According to the Institute of International Education, international student (IS) numbers continue to be on the rise. Regarding the LGBTQIA community, individuals tend to wait to “come out” until they are in college (Beemyn, & Rankin, 2011). This can be due to moving to a location that may be more accepting or learning more about the LGBTQIA community (Beemyn, & Rankin, 2011). Coming to the United States (U.S.) provides IS with the opportunity to “develop and explore in a supportive environment” that may not be available in their home country (Valosik, 2015, p. 48).

Students experiment with various identities as they develop (Morgan et al., 2011). It may become difficult for individuals to navigate their identities because of the social and political climate at their institution (Morgan et al., 2011). Students that hold multiple intersecting identities may face forms of discrimination and oppression due to all of the identities that they hold (Harley et al., 2002). Individuals experience different forms of marginalization when they have multiple intersecting identities such as sexual, gender, and race (Kulick et al., 2017).

Additionally, like their domestic counterparts, IS are at risk of experiencing identity development issues that can cause distress and confusion. LGBTQIA IS on U.S. campuses experience compounded distress due to transitional difficulties and sexual identity development. It was found that four in five students who hold an identity of being an IS, Muslim, or LGBTQIA experience increased anxiety within their campus environment because of the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

Looking specifically at LGBTQIA IS and their interactions with a campus environment and experiences, the Unifying Model of Sexual Identity Development is the theoretical model used. This study focused on two research questions:

1. What are the experiences of LGBTQIA IS on college campuses in the United States?

2. How do LGBTQIA IS describe the impact student services have on their on-campus experiences?

The Unifying Model of Sexual Identity Development consists of two parallel elements of development: individual sexual identity development and social identity process (Dillon et al., 2011). Sexual identity development is “the individual and social processes by which persons acknowledge and define their sexual needs, values, sexual orientation, preferences for sexual activities, modes of sexual expression, and characteristics of sexual partners” (p. 657). Whether progressing through individual sexual identity development or the social identity process, sexual identity development consists of five statuses: compulsory heterosexuality, active exploration, diffusion, deepening and commitment, and synthesis. Compulsory heterosexuality applies to any individual that accepts the societal notion that heterosexuality is innate and adheres to cultural norms. Individuals within the compulsory heterosexuality status are likely to perceive others as heterosexual and to hold prejudices against individuals holding sexual minority identities. Active exploration is the “purposeful exploration, evaluation, or experimentation of one’s sexual needs, values orientation and/or preferences for activities, partner characteristics, or modes of sexual expression” (p. 660). Active exploration can be conducted through either cognitive or behavioral actions. It must, however, be a purposeful means of exploring sexual identity to meet an established goal. Diffusion is the “absence of commitment and of systematic exploration” (p. 662). There are two forms of diffusion: “diffused diffusion” and “carefree diffusion.” Carefree diffusion consists of having little concern about not having strong commitments. Diffused diffusion is associated with experiencing stress about not having commitments. Individuals within this status are experiencing an increase in their commitment to their identity. Within this status, individuals have an increased likelihood of questioning the societal construct of heterosexuality being the norm. Within the status of synthesis, individuals begin to align their identity and beliefs with their attitudes and behaviors (Dillon et al., 2011).

This qualitative research study was guided by the Unifying Model of Sexual Identity Development (Dillon et al., 2011). This study utilized a narrative approach with semi-structured in-person interviews with participants to attain a deeper insight and perspective on the experiences of LGBTQIA International students. Purposeful sampling procedures were utilized throughout. Developing the interview protocol, a series of questions were crafted, aligning with the research questions and the theoretical perspectives guiding the study. Criteria for inclusion in the study were international student enrolled at a public postsecondary institution in the United States and holding an identity as a member of the LGBTQIA community. Interested participants completed an online screening form through Qualtrics. Those who met the criteria to be included in the study were asked to opt-in to participate in a 60-minute interview. Participants were contacted to schedule an interview and were given an option of a face-to-face interview or an interview through the institution’s Skype video conferencing system. All interviews were recorded for accuracy and transcribed. Member checking was then conducted. Ten participants from two states self-identified to researchers, agreeing to an interview. Participants self-identified as international students studying in the U.S. from three regions: South, Southeast, and Southwest Asia (5), Europe (2), and Latin America (3). Of the ten participants, five self-identified as female and five as male. The interviews were semi-structured and lasted for approximately 60 minutes. All interviews followed an outlined interview protocol that consisted of thirteen questions and seventeen written demographic questions. Prior to the start of the interview, the participant was asked to select a pseudonym to be used. The research team individually reviewed the transcripts and developed codes based on the theories. They then met and discussed the identified codes, collapsing similar codes and removing those that did not receive a group consensus. The transcripts were then individually coded using the NVivo coding software. Coding was completed based on the previously established codebook. Coding was conducted in a three-step process established by Strauss and Corbin (1998). First, open coding was completed to establish categories. Second, through axial coding, categories were combined, and subcategories were established. The third step involved selective coding through the development of themes. Based on the coding, a list of common themes was developed.

The first research question focused on the experiences of LGBTQIA international students (IS) based on their intersecting identities. Respondents indicated a mixture of experiences based on their sexual orientation and national identity. Three emerging themes that appeared were Fear, Isolation, and Openness. The themes are defined as follows: (i) fear is the concern for safety or the thought of needing to behave in a certain manner to avoid potential discrimination or backlash; (ii) isolation is the feeling of being alone, not included within a group, or that one cannot actively participate; and (iii) openness is the need for an individual to come out to friends or family on multiple occasions. The second research question focused on how resources can impact the experiences of LGBTQIA IS based on their intersecting identities. Respondents expressed the utilization of a wide variety of resources from campus based on online resources. Three emerging themes appeared were Campus-Based Resources, Online Resources, and Negative Experiences. The themes are defined as follows: (i) campus-based resources are those resources that are funded by and provided to students by their institution; (ii) online resources are resources that are publicly available on the internet and accessed electronically; and (iii) negative experiences include experiences that were negative in nature when engaging with either campus resources or online resources. Policy implications include a recommendation for institutions to develop resources for LGBTQIA IS within the International Student Services. Through the creation of LGBTQIA related resources specific to IS, IS will have the opportunity to connect with other IS with similar identities, build connections, have dedicated staff that can provide support, and have a sense of belonging. Regarding the campus community, educational workshops and programming are recommended as a way to educate the campus on different cultures and identities, challenging stereotypes.

Beemyn, G., & Rankin, S. (2011). Introduction to the special issue on LGBTQ campus experiences. Journal of Homosexuality, 58(9), 1159-1164. doi: 10.1080/00918369.2011.605728 Dillon, F. R., Worthington, R. L., & Moradi, B. (2011). Sexual identity as a universal process. In S. J. Schwartz, K. Luyckx, & V. L. Vignoles (Eds.) Handbook of identity theory and research (pp. 649-670). Springer. Harley, D. A., Nowak, T. M., Gassaway, L. J., & Savage, T. A. (2002). Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender college student with disabilities: A look at multiple cultural minorities. Psychology in the Schools, 39(5), 525-539. Kulick, A., Wernick, L. J., Woodford, M. R., & Renn, K. (2017). Heterosexism, depression, and campus engagement among LGBTQ college students: Intersectional differences and opportunities for healing. Journal of Homosexuality, 64(8), 1125-1141. doi: 10.1080/00918369.2016.1242333 Morgan, J. J., Mancl, D. B., Kaffar, B. J., & Ferreira, D. (2011). Creating safe environments for students with disabilities who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender. Intervention in School & Clinic, 47(1), 3-13. doi: 10.1177/1053451211406546 Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Sage Publications, Inc. Valosik, V. (2015). Supporting LGBT International students. International Educator, 48-51.