I would not normally blog about an appendix in a text, but when it comes to Mary L Gray's text Out in the Country, I think it important to consider what Gray has to say.
In this appendix, Gray discusses several aspects of her research methods, including why there were few females in the study. First, Gray discusses how this type of research is next to impossible to conduct due to the difficulty of gaining IRB approval when wanting to talk to youth under 18 without their parents consent. She notes that until these conversations can be brought into the school systems, it will continue to be difficult.
Gray also comments on the fact that her research pool was limited due to starting out with youth already involved in some type of LGBT organization. She states that "this agency-driven approach, however, has significant drawbacks . . . . The most critical shortcoming of relying on agencies: most rural communities do not have formal infrastructures of not-for-profit social services beyond faith-based organizations" (3670-3686). She tapped into the pools of friends of those she did meet in organizations, and this was how she found her research participants.
She believes that the lack of females is, in part, due to the fact that "young rural women were often too busy between work, family, and school commitments to meet with [Gray]" (3717-3733). Rural young women often have the responsibility of caring for siblings while parents are at work or for caring for older adults for the same reasons (3717-3733). Therefore, females had less social time to become involved in this type of project.
Generally speaking, Gray's book brings to light the complexities involved for rural LGBT youth who are trying to negotiate issues of identity and how these youth find ways to be visible while still maintaining a sense of the familial. It is also enlightening to see how the use of media helps these youths find realness in their queerness. Truth be told though, I am happy to be done with the book.
In this appendix, Gray discusses several aspects of her research methods, including why there were few females in the study. First, Gray discusses how this type of research is next to impossible to conduct due to the difficulty of gaining IRB approval when wanting to talk to youth under 18 without their parents consent. She notes that until these conversations can be brought into the school systems, it will continue to be difficult.
Gray also comments on the fact that her research pool was limited due to starting out with youth already involved in some type of LGBT organization. She states that "this agency-driven approach, however, has significant drawbacks . . . . The most critical shortcoming of relying on agencies: most rural communities do not have formal infrastructures of not-for-profit social services beyond faith-based organizations" (3670-3686). She tapped into the pools of friends of those she did meet in organizations, and this was how she found her research participants.
She believes that the lack of females is, in part, due to the fact that "young rural women were often too busy between work, family, and school commitments to meet with [Gray]" (3717-3733). Rural young women often have the responsibility of caring for siblings while parents are at work or for caring for older adults for the same reasons (3717-3733). Therefore, females had less social time to become involved in this type of project.
Generally speaking, Gray's book brings to light the complexities involved for rural LGBT youth who are trying to negotiate issues of identity and how these youth find ways to be visible while still maintaining a sense of the familial. It is also enlightening to see how the use of media helps these youths find realness in their queerness. Truth be told though, I am happy to be done with the book.
RSS Feed
