Abstract
Drawing on data from a longitudinal constructivist grounded theory research study involving 12 queer and trans students of color (QTSOC), this paper details key contextual influences in their identity development journeys while in (and out of) higher education institutions. Sensitized by ecological systems theory and intersectionality as frameworks, the grounded theory is presented in the form of an intersectional-ecological model of contextual influences for QTSOC. Specifically, the findings speak to the (a) overarching and dynamic influence of co-constituting systems of oppression, (b) proximal processes that emerged as meaningful for QTSOC, and (c) shifting salience of microsystems in their journeys. The paper concludes with implications for theory development, research, and practice in education.
Introduction
In higher education, one area of study that has remained central to the field for more than 50 years is that of college student development (Duran et al., 2024; Patton et al., 2016). To shape practice at college and university campuses, professionals have relied on theories and research that describe how students—and those at the age of emerging adulthood—come to view the world themselves and the nature of knowledge differently while enrolled at higher education institutions. Of note, this literature has grown substantially since its inception. Researchers have moved toward comprehending development in more complex ways, highlighting populations that were not previously centered, and employing interdisciplinary frameworks to implicate structures that shape development (Abes et al., 2019; Jones & Stewart, 2016). Nonetheless, there continue to be opportunities to revisit core principles present in this literature, especially as campuses have become much more diversified over the past 50 years (Renn & Reason, 2021)—including the rise of groups that hold multiple minoritized social identities.
Within the study of development, scholars have drawn on social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) to comprehend how students view their identities in light of social and cultural influences. It is within this scholarship that I began my own research on the developmental journeys of queer and trans college students of color (QTSOC). The literature that attended to QTSOC development was nascent when I started out as a researcher (see Lange et al. [2019] for a description of identity development literature for queer and trans college students). My own line of inquiry was sparked when I noticed people failing to take into account how these individuals came to comprehend the nature of their intersecting identities. Additionally, I saw little attention paid to how various environments in and out of higher education informed the process of exploration and development for QTSOC. As such, I decided to undertake a longitudinal qualitative project that would lend insight into these concerns.
Now in its fifth year, this longitudinal research study designed with constructivist grounded theory (CGT) as a methodology (see Charmaz, 2024) has reached a point in which the 12 QTSOC participants have moved on from their undergraduate institutions. It is at this point that I feel able to speak to the contextual influences that shaped their social identity development. Given student development's roots in disciplines such as psychology, social psychology, and sociology (Jones & Abes, 2013; Patton et al., 2016), it is of no surprise that researchers have been consistently intrigued by how people's behaviors and thoughts are shaped by the settings in which they find themselves. Sensitized by ecological systems theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, 1993) and intersectional theorizing (Collins, 2009; Crenshaw, 1989, 1991), this paper centered on the following research question: How do queer and trans students of color describe the salient contextual influences that play a role in their social identity development during (and beyond) their time in college? In answering this question, I propose an intersectional-ecological model of contextual influences (I-EMCI) grounded in the data from the QTSOC participants but that also can have far-reaching implications for the field of higher education and beyond.
Theoretical Influences
In CGT research, existing theory can guide scholars to see connections in their emerging theoretical explanations without being too prescriptive (Charmaz, 2024). For this project, I was sensitized by two theories (i.e., ecological systems and intersectionality). In this section, I detail my operationalizing of these theoretical bodies of knowledge.
Ecological Systems Theory
Ecological systems theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, 1993) served as one of the theoretical influences for this study. The work of Urie Bronfenbrenner has been pivotal to the study of human development for decades, given the central principle that people must contextualize people's development based on the subsystems in which it occurs. At the time of its emergence, Bronfenbrenner's theorizing around ecological systems served as an intervention into the scholarly landscape because developmental psychologists frequently overlooked the role of context (Bronfenbrenner, 1994). Bronfenbrenner asserted that individuals were located within nested subsystems (i.e., micro-, meso-, exo-, macro-, and chronosystems) that each played roles in human development. Before getting to the subsystems, it is integral to begin with what he positioned in the center of his work—the person. That is, one major assertion was that development is not a biological process but is bioecological. In other words, a person's development occurs as a result of the interactions that they participate in within the environments in which they find themselves (i.e., the subsystems). Importantly, Bronfenbrenner (1993) believed that people exhibit “developmentally instigative characteristics” (p. 11) that inform how they engage with their settings. These include holding traits that would affect how those in subsystems would interact with them as well as how individuals perceive their own agency. These characteristics position the person not as a static entity but rather as one that is dynamic and is in an interactional relationship with subsystems.
The microsystem is that which is in most immediate proximity to people and comprises the interpersonal relationships/dynamics of an individual (e.g., peers, schools, and families). It is here where proximal processes take place, a central concept of Bronfenbrenner's scholarship that often does not receive much attention (Merçon-Vargas et al., 2020). That is, proximal processes are those that happen regularly over time and are significant to the developmental trajectory (e.g., feeding a young child, engaging in athletics, or doing cognitive tasks such as problem solving; Bronfenbrenner, 1994). A proximal process is different from the microsystem itself because it is the elongated and significant interactions that occur that are developmentally meaningful.
Multiple microsystems then form the second level of Bronfenbrenner's theory—the mesosystem. Here is where microsystems interact with one another (e.g., school and local community). The exosystem involves at least one environment in which the person does not directly interact with but that has an influence on their development. The macrosystem encapsulates the previous nested environments, speaking more broadly to societal and cultural norms. Here is where Bronfenbrenner (1994) urged individuals to be specific about the characteristics that shape the “conditions and processes occurring in the microsystem” (p. 1645). Finally, the chronosystem encapsulates both how the individual has changed over time and also how society itself has shifted historically. Although Bronfenbrenner's work has been instrumental to how scholars study the process of development, his writings are relatively devoid of systemic power analyses that critique how structural inequities shape the lives of people. For this reason, I turned to another theory to inform this project—that of intersectionality.
Intersectionality
The framework of intersectionality came to prominence through the work of Kimberlé Crenshaw, a critical legal theorist who honored legacies of Black feminists though her theorizing and coining of the term. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, her scholarship served as a notable intervention in legal studies—and later, other disciplines—as she exposed how axes of oppression (e.g., sexism and racism) not only intersected but co-constituted one another to produce unique forms of oppression for Black women (Crenshaw, 1989) and women of color (Crenshaw, 1991). Intersectionality has traveled across disciplines to be employed as an analysis of how systems of power operate within social institutions; it is at times reductively used to refer to intersecting identities, a misapplication that potentially stems from its broad applications and interpretations (Collins, 2015). Although Crenshaw (1989, 1991) has become synonymous with intersectionality, it is important to recognize that she is part of a lineage of women of color who argued for the need to recognize the overlapping nature of oppression (Carastathis, 2016).
For instance, scholars honor the contributions of others in the landscape of intersectional theorizing, including a contemporary of Crenshaw, Patricia Hill Collins. A Black feminist sociologist, Collons’ theorizing also has been pivotal to intersectional scholarship, given her advancement of the matrix of domination (Collins, 2009). The matrix of domination examines how oppression and privilege interact with one another and, in turn, affect individuals based on their social location. She also has argued that power operates in four different ways: structural, disciplinary, hegemonic, and interpersonally. The structural category implicates how social institutions further inequities, whereas the disciplinary domain articulates how bureaucracy and surveillance within said institutions also generate oppression. The hegemonic category speaks more toward the societal discourses and norms that produce marginalization. Finally, the interpersonal domain describes how people further oppression through their interactions with one another. Said theorizing about the matrix of domination hence served as a sensitizing influence in this study, including in my review of the literature.
Literature Review
Informing this study were two bodies of literature. First, I overview scholarship on QTSOC identity influences given this study's population. Second, I articulate how student development research has discussed the role of context because of its centrality to this project.
Scholarship on QTSOC Identity Influences
In formulating this study, I was sensitized by literature concerning QTSOC and their understanding of intersecting identities (e.g., Blockett et al., 2025; Duran & Jones, 2020; Simms et al., 2023; Weitz, 2015). Research on QTSOC (e.g., Duran, 2019, 2021; Simms et al., 2023) and scholarship looking at subgroups (e.g., Black queer students [Blockett et al., 2025] or Asian queer individuals [Weitz, 2015]) has grown in recent years. This scholarship has brought to light important dynamics of how racism and other related systems (e.g., anti-Blackness, Whiteness) shape queerness and transness (Jackson et al., 2021), especially across contexts. In coming to affirm their intersecting identities, QTSOC face a process of learning and unlearning where they challenge negative views on their identities while constructing new positive ways of moving the world (see Duran & Jones, 2020). Doing so depends on the settings that they navigate, environments that often perpetuate marginalization at the intersections of their identities.
For example, institutional climates have proven to be both supportive and oppressive to QTSOC because some perceive them to be oppressive and others feel an emboldened sense of freedom in expressing themselves in higher education (e.g., Duran, 2021; Garvey et al., 2019). Paradoxically, college campuses can be where people encounter ideas and people who resist oppressive ideologies while also encountering individuals who perpetuate those norms. Other scholars have paid specific attention to how particular settings can be constraining for QTSOC. Leyva’s (2024) research on QTSOC in science, technology, engineering, and technology (STEM) and Gutzwa’s (2024) study on an Indigenous trans* student of color brought to light how academic spaces and classrooms constrain the identity exploration and expression of QTSOC. This is because faculty and fellow students can further disciplinary knowledge grounded in White supremacy, heterosexism, and trans oppression and also can invoke these systems through pedagogic or interpersonal interactions. The potential positives of student organizations that are based on students’ intersecting identities also has been underscored in studies (e.g., Weitz, 2015); nevertheless, those that are established and operate to serve only one salient identity (e.g., sexuality or race/ethnicity) can be damaging because they reinforce within-group marginalization (Duran, 2019).
Beyond organizations, scholars also have spoken generally to the influence of peers and romantic partners (e.g., Blockett et al., 2025; Duran & Jones, 2020) because these individuals are pivotal in affirming the intersecting identities and journeys of QTSOC in coming to understand them. Yet, they may not be able to locate them on their respective campuses, leading to feelings of isolation and disenfranchisement. Connected to this point, authors have underscored the value of virtual settings in allowing people to avoid oppressive experiences at colleges and universities while finding those who can support them (e.g., Simms et al., 2023). However, what is nascent are studies that examine how contextual influences overlap to inform the identities of QTSOC.
Role of Context in College Student Development
Across disciplines (e.g., psychology and sociology), a core belief of those who research identity is that it is shaped by those around them—both within immediate and societal proximity. In fact, Erikson’s (1963) formative work on psychosocial development argued that relationships and personal interactions were central to people's ability to resolve the conflicts necessary to form the strength of their ego identity. This belief in the pivotal influence of context has remained consistent, but in the area of student development, how people have examined its relationship to developmental domains has varied (Duran & Jones, 2019a). That is, authors have employed different frameworks and conceptualizations of context to describe how students are located within environments pivotal to their journeys. This literature has also included different methodologic approaches. Although quantitative and mixed-methods studies similarly have interrogated developmental questions using contextual variables in their models (see, e.g., the chapter by Mayhew et al. [2016] on psychosocial development), I focused my review primarily on qualitative research given the alignment with my own planned design.
For instance, scholars have brought to light specific kinds of contexts that prove to be developmentally significant. This literature has included those who speak to the role of culture associated with identity groups (e.g., Duran & Jones, 2020; Pizzolato et al., 2012), campus climate (e.g., Buckley & Park, 2019), peer culture (e.g., Renn, 2020; Renn & Arnold, 2003), and oppressive systems (e.g., Johnston-Guerrero et al., 2020), among others. Others have argued that it is less the contexts themselves that are meaningful but rather that it is the nature of the interactions within them that make them vital for development—as in the case with Barber and King's (2014) research on self-authorship and their concept of developmentally effective experiences. In doing so, Barber and King (2014) contended that it is the optimal balance between challenge and support that exists within an experience or space that sparks the necessary dissonance for people to acquire more complex meaning making on views of the self and the world. Similarly, Strange and Banning (2001) emphasized that spaces that fostered community, inclusion, involvement, and safety are those that are especially meaningful.
However, beyond examinations of particular contexts or experiences within them, others have opted to leverage multidimensional thinking to implicate how multiple settings play a role in development. For example, in studying the relationship between dimensions of identity, Jones and Abes (2013) contended that the salience of one's identities depends on the contexts one finds oneself in (e.g., with family or in classes), meaning that it is important to consider how environments are shifting. Another example involves the usage of Bronfrenbrenner's ecological systems theory that has represented a prominent way for scholars, including those interested in identity, to have explored development (Renn & Smith, 2023). Renn and Arnold's (2003) introduction of ecological systems thinking laid a foundation for other higher education scholars to start providing nuanced and layered approaches to studying context. Especially relevant to this scholarship, authors have started paying attention to how multiply minoritized queer and trans people experience identity conflicts across contexts simultaneously (see Parmenter et al., 2022).
Study Design
I designed this study using CGT (Charmaz, 2024) as the guiding methodology. CGT has several defining traits that differentiate its use from other qualitative methodologic traditions. That is, those who employ CGT are interested in analyzing how social processes occur by following the direction where the data take them. Originally emerging as a response to the dominant role that positivism and quantitative research occupied in the social sciences, grounded theory gained recognition for its reliance on inductive and systematic methods to generate a theoretical explanation from data (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). As time progressed, scholars such as Charmaz (2024) retained CGT's focus on developing theory from data but reconceptualized it to embrace constructivist principles. This shift resulted in a move toward abduction, a recognition of the researcher's influence, and an increased attention to the contexts where social processes take place. I entered into this project with a desire to further comprehend identity development for QTSOC as the central process of interest, seeing CGT as the appropriate methodology to do so. In the subsections that follow, I speak to how I attended to CGT's hallmarks in the research design.
Participant Recruitment and Selection
Recruitment began in the fall of 2020 but continued until the fall of 2021 given the difficulties in acquiring a substantial sample size during the height of the COVID-19 global pandemic. I used criterion and maximum variation sampling (Patton, 2015) to develop the sample for the project. That is, individuals were eligible for the study if they adhered to the following criteria: (a) beginning at their undergraduate institution (including community colleges) in 2020 or 2021, (b) being between 18 and 25 years of age to have consistency in experiences during this period of late adolescence/early adulthood, and (c) identifying under the umbrella terms of queer and student of color. I distributed recruitment flyers and information on social media (e.g., Facebook and Instagram), to professional listservs, and through my professional networks. In the first wave of recruitment (fall 2020), only three individuals showed interest via the demographic form likely due to the online nature of many institutions: Forest, Karla, and Nina (pseudonyms).
To have a bigger sample, as is typical in grounded theory, I conducted another round of recruitment in the fall of 2021. This wave was more successful, as indicated by the 24 students who completed the demographic form. From there, I engaged the principles of maximum variation sampling, a strategy to diversify a sample based on preestablished standards. Maximum variation sampling is important in intersectional research because it helps the researcher generate a sample that represents various subgroups in an identity category (Duran & Jones, 2019b). For this project, I wanted to have a diversity of social identities (e.g., sexuality, gender, and race/ethnicity), institution types, and geographic regions represented. I identified 12 more people for the study, bringing the total sample size to 15. Although I was open to including more, this number felt appropriate to the CGT tradition and manageable for a longitudinal project in which I was the sole researcher. For information about the 15 participants who began the study, see Table 1.
Participant Information (as of Spring of 2025)
Note. Of particular importance to the study is how people's relationship with their identities evolves. In this table I have included language from participants’ initial demographic forms, which explains the labels that have question marks next to them (because participants wrote those in while also including more updated identities based on what they have shared in their interviews.
In longitudinal research with college students, attrition is common (Duran & Foste, 2025). Italia and Love did not move on after their first interview, and Mari stopped their participation after the fourth interview. This means that 12 individuals continued for more than 3 years.
Data Collection and Analysis
Another characteristic of CGT is the simultaneous process of data collection and analysis, stemming from the original inductive nature of grounded theory scholarship (Charmaz, 2024). For this longitudinal project, data collection included ongoing intensive interviews, a method known for its in-depth and directed format. At the beginning of each semester, I emailed participants to schedule a 60- to 90-minute Zoom interview that was audio recorded for transcription. There have been semesters when the participants did not engage in an interview because of their availability or other events happening in their lives. However, students have come back even after said pauses. Table 1 has the number of interviews each person has had as of spring 2025.
The initial interview focused on getting to know the individual and learning about their precollege experiences. Moreover, guided by intersectional theorizing, I inquired into how students had perceived the presence of overlapping systems of power in their schooling, community, and other settings—together with how this informed their view of their intersecting identities. The second interview then addressed their transition to college and salient contexts where they had explored their identities with my thinking informed by ecological systems theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, 1993). Staying true to CGT, after every interview, I engaged in analyses of the preceding data to develop subsequent interview protocols. For instance, after the first year of interviews, I leaned into the theoretical propositions that needed refining. Whereas participants identified sites and settings where they experienced systems of oppression in the initial two interviews, I hoped to learn more about what led to the recognition of these oppressive structures and their evolution (e.g., “In your past interview, you referred to feeling the effects of racism on this LGBTQ+ residence hall floor. How did you recognize this? In what ways has this shifted since we last spoke? How have your intersecting identities continued to play a role?”). Related, I frequently follow up on life events or circumstances that they alluded to in previous interviews (e.g., platonic or romantic relationships, courses, and key milestones).
I conducted data analysis in alignment with CGT, known for its embracing of an abductive (as opposed to inductive) philosophy. Rather than solely deriving a theoretical explanation from data, proponents of CGT believe that existing theory and scholarship can serve as sensitizing influences in a study as long as the researcher resists the urge to rely too much on knowledge in a deductive manner. The process of data analysis for this study involved open, focused, and theoretical coding (Charmaz, 2024) using the Dedoose qualitative data software. Open codes have been those close to the data, emerging from a line-by-line reading of interview transcripts and developed using gerunds as much as possible (reflecting CGT's emphasis on foregrounding processes; e.g., reading influential text about intersectionality, learning from peer about pronouns, and reporting racist comment by classmate). I then considered these in relationship to one another using another CGT trait: the constant comparative method. I compared open codes with one another within and across transcripts to see which codes had the most weight analytically, creating focused codes in the process (e.g., consuming positive media about identity, gaining knowledge from peers about gender, and encountering racist ideas in class).
And the final step took the form of comparing the focused codes with the theories employed in the project as well as with the sensitizing literature. Examples of concepts from these areas include structural power domain, positive or negative peer cultures, and microsystem influences. In comparing these ideas with the focused codes, I developed theoretical codes that allowed me to see which ideas were emerging as most pertinent to the project's research questions, leading to the construction of questions in subsequent interview protocols that I wished to follow up on and learn more about. For this paper, I isolated the focused and theoretical codes in Dedoose that had to do with contextual influences (e.g., encountering with diverse others in microsystem and enacting agency in face of oppressive systems), leading to the findings and creation of the model.
A Note on Theoretical Saturation
A hallmark of grounded theory research involves reaching a point of theoretical saturation, in which the researcher has exhausted all potential theoretical explanations and no longer needs to collect additional data (Charmaz, 2024). Although the nature of this longitudinal project was such that I will continue to interview the participants, at the time of writing this paper, each individual fit into one of the following categories: (a) has completed their undergraduate degree or (b) has departed from their original institution without a plan to return. Therefore, after arriving at this point 5 years after beginning the project, I felt confident enough to speak to their undergraduate years and the shifts that occurred during that time.
Trustworthiness Strategies
Along the way in doing this research, I have employed several strategies to bolster the project's trustworthiness, or what is known as rigor in qualitative inquiry (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). For instance, I have kept an extensive audit trail where I have tracked the study's steps to ensure the dependability of the study. Moreover, I have regularly kept the participants in the loop of the project's activities, including regularly sending them their past interview transcripts and offering them the opportunity to give feedback on manuscripts such as this one. Finally, writing memos has been an action that I have done consistently throughout this study. These memos include ones where I reflect on my own positionality in the research.
Researcher Motivation and Commitments
An integral part of conducting research with college students is considering how one is situated relative to the participants and the phenomenon under investigation (Duran & Foste, 2025); the same philosophy is also critical to undertaking CGT scholarship (Charmaz, 2024). Thus, I wish to speak to my own motivations in doing this study and the commitments I have held throughout. I came to this research given my own experiences as a graduate student feeling as though my classes on college student development lacked the perspectives of people who were like me. As a queer Latino man, I found that too often scholars had thought about identity categories as exclusive from one another in this scholarship, missing out on the nuances that come with holding multiple minoritized identities. And when this kind of perspective was present, I also perceived a lack of engagement with structural inequities, failing to address how systems of oppression influenced their realities. With these experiences, I made it a career goal to write into scholarship people whose lives were similar to mine.
Along the way, I had to be mindful of my areas of privilege pertinent to queer and trans communities of color, recognizing how I myself have been complicit in anti-Blackness, trans oppression, and other systems. Thus, when I asked questions of participants who held different identities than my own (e.g., identifying as trans and/or Black), I framed inquiries from a place of curiosity, trying not to let it veer into a process of othering. In addition to thanking these individuals for offering their perspective on the topics (e.g., starting hormone replacement therapy or experiencing systemic anti-Blackness), I also made it a point to do my own education in between interviews and during data analysis. My commitment in this research has been to produce scholarship that guides educators in developing interventions and initiatives that generate equitable environments for QTSOC. In doing so, I have also strived to present the narratives of these participants in ways that highlight their resilience, agency, and joy. These are the dedications that I have tried to actualize in papers such as this one.
Findings
In analyzing data for this paper, I discovered the contexts that were salient for the QTSOC participants’ identity development journeys, but I also identified several theoretical principles that came to explain the role they played in relationship to one another. Below I speak to the themes that came to define the social process at the heart of this study, together with introducing a depiction of how they operated in the form of an intersectional-ecological model of contextual influences (I-EMCI) for QTSOC. Such a structure for my findings aligns with CGT, which produces a theoretical explanation for a social process but also typically uses models to represent how multiple theoretical categories connect to one another.
In what follows, I articulate the three core components of the grounded theory that led to the I-EMCI: (a) the overarching influence of co-constituting and dynamic systems of oppression as QTSOC develop in their intersecting identities, (b) core proximal processes of being affirmed in one's identities and exposure to difference, and (c) the shifting salience of microsystems. Given the sheer amount of data collected over the 5 years, I highlight particular participants’ experiences while acknowledging that they represent the broader sample.
Overarching Influence of Co-Constituting and Dynamic Systems of Oppression
To begin, the perspectives offered by study participants emphasized that it is impossible to think about their comprehension of intersecting identities without an acknowledgment of how contextual influences exposed them to the presence of overlapping, co-constituting systems of oppression. In naming this, I argue that for the QTSOC involved, their experiences of the contextual influences that existed around them were always integrally connected to their understanding of oppressive systems. From their point of view, oppressive systems are dynamic, meaning that students interact with them differently over time and that they affect QTSOC uniquely based on developmentally instigative characteristics (Bronfenbrenner, 1993).
Karla (she/her), one of the three original participants in this study, described the ways that she navigated her intersecting minoritized identities as interwoven with oppressive systems. In fact, her sociology major gave her the language to speak to how she moved through the world as a lesbian Latina who also was undocumented: “It has put a name to a lot of things that I have experienced, and . . . sociology terms, they just come in and put a name to something that I have thought about or done and it explains why.” This understanding affected how she viewed the broader institution that she attended: I started realizing that maybe that's [a picture of inclusivity] just a front that they want to give, but in reality, there's a lot of super deeply like racism in this school and stuff like that which makes me feel . . . hesitant a little bit about the institution.
In her second interview, Karla spoke to how she was influenced by people around me who are also people of color or part of the LGBT community or people who some way somehow could be victims of some kind of discrimination or something, and I guess I see them more like speak out or try to do something about it and stuff like that which makes me eager to want to do something about it.
As someone who was at the intersection of multiple minoritized identities, Karla viewed the broader collegiate mesosystem as further oppression for those at the intersections. In her interviews, she reflected on her positioning by making comments such as, “Imagine, I am not from here, I am from Mexico. I am Hispanic. I am a woman. And then if I'm gay, imagine that as a lawyer. I mean, why?” (third interview) and “I feel like the whole idea of intersectionality and stuff like that does really represent how I deal with interactions on my everyday life” (fourth interview). These comments capture how Karla's contexts operated by furthering intersectional oppression—although in speaking to oppressive systems as dynamic, Karla recognized the unique ways that structures manifested on campus versus in the world more broadly.
As the interviews went on, Karla began to speak to how the exhausting effect of constantly interacting with spaces that marginalized her dimmed her desire to be an advocate, having started the study wanting to become a lawyer but later changing this plan. Although Karla's experience resembled that of participants in the aggregate, the nature of being undocumented and facing racist nativism, as well as xenophobia, put her in a particularly precarious position that disenfranchised her. She summarized her thinking by stating during her seventh interview: And then as things, as I got more comfortable with my sexuality, I got more comfortable with the idea of my immigration status, and everything that's happening. Then it felt more personal. . . . that was also a little overwhelming, because now I have to navigate learning all these things, but now to people, it's not about just me advocating for everyone else, but it's me advocating for everyone else and myself. Which . . . it seems more personal, once everyone knows that this is also including you. And that can be a little stressful.
Here Karla captured the challenge of being intricately affected by these multiple forms of marginalization to the point where she recognized that any advocacy that she did—on or off campus—was always shaped by this personal experience of oppressive systems. During the time that she was in college, Karla saw the closing of her LGBTQ+ center due to the sociopolitical climate in her state as well as the institution's continued erasure of undocumented students. These shifts represented how oppressive systems were heightened as opposed to staying constant.
Rosa (any pronouns
1
) was another participant who spoke to how the contexts they engaged with were intricately connected to multiple forms of marginalization. In fact, as a student in a STEM field, they regularly described how their discipline, campus, and state were all places where marginalization ran rampant. These spaces catalyzed zir to get involved, including being on the leadership for the PRISM club, the LGBTQ+ student organization at their university. For example, in speaking about their state context during their fourth interview and the sociocultural shifts that were taking place (part of the chronosystem), Rosa said: Roe v. Wade was overturned, and then we have a lot of anti-trans legislation that's also just antique legislation going on, especially in [this state] with the culture that's going on right now. What I've noticed is that a lot of students are just very wary of letting it be known that they're queer.
Although Rosa found accepting places on his campus (e.g., the PRISM club), those eventually disintegrated by the time they participated in their sixth interview. When asked about how this affected her, Rosa commented, “It’s just cemented. Actually, yes, yes, yes. It's made me very angry. I'm a person who likes directing my emotions toward a thing. I don't like just feeling things.” One way that Rosa wanted to make a change was their discipline. By hir seventh interview, they landed an internship with a government agency, and yet they struggled with the ways they saw racism, heterosexism, and other forms of marginalization existing in these settings—manifesting in different forms than what Rosa viewed at their undergraduate institution.
During their seventh interview, Rosa described the moral conundrum of being a part of an organization (a context) that had long perpetuated oppressive processes, being grounded on historical legacies of marginalization and manifesting in present discriminatory behaviors. They spoke about issues such as racism: “But you can clearly see, as I'm going through this internship, that there's clearly a bias for people with Mexican descent, because they see a lot of cases and a lot of drug trafficking coming from the border.” In spaces such as these, Rosa thought about their own identities and self in relationship to such a setting: I know I can do something about it. . . . But what does that look like for me? And how does that affect me? And how does that affect my family? Because I also have to consider I'm the oldest. I can't make mistakes that cost me a job which I need to help my parents make do with rent. . . . I'm kind of . . . just like in this sense of “I fucking hate what you stand for.” But you're also providing me an opportunity to gain experience and see how it actually works, so I can learn how to avoid it in the future.
Here Rosa acknowledged the contextual nature of oppression he was facing in the internship setting but also saw it as dynamic and something that can be challenged through zir own agency.
In fact, Rosa later discussed that she had met someone who identified as queer who caused her to reflect on whether she was going to want to work in such an environment: I met a forensic student who really wanted a federal position. . . . they were a very queer person. . . . But she was like, I can't wrestle with the idea of working for a federal agency that has hurt people like us for their whole existence, and still thinks that they can drop us a bone, and we'll just take it without any second thought. And then she backed out. She completely backed out.
At the time of their most recent interview, Rosa was conflicted about what to do as a queer person of color regarding their career. Such a dilemma exemplifies how QTSOC are routinely having to navigate their own personal development within spaces that are not built for them and actively further marginalization at the nexus of multiple marginalized identities.
Wren (she/they) was another individual who was critical of how their university was set up to support them as an Asian queer individual. As they moved through their institution, they offered comments such as I think so much of it is tied into going to a PWI [predominantly White institution]. I've realized these kinds of structures have been really enforced in ways that we don't even consider. It can be very difficult sometimes to feel comfortable in any one of these spaces as somebody who has had such a mixed experience in life. So, I don't feel that I fully belong in any of these groups, but at the same time, there's so much of it reinforced even without people realizing it.
For Wren, many of the spaces that exist at a higher education institution were built for only a part of their identities, meaning that even initiatives that are serving minoritized students engaged in intersectional erasure of their other marginalized identities. For some, these identity-specific services can facilitate affirmation and liberation, but for others, these environments signal furthered marginalization.
As an example of this, Wren referenced a course in women, gender, and sexuality studies in their third interview: “It was about postcolonial literature. . . . It turned out it was a lot more about race.” They reflected on their experience taking the class in the following way: I felt very upset after the first two classes. I go in, the professor's White. And I remember this distinctly, everybody else in the class is White except for me and one other Asian-presenting girl. And to be discussing Indigenous rights and Black rights without any of the representation there, it felt so observational, and it felt so technical. I remember being upset, and I didn't really have the language to describe why at that time, but now I do.
Such comments exemplify how QTSOC individuals frequently encountered issues finding a sense of intersectional affirmation at their institutions, leading to the significance of a couple of proximal processes that emerged in particular contexts.
Proximal Processes: Interacting with Difference and Validation of Intersecting Identities
Given the recognition of overlapping systems of oppression as forming the macrosystem for QTSOC identity development, it only follows that the proximal processes (i.e., those that are particularly influential in a person's development that occur over time) are connected to principles of difference and social identity groups. That is, the core proximal processes that emerged as significant for QTSOC were exposure to those from different backgrounds and the affirmation of their intersecting marginalized identities.
Ash (they/them) underscored the centrality of these proximal processes, especially as their connection to important ecological systems shifted when they had to stop out of college due to mental health and financial concerns. They were acutely aware of the developmental influences that collegiate microsystems had on their understanding of their queer Indian identities when they no longer had access to them. That is, Ash had relationships to two queer groups at their university. During their second interview, Ash mentioned that they joined the executive board of the umbrella Pride student organization: My position is diversity and accessibility coordinator, which is funny. Like, “Give the queer, disabled, Brown person that position.” It's interesting because it's just like such a White space. It really shows, and a lot of my friends are queer students of color. None of them go to Pride events because it's such a White space. I'm trying to figure out, how do I make this is a more diverse space if Brown people aren't willing to go to the events?
Their desire to be involved came from not having access to queer spaces previously, especially after being online during their first year of college because of the COVID-19 pandemic: “Coming back this year, sophomore year, and being around people again, for it to be normal again . . . I was just reaching for queer spaces.” Yet, Ash was vocal that these interactions with White queer and trans people themselves were not extremely meaningful because as they shared, “I think no matter how much talk they talk, they'll still go back to the comfort of their Whiteness.” Such experiences led them to state, “I’m reaching for the POC [people of color] spaces and POC queer spaces because it's just so different.” This reaching led Ash to find a queer and trans South Asian group that proved to be more significant for their development, especially because when they had their first interview, they believed their identities of being queer and Indian were “two separate parts of [their] life.”
Having bonds to other queer and trans South Asian people proved to be what Ash needed. They described their time within it by stating: That space just feels a lot more free. I don't have to perform as much in my queerness, especially because we all . . . have this understanding that there's these stereotypes, these things that we feel like we have to fit into these boxes to be these identities, but then none of us really do, just because we're people of color. Just the standard is set by White people, and none of us really fit the standard because of that, so it's less performing in queerness and stuff.
In asking them how such spaces helped them make meaning of the oppressive beliefs that people have of their identities, Ash commented, “Genuinely, spending so much time with my Brown, queer friends helps so much, or else I would probably fall back into the, ‘I feel so undesirable’ thing.” As a self-described fat and disabled queer Indian individual, Ash struggled with being seen as undesirable, especially navigating gendered and cultural expectations at home. Yet, receiving affirmation in their multiple identities was vital for their development in college.
When they transitioned back home after withdrawing from their university, leaving the mesosystem of the university, Ash was acutely aware of the loss of such spaces, especially as it pertained to dealing with people's views of their intersecting identities: It’s so odd being at home after being at school. . . . I'm so open about everything at school . . . and at home, it's just like suddenly, I'm back in the closet. . . . It's so interesting because people [at home] see me and people [think] Brown people can't be queer. . . . going out into this setting, people just don't perceive you as queer. It's odd. And sometimes I just think about how it might be easier if I just live my life as a cis straight girl or whatever, just living at home.
Nevertheless, Ash had reached a point in their development when they were not comfortable losing the parts of themselves that they had gained: “It feels like because I know who I am and I know how I want to be, being in this setting feels like doing that [going back in the closet] would be harder than pretending.” Having those kinds of spaces prior and having the proximal process of being validated in their intersecting identities helped them even as their context shifted.
Jason (he/him) has contributed interesting insights to the project in the sense that he routinely expressed that he did not find many positive communities within the university that he attended. In fact, he frequently spoke about how many queer people and spaces at his institution perpetuated Whiteness, which in terms made him feel isolated as a Black gay man. And yet, he has long described how college has afforded him key developmental influences revolving around interacting with difference, including in his coursework and local context. He believed that his campus was quite liberal and supported queer people: And so, sexuality is at the front of everything. So, it's almost people are expecting you to be gay, which is quite interesting because, funny enough, I did come to [this institution] at first just because I wanted to split apart my identity so much.
And yet, what was critical for Jason was “the chance to just interact with multiple people,” which he stated “led [him] to really figure out [his] identity,” a comment shared in his third interview.
What was critical for Jason's journey was studying abroad in France, where he was able to contrast U.S. views on identity versus that of countries like France: I think reading the French writers has definitely made me make sure that I'm being nuanced in that discussion. . . . And, I guess, being a person of color and being gay, that's an easy way to see how categories can narrow you down so much, especially because there's often that clash between being Black and being gay. . . . you are better in that position to be able to examine others, and being gay and Black, you're even positioned more outside of being able to analyze and see other people, which is something that I'm seeking to do in France, but you take even more of a bird's eye view.
He saw oppression as dynamic because though he felt hypervisible in the United States as a Black gay man, he did not as much in France. So, for Jason, having the educational opportunity to experience these different cultures across diverse local contexts was integral to his development, serving as a proximal process.
Nina (they/them) was another individual who spoke to the importance of interacting across difference and feeling validated in their multiple minoritized identities. They came into their undergraduate years wrestling with their sexuality and gender but not their Latinx identity: I think I feel like my Latinx identity I have been able to explore, my LGBTQ identity, not so much. Just because I'm a little hesitant about and not a lot of my family know. No one really in my family knows. Which I feel kind of hesitant to be like, “I’m a part of the community.” But only friends know, only really close friends know. (First interview)
Throughout their undergraduate years, Nina had the chance to explore their identities through their disciplinary culture of journalism (exosystem) and the accompanying classes/student organizations that acted as microsystems. Their comfort first started out with telling Latinx stories, although they had hoped to find opportunities to make meaning of these identities together—“My Latina identity means as much as my queer identity, so I definitely would love for them to interact. They're both meaningful identities to me”—as told in their third interview.
As time went on, Nina began to only select spaces that they believed would affirm these intersecting minoritized identities, for as they stated during their fifth interview, “I think I would like to hang out with people who also are queer and people of color, so any space that's not like that or don't seem to be inviting of us, I think, would draw me away.” Such an opportunity later came in the form of an internship where they were able to work in a more liberal city environment and where they became friends with other queer people of color. When asked to name why that particular context was so influential for Nina, they shared: I think part of what helped is because we do spend so much time together, whether it's going out for brunch to try a lesbian brunch spot in [the city], going out there and it comes up in conversation. . . . It's going to happen and it's a lot of joking around and then it's kind of like, “Let me tell you a story about the thing.” So, it's very natural, it's informal. So, I think that kind of helped me to feel like it's not such a big deal.
They went on to articulate the types of conversations that they were able to have that were meaningful and comprised the proximal processes compared with other developmental influences: So yeah, it's been kind of nice to have someone like a Mexican girl like me talking about that kind of stuff because I didn't have that for a long time or the friends I did have that were queer were sometimes White. And so, after having someone who understands that connection and why it's so tough to come out to your parents or to talk about it with other people, she gets that feeling and I don't have to elaborate too much.
Different from the home and family environment that Nina engaged with, because their sexuality and gender were not identities they shared with their parents, Nina had found spaces where they were able to find validation in their multiple minoritized identities.
Shifting Salience of Microsystems Over Time in the Chronosystem
Although the proximal processes highlighted in the previous findings remained consistent, the last finding demonstrates that the microsystems were subject to change in terms of salience over time, a theme notable given the longitudinal design of the research and that engages the concept of the chronosystem. The role that microsystems played in shaping students’ views of their identities differed as people gained external validation enough to the point that they felt an internal confidence in their sense of self. For example, Trace (he/they) spoke about how he came to college having recently settled into his gender identity, together with an initial awareness that being mixed race afforded him privileges compared with other people of color. During his time in college on the west coast, he spoke about microsystems such as peers, his academic major (anthropology), a book project about ace-spectrum individuals, and a residential living-learning community (LLC). Before he came to college, his queerness was informed by online communities talking to people who also were figuring out their identities: I think definitely having that space just . . . or knowing queer people just gives you the room to figure that out. That definitely helped me. I already knew I was queer, but it helped me be more confident with my identity and understand it better. And then eventually be comfortable enough with it to come out.
For him, the online community he was a part of was the space where he initially started to make meaning of his intersecting identities, as noted in his first interview: I did realize I was trans. I'm not really sure when I figured out my sexuality. . . . I didn't really consider it part of my identity at the time. And I think it's just an ongoing thing of a mixed-race experience, of feeling between or not really belonging. . . . And I think during high school, with the internet, helped me be more comfortable with that.
Coming to college, Trace had the opportunity to live in a queer and trans LLC where they further settled into their identity. The LLC and interacting with queer and trans students who identified with various identities was meaningful because his exploration was no longer confined to virtual spaces. He remarked on “having those kinds of conversations about identity that you can't necessary that are so much easier in person.” In doing so, he had access to people who understood their experiences but also came to make sense of his unique identities: “So even within the queer community, I'm a minority . . . because I'm a binary trans man [but] I'm on the nonbinary spectrum. So . . . people have a hard time understanding that and about my sexuality, I'm asexual and aromantic.” However, even with this, they felt affirmed by their floormates’ curiosities: “But there's been a few people that they get it right off the bat or they ask me about it.” Having the chance to be able to around queer and trans people while also recognizing their uniqueness was critical to Trace early on as they started college.
Fast forward to their last semester, in their eighth interview, Trace was the resident assistant with the same LLC. When asked to reflect on the differences they felt between Trace in the initial interviews versus him at their eighth, they stated: “I’m definitely very aware of the difference.” He explained that on a basic level he was now able to provide insight to people based on his own life lessons: “I think those [past experiences] have definitely helped develop my confidence and . . . give me like the skills needed to . . . be in this position . . . to be a mentor, like a person of guidance with these residents.” But specific to this question of context and development, Trace also remarked how his relationship to queer communities evolved from a place where he thought he needed them to where they were no longer a requirement. He stated, “So like this is like our first time interacting with other queer people . . . and like that newness . . . made it exciting and important.” He then added, “But I feel like over time you kind of get used to these things.” Trace summarized this difference, stating, “So like, what I once needed is still being provided. But I don't need those things anymore. There is still fulfillment from them . . . but it's less of an important thing for me.” In speaking to this, Trace had gotten to a place where the immediacy of queer and trans microsystems was not as integral for their view of their identities.
Similarly, Forest (any pronouns) was another participant who sought out connection based on zir identities, especially as their professional identity was concerned. That is, a notable exosystem for her was the discipline they were going into that was under the STEM umbrella. For Forest, being a part of an oSTEM club was important given the erasure they typically felt in his classes and other spaces regarding their identities, an insight shared during her second interview: “It’s just not, you don't talk about it. If you do it's considered bringing your personal life into it, and you're not supposed to do that.” Being in oSTEM was both a source of solace and also an opportunity to think more specifically on their biracial and bisexual identities: “It is still overwhelmingly White, which is expected, but kind of weird sometimes.” She went on to say, “There’s just some parts of being White and queer that I don't necessarily like, it's just not the same. . . . When Whiteness and queerness intersect there is this very specific White queer culture, you know?” Despite these challenges, Forest later shared in his fourth interview that they were being primed to be the president because they were the most active undergraduate. And Forest welcomed this given that it was an important influence for his own affirmation of their intersecting identities. In fact, soon after discussing being primed for the organizational presidency, Forest reflected on zir time thus far in college by saying: I think I did become a lot more confident at school. Just in terms of my identities, in terms of just myself in general, I am a lot more confident and a lot happier. And that's probably due to a lot of different factors, but I think part of it is probably I no longer have to splinter in that way.
Having to no longer splinter their sexuality, gender, and race was significant for Forest's development.
In their fifth interview, Forest named that hir had assumed the presidency, but in the sixth interview (the following academic year), Forest stated that they had stepped back because they were unsure if they were going to graduate early. In hearing this, I inquired as to how Forest felt about this given that it was a big part of their undergraduate experience. Ze then responded: I was involved with oSTEM for so long and it definitely helped me grow as a person and work through a lot of my issues I had initially after coming out, I think it was, honestly, I was much less affected by it than I probably would've been even last year or two years ago because I just feel a lot more settled with myself. And so, it's a lot easier to take that step back. . . . I think I put a lot of emphasis on that in the past when it came to my identity.
In her comments, Forest captured that the microsystem of oSTEM was meaningful for a period, but it no longer served the same function eventually—much like other participants expressed.
Of note, the shifting nature of microsystems applied even beyond spaces that were specifically attentive to people's social identities. As one example of this, Hecko (they/them), an Asian nonbinary participant, is one individual who has been open about their mental health struggles with autism and depression throughout the study. This being said, one valuable place for them was an origami club, which proved to be useful in their developmental journey: During meetings we focus on origami, but occasionally if we have time, we'll hang out together and just talk about whatever. A lot of the times, my gender and sexuality come up just because I'm willing to talk about it. I'm still pretty sure I'm nonbinary, so that hasn't changed. But for sexuality, I honestly don't know anymore.
When asked about what such a space/microsystem does for Hecko, they commented: “I think it really cements my feelings because when you say things out loud, you're putting all together your thoughts and feelings into one sentence. And just saying it to someone else makes it feel more real.” This statement was intriguing especially because they followed it up with a statement of “I don't really have a strong sense of identity.” Given the interest of this study, I immediately followed up by asking them about this, to which they responded: “So I have things that I know about myself. I know I'm nonbinary, autistic, Chinese, all of that. . . . I think I've definitely changed a lot, but I don't know what am I changing into.”
Later on, during the seventh interview, I was asking Hecko about the salient spaces that they had experienced during college and how those had changed. They then stated that “I retired from origami club . . . but when I'm back on campus, I hope to, I could visit them sometimes.” When asked about this, Hecko shared: “I think like, one thing that might happen is, I like start really strong in the beginning. It's kinda hard to force myself to do things if I don't want to do them.” Hecko's moving away from the origami club was less explicit than other participants but at the same time still represented a shift away from a place that once occupied a vital place in their life and journey.
Development of I-EMCI for QTSOC
Emerging from this grounded theory is what I term the I-EMCI for QTSOC. Both of the theoretical frameworks employed in this project are evident in this model because they have served as valuable sensitizing influences over the course of the study. In particular, as I was diagramming (a common characteristic of CGT; Charmaz, 2024), I wanted to honor the abductive philosophy embraced by my methodologic tradition. What I did was visually try to present the emerging theoretical categories established by the data while comparing those to existing depictions of the study's frameworks. My goal was not to reproduce representations that already existed but to use the frameworks as guides. The resulting I-EMCI thus has visual cues that are reminiscent of previous images but that are more grounded in these longitudinal data and underscored the novel theoretical propositions coming from the QTSOC in this study.
That is, the components of the model are as follows:
Microsystems that QTSOC reported as being positive and/or negative for their development: classes/academic spaces, home/families, peer networks, and local contexts.
Mesosystems that name how institutions and their climates are significant places where microsystems intersected.
Exosystems showcasing that although they are not always in direct contact with them, career/disciplinary norms as well as sociopolitical climates play a major role in QTSOC development.
A macrosystem that is visually represented by a matrix of domination (Collins, 2009) but that does depict the matrices of oppression in an active, all-encompassing grid.
And a chronosystem that speaks to fact that shifting sociocultural dynamics and people's time in/beyond college temporally affect development.
In designing this model, I made several intentional visual choices (see Figure 1) such as (a) putting mesosystems in dotted lines to represent the fact that they change in salience over time, (b) surrounding the individual with the proximal processes (i.e., affirmation of multiple minoritized identities and exposure to differences) produced by the microsystems, and (c) making the macrosystem itself a matrix of domination by constructing a grid with arrowed lines to indicate oppression as an active process.
Intersectional-ecological model of contextual influences (I-EMCI) for queer and trans students of color (QTSOC).
Discussion
The findings from this ongoing constructivist grounded theory study (Charmaz, 2024) move forward the study of context in college student development. Mobilizing influences from other disciplines beyond education has helped reconceptualize what development and its related concepts mean for students in today's day and age (Abes et al., 2019; Jones & Stewart, 2016), and this present research contributes to this body of work through the use of intersectionality (Crenshaw, 1989, 1991). Centering the stories of QTSOC, a population that higher education scholars have continued to draw attention to (Blockett et al., 2025; Duran & Jones, 2020; Simms et al., 2023; Weitz, 2015), I argue that this project has the potential to shift student development literature in numerous ways.
First, by mobilizing intersectionality (Crenshaw, 1989, 1991), it becomes abundantly clear how QTSOC interact with co-constituting forms of oppression across the ecological systems that they come into interaction with. The stories of participants like Karla, Rosa, and Wren demonstrate how exosystems (e.g., disciplinary cultures and law and policy) and microsystems alike (e.g., classes and work settings) all are intricately connected to broader oppressive systems. These perspectives have led me to argue that for these individuals, the macrosystem that is represented in ecological systems thinking (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, 1993) should itself be thought of as a matrix of domination (Collins, 2009). In other words, multiple minoritized populations consistently face the effects, and are in resistance of, axes of marginalization; this analytic claim means that any other ecological system levels are always shaped by intersectional systems of oppression. Thus, it is unsurprising that scholars such as Duran and Jones (2020) have stated that for QTSOC exploring identities, they participate in a process of learning empowering views and unlearning oppressive ideas in relationship to power structures. Yet, it is important to acknowledge here that systems of oppression are dynamic, meaning that they manifest differently over time and affect people distinctly based on their unique social location. In highlighting this point, it uplifts Bronfenbrenner’s (1993) conceptualization of developmentally instigative characteristics (suggesting that settings can interact with individuals in particular ways based on nuanced traits) but places this idea in conversation with intersectional theorizing, marking a novel contribution of this research. The grid is not static in the I-ECMI, instead presenting axes of oppression as dynamic by using arrowed lines.
However, what is also vital to uplift from this research is an unearthing of what counts as proximal processes for these individuals. In doing so, I hope to underscore how contexts can come to affirm QTSOC and not only serve to disenfranchise them. The focus on proximal processes is one that has frequently gone understudied (Merçon-Vargas et al., 2020), including in educational research. What emerged as significant in this study is that colleges and universities provided the QTSOC the opportunity to engage across difference and to find people who validated their multiple minoritized identities. From the origins of student development research, authors have encouraged scholars to demonstrate how higher education institutions positively or negatively shape students’ development (Parker et al., 1978). The proximal processes that proved to be beneficial for the QTSOC in this research are similar to what Barber and King (2014) would term developmentally effective experiences, but in this project, they are made more specific to their social identity development. By traveling abroad and learning about France's ideas of identity (as in the case of Jason) or connecting with queer and trans South Asian people (as highlighted by Ash), these students received exposure to influences that would forever alter their view of self. This became even more special for participants like Ash, who would go on to lose access to these contexts while still feeling developmentally shaped by them. In asserting these claims, it is evident that proximal processes can be extended to consider how individuals shield themselves from oppressive systems and find affirmation regardless of them; this insight stems from the data and shows the power of using sensitizing influences of intersectionality and ecological systems theory in conjunction with one another.
To this point, the last finding from this analysis made it clear that the microsystems in the lives of QTSOC were ever shifting. Most research on QTSOC is conducted at a particular moment in time, which has given tremendous insights on the environments that influence their development (e.g., classes [Gutzwa, 2024; Leyva, 2024] or peers/romantic partners [Blockett et al., 2025; Duran & Jones, 2020]). Yet, what is missing in this scholarship is a discussion of how salient these contexts are across time, or what Bronfenbrenner (1993) would term the chronosystem. The story of Trace who started and ended his time in college with a queer and trans LLC but realized that these types of communities no longer played the same role in his life served as one exemplar of how microsystems themselves can become less salient during a person's time in college—speaking to their developmental journey. The concept of salience has received interrogation in identity scholarship but typically has been referenced in relationship to the identities themselves (e.g., Jones & Abes, 2013). Here I demonstrate that the settings also differ in salience for people based on their developmental needs. As Karla's story demonstrated, as well as others, sociocultural shifts also can affect their development in unique ways as told by the chronosystem. This assertion exemplifies the need to interrogate how environments beyond a higher education institution or professional discipline are key to QTSOC development.
Implications for Theory, Research, and Practice
Informed by the findings, I now turn my attention to providing implications for educational leaders and scholars. In particular, I begin by offering comments about how this paper has implications for theory development, before then speaking to the areas of research and practice.
Theory Development
The relationship that CGT has to existing theories is a complex one. As articulated by Charmaz (2024), researchers can engage with existing scholarship insofar as they do not apply it in prescriptive manners to their projects. Thus, in this paper, I wrestled with my use of ecological systems theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, 1993) and intersectionality (Crenshaw, 1989, 1991), especially when participating in the CGT practice of diagramming. What I wanted to avoid doing was reproducing normative ways of thinking about ecological systems or intersectional systems of oppression in mapping out the emerging theoretical categories. In doing so, I found myself believing that some previous conceptualizations of Bronfenbrenner’s (1979, 1993) ecological systems held up, but others differed meaningfully. For instance, representing the macrosystem as a matrix of domination vis-à-vis Collins’ (2009) intersectional theorizing functioned as a departure from other presentations of ecological systems, but I also hoped to make this contribution unique by presenting these oppressive systems as dynamic. The decision to represent proximal processes while also speaking to the changing salience of microsystems over the chronosystems also shifts how people have developed knowledge from Bronfenbrenner’s (1979, 1993) initial theorizing. As such, although I showcase how the I-EMCI applies to QTSOC in the findings, I provide a general model that can be used across populations (see Figure 2). My hope is that such a visioning is useful for future research and practice in education.
Intersectional-ecological model of contextual influences (I-EMCI).
Research
Regarding directions for scholarship, there are several ways that people can build on this project. For example, the focus of this paper was itself on the contextual spaces in which development occurs for QTSOC, but the actual processes, stages, or positions that QTSOC move through in their understanding of identity are themselves areas of exploration that others can take up. Such a paper would interrogate what are the vital steps that QTSOC take to come to their view of self. Furthermore, my hope with this CGT project was to draw similarities across how QTSOC experience their environments. And yet, there exist several opportunities to continue to interrogate the differential settings that shape the identity development of QTSOC, including institutional types (e.g., historically Black colleges and universities) and geographic regions. Lastly, this ongoing longitudinal study has recently seen many of the participants graduating or leaving their undergraduate settings. What is still unclear is how these QTSOC come to navigate their intersecting marginalized identities uniquely in a professional/graduate setting when compared with their undergraduate years. Additional exploration across time is warranted to get at questions of overall development.
Practice
Aside from the topic of research, this research has the potential to inform practitioners who support QTSOC as they come to explore their identities on campus and beyond. For example, the finding that microsystems themselves are shifting in salience is a unique topic that higher education professionals should be better equipped to discuss with QTSOC. Whether it is their home environment or a student organization that no longer becomes vital to their development, educators should be prepared to help QTSOC make meaning of the influence that a setting once had and what it signifies if it no longer plays the same role. Moreover, recognizing that proximal processes existed in this study of interacting across difference while feeling affirmed in their multiple minoritized identities should lead practitioners to strike a balance in how they connect students to opportunities on and off campus. For example, educators should consider how they are pushing QTSOC to engage with people who are different from them while at the same time ensuring that they also have access to settings where they are seen in a holistic fashion for their intersecting identities. This finding also should cause practitioners to reflect on how they are designing environments and initiatives in ways that are attentive to the overlapping systems of oppression that QTOSC navigate.
Conclusion
In contemporary times, student development remains a vital area of study for educators (Duran et al., 2024; Patton et al., 2016). However, how a person approaches this research must evolve, including how they think about concepts long central to the literature. This research on QTSOC interrogated context, one that has been consistent across developmental scholarship and yet still requires a more complex understanding (Duran & Jones, 2019a). By forwarding a new theoretical model (the I-EMCI), as well as advancing implications for education, this paper showcases how student development continues to grow to address the lives of students.
Footnotes
Funding
This project was made possible thanks to the funding provided by the Spencer Foundation Small Research Grant, NASPA Channing Briggs Small Research Grant, and the ACPA–College Student Educators International Emerging Scholars Program.
Notes
A