, in their subjects’ activities while observing them (True, 1989). Often related broadly, synonymously, or narrowly with other terms such as qualitative methodology, ethnographic field research, observational research, qualitative observation, observations in social research, “covert methods,” unstructured data-gathering, case study documentation, and others (Burgess, 1988), participant observation has a long history in cultural anthropology and involves “getting close to people and making them feel comfortable enough with your presence so that you can observe and record information about their lives” (Bernard, 1994, p. 136). Several comprehensive works focus on the participant observer methodology as a tool for gaining an in-depth understanding of spatial and temporal behavior and practices in specific settings (Burgess, 1984; Ellen, 1984; Hammersly & Atkinson, 1983; Whyte, 1984). This research does not apply participant observation in a similar sense of intentionally “getting close” to establish rapport with participants in a new setting, since the authors were already “out” faculty members engaged in the everyday activities of teaching, research, and service at the UTK. Hence, participant observation in this research did not require cultural immersion and getting acquainted with the novel contextual realities and the lives of the participants. However, this research does apply some characteristics of participant observation since we did play the role of the observing participants (or participating observers) who experienced similar social situations to our LGBTQ research participants. An example where fieldwork involved the researcher as an observing participant was a study conducted by Barbara Marriott (1991), wife of a retired captain for thirty years, who researched and actively participated in activities to find out how the wives of U.S. Navy male officers, like herself, contributed to their husbands’ careers (Marriott, 1991). Similarly, we too were doing research about “others like us” who were LGBTQ members of the UTK community. Apparent disadvantages of participant observations in terms of perceived unreliability, role limitations, loss of objectivity, interviewer effect, and time consumption (Mehra, 2007) were outweighed by advantages (Labovitz & Hagedorn, 1981) and included the following: access to natural setting and emotions, accumulation of data over time, access to context, and development of rapport, amongst others. In the summer and fall of 2005, we conducted in-depth qualitative interviews with twenty-one individuals of diverse sexual orientations and gender identities who self-identified as lesbian (2), gay (12), bisexual (4 females and 2 males), and transgender (one heterosexual female-tomale). All interviewees were students, faculty, or staff at the UTK or local nonacademic community members and resided in the Knoxville metro547 mehra & braquet/institutional change politan area. The interviews documented experiences and perspectives about the campus climate and initiatives required for community action in support of sexual minorities. This paper summarizes participants’ responses in terms of: (1) barriers and challenges for self-fulfillment; (2) what needs to be done to advance progressive change; and (3) strategies for promoting institutional diversity and acceptance for people of diverse sexual orientations and gender identities. Thematic patterns were identified following grounded theory principles and are highlighted in participants’ personal stories. The stories became a foundation for action to promote institutional changes at various levels, as reported in the later sections of the paper. The object of action research is social practice and its transformations, along with the changes that occur in the social institutions and relationships that support it (Kemmis & McTaggart, 1988). We applied principles of action research in building equitable collaborations between LGBTQ members and allies to “define the problems to be examined, cogenerate relevant knowledge about them, learn and execute social research techniques, take actions, and interpret the results of actions based on what they have learned” (Greenwood & Levin, 1998, p. 4). Our findings are presented as “top ten” lists, a decidedly nonscholarly format. By borrowing a framework from popular culture, we are deliberately bridging the perceived gap between the academy and the community and demonstrating how the results of research may be “packaged” to be more accessible and ultimately actionable. The Context of Study: Community Narratives of Top Ten Barriers and Challenges In-depth interviews and informal interactions with LGBTQ faculty, staff, students, and community members in the Knoxville metropolitan area provided feedback about the barriers and challenges that have prevented equal and fair inclusion and representation of sexual minorities on the UTK campus and surrounding community. The “top ten” obstacles are: social isolation and lack of awareness of LGBTQ people • no formalized support and institutional protection • lack of political representation • conservative climate • cloak of invisibility surrounding LGBTQ concerns and negative ste•