The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 38, No. 2 & Volume 39, No. 1 - 146

Terrell L. Strayhorn • Taris G. Mullins

it is important to note that, with only one exception, all institutions included in this study have at least one glBt student organization on campus, as well as a glBt student resource center or lounge. Participants were purposefully selected using a snowball or chain sampling approach (merriam, 1998). as Patton (1990) aptly describes, “the logic and power of purposeful sampling . . . leads to selecting informationrich cases for study in depth. information-rich cases are those from which one can learn a great deal about issues of central importance to the purpose of the research” (p. 46). specifically, members of the research team worked with the president of the glBt student organizations on each campus to identify and recruit an initial pool of prospective participants—that is, members who met the sampling criteria. to participate in this study, participants had to (a) be enrolled at one of the six universities included in the sample, (b) identify as african american or Black, and (c) self-identify as “gay,” “homosexual,” “same-gender loving,” or a synonymous term (for more, see Brown, 2005). all prospective participants were asked by the president to participate in the study and to share their email address with the principal investigator. this resulted in the first wave of potential participants (n = 10). Willing participants were invited, via email, to participate in a one-on-one, face-toface, in-depth interview with a member of the research team. all initial prospects agreed to be interviewed. as the research evolved, additional participants were identified and invited to participate in the study; this is an example of snowball or chain sampling (Patton, 2002) wherein existing participants were asked to
146

recommend the study to other Bgmus at their university with whom they were familiar. these steps yielded a second wave of participants (n = 19), bringing the total sample to 29. snowball sampling proved most appropriate for accessing this sample of students; therefore, the lead researcher decided to use these procedures to identify “cases of interest from people who know people who know people who know what cases are information-rich, that is, good examples for study, good interview subjects” (Patton, p. 182). table 1 shows several major demographic characteristics of the participants, all of whom are identified hereafter by a self-selected pseudonym.

Data Collection
data were collected via semi-structured, indepth, one-on-one interviews over a 24-month period. the purpose of interviewing is to “find out what is in and on someone else’s mind” (Patton, 1990, p. 278). in this case, we wanted to know what was on Bgmus’ minds regarding their campus rH experiences. interviews were conducted in a way to elicit stories from each participant about his experiences as a Bgmu living in a campus rH, as recommended by methodologists (Vygotsky, 1987). interviews, on average, lasted approximately 90 minutes, although they ranged from 60 to 200 minutes across the sample. consistent with the study’s design (Kvale, 1996), interview length varied across participants because some needed more time than others to recall their experiences living in the campus rH, to convey their feelings through spoken words, and to work through some emotions (e.g., crying, anger) that were evoked as they responded to our questions. in

The Journal of College and universiTy sTudenT housing

The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 38, No. 2 & Volume 39, No. 1

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 38, No. 2 & Volume 39, No. 1