This case study of a Canadian secondary school captures teachers’ and school administrators’ perceptions of a recently-constructed gender-inclusive washroom. Questions about employees’ perceptions of the washroom with respect to its location, amount (and importance) of visibility from common areas, and whether students understand the space as safe and socially inclusive were asked. Employees do not feel as though the new washroom has been a success. Its location is perceived to be too far from common areas and classrooms where a sense of surveillance may curb bullying and general misuse of the space. Design features that appear to be for social use have been confusing for some students and have promoted inappropriate behaviours in the setting. Despite this, students and employees believe that the intention of the washroom’s design was positive and that its flaws have initiated helpful conversations about diverse needs and the importance of respect among the school community.
AngelidesP.AntoniouE. (2012). Understanding the role of culture in developing inclusive schools: A case study from Cyprus. Journal of School Leadership, 22(1), 186–209. https://doi.org/10.1177/105268461202200108
BasnakM.TaukeB.WeidemannS. (2015). Universal design in architectural education: Who is doing it? How is it being done? In Proceedings of the future of architectural research, the architectural research centers consortium (ARCC). ARCC.
4.
BennettN.AndreaeJ.HegartyP.WadeB. (1980). Open plan schools. Schools Council Publishing/NFER.
5.
BromleyD. B. (1986). The case-study method in psychology and related disciplines. Wiley.
6.
CavanaghS. L. (2010). Queering bathrooms: Gender, sexuality, and the hygienic imagination. University of Toronto Press.
7.
CavanaughS. L. (2019). Queering as a critical imagination: Educators envisioning queering schools praxis through critical participatory action research (Master’s thesis). Retrieved from the University of Victoria Electronic Theses and Dissertations Database. https://dspace.library.uvic.ca/items/0f2734e1-ee36-4e33-8303-44cb3b21e56a
8.
ChaneyK. E.SanchezD. T. (2017). Gender-inclusive bathrooms signal fairness across identity dimensions. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 9(2), 245–253. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617737601
9.
CroweS.CresswellK.RobertsonA.HubyG.AveryA.SheikhA. (2011). The case study approach. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 11(1), 100. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-11-100
DaviesA.VipondE.KindA. (2017). Gender binary washrooms as a means of gender policing in schools: A Canadian perspective. Gender and Education, 31, 1–20.
12.
Durán-NaruckiV. (2008). School building condition, school attendance, and academic achievement in New York city public schools: A mediation model. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28(3), 278–286.
13.
FarbsteinJ.WenerR.McCunnL. J. (2015). Planning the built environment: Programming. In GiffordR. (Ed.), Research methods for environmental psychology (pp. 221–248). Wiley.
14.
FrancisJ.SachanP.WatersZ.TrappG.PearceN.BurnsS.LinA.CrossD. (2022). Gender-neutral toilets: A qualitative exploration of inclusive school environments for sexuality and gender diverse youth in western Australia. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(16), Article 10089. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191610089
GorvineB.RosengrenK.SteinL.BiolsiK.RusticusS. (2020). Research methods in psychology: From theory to practice (Canadian ed.). Oxford University Press Canada.
Herzig JohnsonS. (2023). The role of teacher self-efficacy in the implementation of inclusive practices. Journal of School Leadership, 33(5), 516–534. https://doi.org/10.1177/10526846231174147
21.
HeylighenA.Van der LindenV.Van SteenwinkelI. (2017). Ten questions concerning inclusive design of the built environment. Building and Environment, 114(1), 507–517.
22.
IngreyJ. (2018). Problematizing the cisgendering of school washroom space: Interrogating the politics of recognition of transgender and gender nonconforming youth. Gender and Education, 30(6), 774–789. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2018.1483492
23.
IngreyJ. (2023). Rethinking school spaces for transgender, non-binary, and gender diverse youth trans-ing the school washroom. Routledge.
KrippendorffK. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Sage.
26.
MartinS. H. (2002). The classroom environment and its effects on the practice of teachers. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 22(1-2), 139–156. https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.2001.0239
27.
MaurerK. J.FischbacherL.FensterstockN.OsipovaA. V. (2023). Effective schoolwide practices in support of students with extensive support needs in an inclusive elementary school. Journal of School Leadership, 33(6), 633–656.
McCunnL. J. (2019). Visions of a modern middle school: Participatory design with non-student stakeholder groups. Journal of School Leadership, 29(4), 1–19.
30.
McCunnL. J.GiffordR. (2015). Teachers’ reactions to learning commons in secondary schools. Journal of Library Administration, 55(6), 435–458. https://doi.org/10.1080/01930826.2015.1054760
31.
McQuillanM. T.GillE. K.GongX. (2023). LGBTQ+ inclusive professional development in elementary schools: Does it matter to schoolwide discipline?Journal of School Leadership, 33(4), 382–408. https://doi.org/10.1177/10526846231174051
32.
NeuendorfK. (2002). The content analysis guidebook. Sage.
33.
OmercajicK. (2022). “Basement Boys” in the all-gender bathroom: Investigating student inspired trans-activism and white cisgenderist barriers to supporting trans students in school. Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education, 124(8), Article 016146812211233.
PivikJ. R. (2010). The perspective of children and youth: How different stakeholders identify architectural barriers for inclusion in schools. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(4), 510–517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.02.005
36.
PortaC. M.GowerA. L.MehusC. J.YuX.SaewycE. M.EisenbergM. E. (2017). “Kicked out”: LGBTQ youths’ bathroom experiences and preferences. Journal of Adolescence, 56(1), 107–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2017.02.005
37.
Price-FeeneyM.GreenA. E.DorisonS. H. (2020). Impact of bathroom discrimination on mental health among transgender and nonbinary youth. Journal of Adolescent Health: Official Publication of the Society for Adolescent Medicine, 68(6), 1142–1147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2020.11.001
38.
SandersJ.StrykerS. (2016). Stalled: Gender-neutral public bathrooms. South Atlantic Quarterly Quarterly, 115(4), 779–788. https://doi.org/10.1215/00382876-3656191
39.
SaundersB.SimJ.KingstoneT.BakerS.WaterfieldJ.BartlamB.BurroughsH.JinksC. (2018). Saturation in qualitative research: Exploring its conceptualization and operationalization. Quality and Quantity, 52(4), 1893–1907. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-017-0574-8
40.
SommerB.SommerR. (2002). A practical guide to behavioral research: Tools and techniques (5th ed.). Oxford University Press.
41.
SommerR. (1983). Social design: creating buildings with people in mind. Prentice-Hall.
TaylorC.McMinnP. T.ElliottT. L.BeldomS.FerryA.GrossZ.PaquinS.SchachterK. (2011). Every class in every school: The first national climate survey on homophobia, biphobia, and transphobia in Canadian schools. Final report. Egale Canada Human Rights Trust. https://egale.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/EgaleFinalReport-web.pdf
44.
UlineC. L.Tschannen-MoranM.DeVere WolseyT. (2009). The walls still speak: The stories occupants tell. Journal of Educational Administration, 47(3), 400–426.
45.
Van der LindenV.DongH.HeylighenA. (2016). From accessibility to experience: Opportunities for inclusive design in architectural practice. Nordic Journal of Architectural Research, 28(1), 33–58.
46.
WautersH.VermeerschP. W.HeylighenA. (2014). Reality check: Notions of accessibility in today's architectural design practice. In LimY. K.NieddererK.RedstreomJ.StoltermanE.ValtonenA. (Eds.), Proceedings of DRS 2014: Design's big debates (pp. 1482–1491). Design Research Society & Umeå Institute of Design.
47.
WenerR.McCunnL. J.SenickJ. (2015). Did that plan work? Post-Occupancy evaluation. In GiffordR. (Ed.), Research methods for environmental psychology (pp. 249–270). Wiley.
48.
ZallioM.ClarksonP. J. (2021). Inclusion, diversity, equity and accessibility in the built environment: A study of architectural design practice. Building and Environment, 206(6), Article 108352.
