Even though some European countries are now showing significant shifts in the social inclusion of sexual minorities, school discrimination and violence have been resistant to social change. This is evidenced by research data from several European countries in the last five years but has also been indicated by IGLYO’s LGBTQI Inclusive Education Report (2018). Based on ten indicators, IGLYO’s report finds that even though most countries are now members of the European Governmental LGBTI Focal Points Network, only five of them meet the needed criteria of inclusive education. The lack of education inclusivity for sexual minorities is further exacerbated because a great part of these countries shares other shapes of social inequality, particularly in terms of gender (in)equality and poverty risk. These inequalities are likely to intersect with those of sexual minorities’ adolescents and youths and contribute additional social exclusion dimensions (Robinson and Ross, 2020). Additionally, the countries in question share other potentially disruptive sociodemographic commonalities like the high number of rural population with fewer resources available and/or lower social capital in terms of the trust for state institutions. 

Among European countries with less-inclusive education systems, there have been several attempts to introduce at least some kind of policy involving elementary and high schools, especially in curriculum changes. However, the attempts were usually condemned as “LGBT/gender ideology or other variants of liberal propaganda” (Bartulović and Kušević, 2014). Additionally, many conservative groups signified these attempts as forced Europeanization of the education process (Čemažar and Mikulin, 2017). For these countries, the sexual Other is still a predominantly politically constructed subject, which is repeatedly constructed as a subject school children and youth need to “protected” from (Hodžić, Budesa and Štulhofer, 2012). In this environment, building inclusive policy also entails a shift in viewing protection of sexual minorities not as a political act but as an ethically and socially responsible process. This paper suggests that one way to focus on a more organic approach in inclusive policy building is to increase the role of qualitative research of education experiences with particular emphasis on areas of daily social interactions in school where the majority of discrimination, bullying, and violence happens. 

Findings from qualitative data on sexual minorities’ education experiences can be categorized into four broad conclusions (Rhoads, 1994; Smith, 1998; Epstein, O’Flynn and Telford, 2000; Ghaill, 2006; Pascoe, 2007; Renn, 2010; Rasmussen, 2011). Firstly, discrimination of sexual minorities is motivated (and carried out) by practices of stigmatization. Secondly, besides students and pupils themselves, actors involved are not limited by formal school framework but also involve parents and families. Thirdly, students who identify as members of sexual minorities develop various emotional strategies to cope with the aftermaths of discrimination. Finally, the experience of a sexual minority student member will largely depend on social and cultural specificities in their locality. Each of these conclusions has been transformed into policy suggestions. However, as this paper argues, European countries with less-inclusive education policies would particularly benefit from understanding the social processes of school stigmatization of sexual minorities. For that matter, the paper suggests both theoretical and research approaches of critical and institutional ethnography of education experiences with particular emphasis. The benefits of the approach are based on the qualitative research of Croatian high school students’ experiences. Additionally, research results are discussed within a framework of building a positive school ethos or climate (Donnelly, 2000; Goldberg et al., 2019) as one of the areas for future policy improvement. 

The research approached the educational experience of LGBTI students in Croatia as sources of knowledge of institutional relations and their contribution in constructing sexual and gender Otherness. Research was both theoretically and methodologically based on critical and institutional ethnography framework (Smith, 1987; Carspecken, 2001; Madison, 2005; Smith, 2005) which was carried out by an abductive research strategy (Creswell, 2014). The primary method used was a semi-structured in-depth interview (Mason, 2002) with students. Both school and student material and notes were analyzed as well. Additionally, autoethnography is included as a reflexive means of relating the researcher’s education experience to participants (Chang, 2006). Materials were coded in three phases, resulting in descriptive, thematic, and analytical codes.

The student experience was viewed as a result of translocal social relations and local relations (Smith, 2005), which enabled revealing the school processes of constructing sexual/gender Otherness. National social and cultural specificities are taken into account; by current parameters, the educational experience of LGBTI students clearly shows commonalities with other European countries with underdeveloped inclusive education policies. Data analysis revealed two main patterns. Gender expressions of LGBTI students are taken up as material expressions of non-normative sexualities, which results in establishing their negative visibility. School dichotomy of heterosexuality and homosexuality is entirely generated by gender regulation through either approval or sanctions of non-normative gender expressions, which often involve physical and verbal violence. In other words, regardless of their actual sexual orientation and/or gender identity, students are stigmatized based on gender expression. Another pattern suggested that establishing school heteronormativity is achieved by the institutional agency in employing the public/private dichotomy (Warner, 2005). While their “stigma” is entirely public within everyday school interactions, the institutional agency in sanctioning bullying and offering protection is lacking because their orientation/gender identity is viewed as private, thus constructing feelings of shame and exclusion. These findings illustrate the need to develop inclusive policies within the framework of positive school ethos that moves beyond the political subject of sexual/gender Other and emphasizes understanding systemic work of heteronormative gender constructions and relations as a source of school stigmatizing. Finally, the role of qualitative research data in building inclusive policy is presented as a tool in moving beyond an individualized understanding of LGBTI school marginalization by putting the issue into the wider framework of structural social relations, thus enabling the critical stakeholders (school staff, teachers, parents and others) to view the issue outside the political framework and to take action upon ethical and social responsibility.

Anderson, Gary L. (1989). “Critical Ethnography in Education: Origins, Current Status, and New Directions”, Review of Educational Research, 59 (3): 249-270. Bartulović, Marija, Kušević, Barbara (2014). “Interkulturna homofobija: LGBTIQ (ne)vidljivost u odgojno-obrazovnom kontekstu”. Pedagogijska istraživanja. 11 (2): 229-246. Donnelly, C. 2000. In pursuit of school ethos. British Journal of Educational Studies, 48 (2). Epstein, D., O'Flynn S., Telford D. (2000). „'Othering' Education: Sexualities, Silences and Schooling“. Review of Research in Education. 25 (1), 127-179 Carspecken, Phil Francis, Walfort, Geoffrey (ur.) (2001). Critical Ethnography and Education, UK: Elsevier Science. Chang, Y. (2006). „Through Queers' Eyes: Critical Educational Ethnography in Queer Studies“. Review of Education, Pedagogy and Cultural Studies, 27, 171-208. Creswell, John W. (2014). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Los Angeles, London: Sage Publications. Ghaill, M. (2006). „Deconstructing Heterosexualities within School Arena“, Curriculum Studies, 4 (2): 191-209. Goldberg, J. M., Sklad, M., Elfrink, T. R., Schreurs, K. M. G., Bohlmeijer, E. T. and Clarke, A. M. 2019. Effectiveness of interventions adopting a whole school approach to enhancing social and emotional development: a meta-analysis. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 34 (4). 755–82. Hodžić, Amir, Budesa, Joan, Štulhofer, Aleksandar (2012). „The politics of youth sexuality: Civil society and school-based sex education in Croatia“. Sexualities. 15 (3/4), 494-514. Mason, Jennifer (2002). Qualitative Researching. London: Sage Publications. Smith, Dorothy E. (1987). Institutional Ethnography: A Sociology for People. Oxford: Altamira Press. Smith, Dorothy E. (2005). The Everyday World as Problematic: A Feminist Sociology. Boston: Northeastern University Press. Pascoe, C.J. (2007). Dude, you're a fag: masculinity and sexuality in high school. Berkley and Los Angeles, University of California Press. Renn, Kristen A. (2010). „LGBT and Queer Research in Higher Education: The State and Status of the Field“. Educational Researcher, 39 (2): 132-141. Rasmussen, Mary L. (2011). „Safety and Subversion: The Production of Sexualities and Genders in School Spaces“, Mary L. Rasmussen, Eric Rofes i Susan Talburt (ur.), Youth and Sexualities: Pleasure, Subversion and Insubordination In and Out of Schools. New York: Palgrave, str. 131-152. Rhoads, Robert A. (1994). Coming out in college: the struggle for a queer identity. Westport, London: Bergin & Garvey. Rofes, Eric. (2011). „Martyr-Target-Victim: Interrogating Narratives of Persecution and Suffering among Queer Youth“, Mary L. Rasmussen, Eric Rofes i Susan Talburt (ur.), Youth and Sexualities: Pleasure, Subversion and Insubordination In and Out of Schools. New York: Palgrave, str. 41-62. Warner, Michael (2005). Publics and Counterpublics. New York: Zone Books.