Abstract
Gay men face decisions associated with disclosure, the process of coming out as gay, when and if to disclose, and how much information. These decisions carry more weight in masculinized industries such as law enforcement. The purpose of this phenomenological study was to critically explore gay male law enforcement officers’ experiences working in a masculinized industry. A critical interpretation process revealed that gay male law enforcement officers learn tacit and informal “rules of engagement,” which are enacted as a form of survival consciousness to cope in an industry that is continually hostile toward gay identity.
Adult education (AE) and human resource development’s (HRD) dialogue about learning and work issues for sexual minorities continues to be limited in quantity and depth (Schmidt, Githens, Rocco, & Kormanik, 2012). The relationship between law enforcement (LE), AE, and HRD has been explored in terms of instructional design and training practices (i.e., Donavant, 2009; Hunter-Johnson & Closson, 2012; McCoy, 2006). However, the needs of gay male law enforcement officers (LEOs) have remained undiscussed in AE and HRD, fields uniquely suited to address how LEOs have learned and developed in their careers. At work, gay men face decisions associated with disclosure, the process of coming out (revealing gay identity), staying in the closet (not revealing gay identity), and addressing ongoing communication about being gay. These decisions may be more difficult in masculinized industries such as LE, characterized by distinct histories and contemporary practices of male dominance, onerous physical demands, and a presumed heterosexual workforce (Collins, 2014).
Burke (1992) argued gay men are less accepted, perceived as less capable and masculine, and typecast into certain roles in LE. Studies since Burke’s (1992) essay have explored role deviance (Burke, 1994a), discrimination (Burke, 1994b; Jones & Williams, 2013), occupational integration (Belkin & McNichol, 2002; Hassell & Brandl, 2009), career choice (Charles & Arndt, 2013), barriers to and opportunities for careers in LE (Colvin, 2012), the context of LE (Miller, Forest, & Jurik, 2003), gender norms (Myers, Forest, & Miller, 2004), and identity management (Rumens & Broomfield, 2012). Findings indicate lesbians and gay men who work as LEOs exercise discretion in disclosure (Charles & Arndt, 2013; Miller et al., 2003; Rumens & Broomfield, 2012) and that while much of the prejudice against them is experienced through homophobic microaggressions, such as crude sexual humor (Belkin & McNichol, 2002; Charles & Arndt, 2013), these officers encounter stressors (Burke, 1994a; Hassell & Brandl, 2009), risks (Myers et al., 2004), and career development barriers (Colvin, 2012) that differ from heterosexual officers.
With the exception of Rumens and Broomfield’s (2012) UK-based study, prior research does not consider the experience of gay men as fundamentally distinctive from that of lesbians. Yet gay men are seen to have “male privilege and class status on one hand, yet sexual minority status on the other” (Gedro, 2013, p. 129), a unique experience warranting separation from other sexual minorities such as lesbians who are considered gender and sexual minorities. Each experience warrants study.
Purpose and Research Question
The purpose of this phenomenological study was to critically explore gay male LEOs’ experiences working in a masculinized industry. This exploration provided a basis for understanding their learning and development (D. A. Kolb, 1984) through the question: What do gay male LEOs learn about work and being gay in LE? This article has five sections: experiential learning and critical interpretation, research design, presentation of findings, critical interpretation of the findings’ meaning, and implications.
Positioning Gay Law Enforcement Officers’ Experiential Learning Through Critical Interpretation
Within LE, deviations from masculinity (e.g., femininity) are monitored closely (Prokos & Padavic, 2002), in part because of the underlying paramilitary structures of police agencies (Chappell & Lanza-Kaduce, 2010). LE produces uneven perceptions and enactments of authority and expectations of conformity across genders and sexualities that limit the positive work experiences and disclosure of gay men (Colvin, 2012; Rumens & Broomfield, 2012).
D. A. Kolb’s (1984) experiential learning model provides a lens to consider the process of learning to be a LEO. Learning from experience infers a reflective analytic mindset that influences decision-making and problem-solving skills to gain knowledge for understanding and coping with surroundings. According to experiential learning theory (ELT), learning is facilitated when adults continually reflect on their experiences, constructing meaning and internalizing new information to use in future interactions.
Experiential learning begins with having a concrete experience, either explicit or implicit (D. A. Kolb, 1984). For example, a gay LEO being told by the department chief that the department is supportive of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) officers would be an explicit, concrete experience. However, a gay LEO deducing the department’s support simply by seeing other openly LGBT officers would be an implicit, concrete experience. After the concrete experience, experiential learning continues with reflective observation on what occurred and thinking about the meaning of the experience (D. A. Kolb, 1984). The next process in the experiential learning cycle is abstract conceptualization or making conclusions about the experience (D. A. Kolb, 1984). In this process, a gay LEO who perceives a supportive work environment will decide whether or not they see the support as positive or negative. As a result, the final process in the experiential learning cycle is active experimentation or trying out something new based on the learning (D. A. Kolb, 1984). In the example of a supportive department, the decision might be to come out as gay. However, if the officer perceives any sort of inauthenticity in the department’s statement of support, the decision might be not to come out. Awareness within the researcher is an important aspect of exploring experiential learning (D. A. Kolb, 1984). A critical awareness of participants’ embodiment of active experimentation in LE informed the research by guiding the interpretation of potential underlying meaning in participants’ words in relation to their learning.
Figure 1 visualizes our mechanism for exploring the experiential learning of the gay LEOs in this study. The top of Figure 1 presents D. A. Kolb’s (1984) experiential learning model; the bottom presents the critical interpretation process we developed. When critically interpreting experiences, “one raises [arguments] in hopes of persuading others in a manner that they will come to change their patterns of action” (Barbules, 1999, pp. 485-486). The critical interpretation in this research supposed a transcendental critique to “articulate the conditions of possibility” (Biesta & Stams, 2001, p. 62) as the researcher’s interpretation of truth. Being critical in the interpretation of experiences involves being aware, as the researcher, of performative contradictions, or “situation[s] where the performative dimensions of the argument, i.e., the act of arguing, contradicts the propositional content, i.e., what is argued” (Biesta & Stams, 2001, p. 63) in the data. For example, one performative contradiction might be when a gay LEO states that the department seems safe and supportive, but he still chooses not to come out. Such a performative contradiction may be indicative of other underlying experiences, which also influence the nature and pace of disclosure in LE. Critical interpretation also requires being aware of performative consistencies, or situations where the “performative dimensions of the argument” do not contradict “the propositional content” (Biesta & Stams, 2001, p. 63). For example, performative consistency may occur when a gay LEO states that the department seems safe and supportive, so he is openly gay at work. To frame our critical interpretation, we asked several critical questions (refer to Figure 1) related to the “why, what, who, when, and how” of the performative consistencies and contradictions in the data. Ultimately, these questions were helpful in positioning the participants’ concrete work experiences as useful forms of experiential learning.
Critical interpretation process for experiential learning.
Research Design
A phenomenological (Moustakas, 1994) method was used to explore participants’ perceptions of their work experiences. This section details sampling procedures, participant information, and data collection and analysis.
Sampling
Participants met the following criteria: (a) male, (b) gay, (c) 18 years or older, and (d) experience as a LEO in Florida. At the time of the study, both researchers lived in southern Florida. As is typical in phenomenological studies, participants were recruited from areas convenient to the researchers. Recruiting participants began by contacting gay officers identified via Google searches and personal LE contacts. State and national LGBT law enforcement organizations were contacted and advertisements were posted on the researchers’ social media pages. Each method brought at least one participant. Snowball sampling (Browne, 2005) was also used, resulting in three participants.
Participants
This study had 12 participants, including 10 current LEOs and 2 former LEOs. Ten identified as White, one as Hispanic/Latino, and one as Black. The average age was 39.6 years. Participants held ranks from officer/deputy, to the highest ranking, a lieutenant. All reported being openly gay in their personal lives. Nine earned bachelor’s degrees, two earned associate’s degrees, and one earned a high school diploma. The LEOs worked in three large metropolitan areas in southern and central Florida. The political climates for LGBT rights in these areas are roughly the same, having some gay-friendly neighborhoods with the state overall being hostile toward LGBT people.
Three disclosure categories (Wright, Colgan, Creegany, & McKearney, 2006) were used to classify participants based on responses to “How out are you at work?”—in the closet (not known as openly gay or out only to other LGBT officers), in an open closet (out to only a select few and honest about being gay if asked), or out of the closet (out with no attempts to conceal gay identity). For the two former officers, the disclosure category described their level of outness when they exited their LE careers. Two were in the closet, four in an open closet, and six out of the closet. It should be noted that most of the officers in this study were out of the closet, likely because LEOs in the closet might fear being found out if they participated in a study, and those who were out of the closet are more inclined to discuss their experiences having already made the choice to be open about being gay.
To protect identities, pseudonyms are used. Rocco selected his pseudonym; the rest were assigned. Table 1 provides a summary of participants, organized by disclosure category. Ages were clustered as early (0 to 3), mid (4 to 6), and late (7 to 9). Age, rank, and years of experience did not seem to be related to participants’ disclosure categories.
Summary of Participants.
Data Collection
Semistructured interviews (Bogdan & Biklen, 2006) contained questions relating to four areas: (a) occupational choice and LE culture, (b) integration, (c) career barriers, and (d) disclosure. Consent was provided prior to interviews according to institutional review board protocol. Participants were interviewed between 30 and 68 minutes. Interviews were recorded digitally and transcribed verbatim within 24 to 48 hours, then lightly edited (i.e., removal of “ums,” “ahs,” and repetitive phrases).
Data Analysis
Data were analyzed using Creswell’s (2007) adapted version of Moustakas’s (1994) Modification of the Stevick-Colaizzi-Keen Method of Analysis of Phenomenological Data in two phases: individual and composite. In the individual phase, transcripts were read twice and all statements considered with respect to their significance to describing the experience of being a gay male LEO. Significant quotes were marked. Marked quotes (Boyatzis, 1998; Moustakas, 1994) were organized as textural descriptions of participants’ experiences. For example, quotes related to participants’ belief that LE is masculine were coded as “macho/masculine.” Marked quotes communicating sentiments shared by only one participant were set aside. In the composite phase, textural descriptions were clustered into themes of participants’ shared experiences. For example, the “macho/masculine” code was clustered with the code “different standards,” which indicated participants’ feelings that gay officers are treated differently than straight officers. Finally, during his interview, Carter repeated multiple times that he knew the “rules of engagement” (henceforth referred to as ROE). In the clustering process, codes revealed other participants also talked about their experiences in terms of rules for gay officers and that common themes existed across the rules that each described. Thus, five universal ROE emerged; each rule was communicated to some extent by each of the 12 participants. These rules are described in the sections that follow using representative, illustrative, and verbatim quotes from code categories (Boyatzis, 1998).
Member checking was achieved by sending participants a summary of the findings. One of the 12 participants responded, stating the findings were an accurate portrayal of his experience. Dependability was achieved through “a systematic process” (Patton, 2002, p. 546) in data collection and analysis. This systematic process involved peer-review at several steps. After each interview, the authors discussed preliminary findings. As codes emerged, both authors examined supporting data and came to consensus about the accuracy and definitions of codes.
Five “Rules of Engagement” for Gay Male Law Enforcement Officers
Participants’ experiential learning demonstrated support for Carter’s observation that gay men in LE need to follow the ROE. ROE refer to the unspoken-but-understood guidelines gay LEOs learned to survive in LE. Although the ROE are tacit, they were uncovered through participants’ explicit and implicit concrete experiences (D. A. Kolb, 1984). Carter’s explanation of ROE highlights his abstract conceptualization (D. A. Kolb, 1984) of the culture of LE as being heterosexualized:
I know what the rules of engagement are . . . I will not tolerate being prejudiced against or discriminated against, but I’m not waving the flag. I’m not, “We’re here. We’re queer. Get used to it.” . . . I don’t bring added stress onto me by doing things that I don’t think would be appropriate.
Reflected in Carter’s statements is the sentiment that gay LEOs must follow the rules in order to be accepted, but the rules also inhibit the extent to which they may freely communicate. Participants seemed to believe LE is a manageable career path for gay men if they abide by the rules and adhere to traditional, gendered roles and norms. Thus, the participants’ active experimentation (D. A. Kolb, 1984) was limited to those behaviors and attitudes—the ROE—that complied with LE’s expectation of conformity. The five ROE are: (a) “[Law enforcement] work is a straight man’s job” (Marc); (b) Be ready for “war stories” (Rocco); (c) Being gay and a LE officer requires handling “ongoing [unique] stress” (Damon); (d) “Establish yourself as professional” (Matt); and (e) “All we see is blue” (Shawn).
Rule #1: “[Law enforcement] Work is a Straight Man’s Job” (Marc)
Participants described LE work as traditionally being a straight man’s job, which was reinforced through regulating communication differently across sexual orientations in men. Alan highlighted implicit, concrete experiences (D. A. Kolb, 1984) that led him to internalize widely accepted differences in the ways straight and gay men are permitted to talk about life outside work:
Straight officers talk about their personal lives all the time. Even the women who are gay sometimes talk about their dates and such because they can talk to the straight men about “This chick this” or “This chick that.” . . . We just can’t do that . . . I think it would just make everyone uncomfortable and for no real reason besides that I want to feel like I’m a part of the conversation. (Alan)
Participants shared abstract conceptualizations (D. A. Kolb, 1984) of LE culture indicating different communication standards exist because hypermasculinity dominates, creating a “don’t ask, don’t tell” attitude toward gay colleagues. This privileges straight men because masculinity is seen as incongruent with the stereotype of the gay effeminate. Being an openly gay LEO increases perceptions of femininity and decreases perceptions of competence. Liam stated that LE had a hierarchy: straight men, lesbian women, straight women, and last, gay men because, “Oh, you know, they’re all fairies. They can’t do the job.” Other participants iterated similar observations to Liam’s: “[Law enforcement] work is a straight man’s job” (Marc). “You still have the good ole boys club” (Rocco). “As officers, it’s kind of that male role. . . . It’s that macho, adrenaline-driven, we drive fast, we carry guns mentality” (Matt).
Alan labeled LE as “macho—not in a bad way” and described the explicit, concrete experience (D. A. Kolb, 1984) of using masculine displays to establish dominance. Alan reflected that as a cop, “you want to be the best,” using the descriptors “authoritative, won’t back down, strong” for the “typical cop.” Alan also stated that he never went up for promotion because he did not want to “tempt fate.” Overall, participants perceived competing with heterosexual officers involved taking on normative behaviors and language as a form of active experimentation (D. A. Kolb, 1984). Liam reflected as follows:
Everything is motherfucker this, motherfucker that, this asshole, that son of a bitch . . . it’s basically how badass everyone is . . . “I’m so badass, I did this.” . . . “I’m more badass ‘cause I did this.” Then occasionally the other topics are, like, football and talking about which women in the department they want to bang instead of their wife, stuff like that. . . . There’s always like one or two guys that will turn to me and go, “So which one of the dudes [in our department] would you want to be with?” . . . And then I’ll make jokes: “Sorry guys, I’m only attracted to masculine guys, so none of you really.”
However, for some other officers, blending into the crude and heterocentric joking culture of LE meant overlooking or using homophobic language with straight counterparts:
I deal with heinous crimes. We use sarcasm [because of] the reality that we deal with . . . I feel that if two officers were having a conversation and somebody were to say, “Fucking faggot” or “dyke” in an evil way, I think that would be addressed by my peers. We use that word a lot, but out of love—out of sarcasm. (Adam)
Thus, straight men are not regulated from using words like “faggot,” nor is there consideration of gay officers’ sentiments, producing an implicit, concrete experience (D. A. Kolb, 1984) of straight men defining acceptable speech, action, and thoughts in LE.
Rule #2: Be Ready for “War Stories” (Rocco)
Adam suggested the explicit, concrete experience (D. A. Kolb, 1984) of watching gay officers not succeed in LE can take a toll on those who remain:
When you see these bad stories, it will prevent somebody who really wants to do that career from moving forward. Or somebody who was already in that career, it will prevent them from coming out. I think that back then [when I wasn’t out], if I saw other gay men that were successful and out and happy, I would probably have come out a lot earlier.
“Bad stories” (Adam) or “war stories” (Rocco) about difficult situations in the tough environment of LE were abstract conceptualizations (D. A. Kolb, 1984) of LE careers. Participants talked about LE as an industry in which rules, policies, and tradition dictate the culture, even in the most accepting and supportive departments.
Liam, an openly gay officer, identified his department as supportive and stated, “I carry myself the way I do, and faced less direct discrimination, but I’ve been exposed to more open homophobia, not directed toward me because they didn’t think I was gay.” Liam believed his more stereotypically masculine demeanor allowed him to pass as straight and therefore succeed, and he embodied that masculinity as a form of active experimentation (D. A. Kolb, 1984). Damon recalled an implicit, concrete experience (D. A. Kolb, 1984) during the hiring process that encouraged him to stay in the closet: “In my [employment] interview, they actually asked if I was gay or straight. At the time, I was actually identifying as straight. I answered straight . . . the culture did not permit gay.” This experience was one of his “war stories” (Rocco), and other participants shared similar situations they had faced.
Cam was forcefully removed from his second LE position after his chief had a religious awakening. This explicit, concrete experience (D. A. Kolb, 1984) demonstrated that rules were bent and protocols broken to terminate his employment:
When I got my last evaluation, very high marks, very good officer doing very good things. The chief signed it. And he fired me two days later. . . . There was never an internal affairs investigation. . . . Even if I would’ve gone out and been in a domestic violence situation where they would probably end up terminating me, it doesn’t happen two days after . . . I was told unofficially by several officers that [me being gay] had everything to do with [me being fired]. . . . [The new police chief] had a history of making very inappropriate jokes about the LGBT community and being very homophobic.
Cam was stunned; despite the fact that his evaluations were excellent and he was liked/respected by others, he was fired. As a result of his experiential learning (D. A. Kolb, 1984), he left LE altogether. Cam’s experience underscores the unique stress that even being a good officer does not guarantee job safety or security when gay.
Rule #3: Being Gay and a Law Enforcement Officer Requires Handling “Ongoing [Unique] Stress” (Damon)
While being a LEO is stressful regardless of sexual orientation, participants indicated the “ongoing stress” (Damon) related to being gay contributed to their unique experience of stress. Burke described how his unique stress changed once he came out:
I have worked in an environment where I was in the closet, and I worked in an environment where I have been out for a long time, and being in the closet there’s a lot of personal stress put on yourself. Law enforcement is so stressful in itself that you don’t want to put additional stresses on yourself [by being in the closet], and being out [others in the department] . . . may come to you for advice asking, “Hey, how do I address this? I haven’t addressed a crowd like this.” Things like that.
In Burke’s case, the explicit, concrete experience (D. A. Kolb, 1984) of being in the closet made him feel clandestine and debased. Once out, people counted on him to be knowledgeable and articulate about gay-related issues the department faced. After coming out, Burke experienced another type of stress—being seen first as gay over other characteristics.
Through an implicit, concrete experience (D. A. Kolb, 1984) with isolation, Cam felt alone geographically and professionally and not safe, contributing to his stress:
I was always assigned when I was on midnight to what was called [Region 4], which was way out. . . . The only way to get to that [region] is to go through another jurisdiction. . . . So, you’re kind of isolated out there on your own. And I felt I was put out there, so that no one would ever have to “deal” with me because, when you’re in [Region 4], you’re really never sent to back up any other officer because it’s so far. . . . So you’re way out there by yourself. I felt I was put out there to fend for myself, that way no one else would ever have to worry about the gay officer coming to back them up on a call.
Cam felt he was isolated and devalued, increasing his job-related stress.
Rule #4: “Establish Yourself as Professional” (Matt)
The LEOs advanced professionalism as a way of overcoming others’ perceptions of weakness based on sexual orientation. Matt reflected that gay LEOs must “establish yourself as professional.” Professionalism implies that gay officers have the unique responsibility of “proving you can do the job, proving you’re capable, but not ever lying to anyone” (Liam). The participants shared active experimentation (D. A. Kolb, 1984) strategies used to demonstrate the dispositions required of professionals.
The professional part is what’s really hard for many people, but it’s very easy for gay people, only because we have a little bit more to prove. Most of your gay officers . . . they are the sharpest dressed . . . very professional, follow the chain of command. They go by the book. They know the gray areas, and they ask questions. . . . Ninety percent of the officers that have come out as gay are always the sharpest. (Rocco) I do think [being gay] changes the way I approach people, especially minorities. I’m less aggressive than other cops, less accusatory, because, some of it’s true what they say, that cops profile people. I’ve seen and heard cops think of people differently because of something stupid like race or what neighborhood they’re in or whatever. I try not to do that because I understand that people can’t really control stuff like that. (Alan)
Being professional outweighs any prejudices others may have, according to Shawn:
In my academy class, I out ran, out shot, out studied all these heterosexual officers. That’s something I probably put on myself because you always want to be so good at what we do that people can’t live without us on their team. . . . The best officers, they always want to work with you. They will look over the fact that you are gay because you are so good at what you do. (Shawn)
Professionalism compensated for the stigma of being gay as something others need to “look over” (Shawn) or not see “right up in the very front” (Marc). Officers who may not be able to, or do not want to, mask their sexual orientation might have a harder time establishing a reputation as a professional officer. However, the participants reflected LE is changing and that it is easier for gay men to have flourishing careers.
Rule #5: “All We See Is Blue” (Shawn)
The fifth rule represents a consistent tone throughout the interviews: every officer was concerned with doing the job. As Shawn stated,
One thing about law enforcement that I truly believe is we are working a scene, and all we see is blue. All our brothers and sisters at that point in time, with the job that has to be done, we are all the same. When everything is down and quiet, I can say there is probably something different. But when shit hits the fan, we are all brothers backing each other up.
Despite the “down and quiet” times when “there is probably something different” (Shawn) demonstrating that LE remains reticent to fully accept gay men as LEOs, participants believed in the blue brotherhood. Participants believe that changes in LE culture occur “just within the individual” (Jordan), and industry norms of hypermasculinity remain unchanged, principally due to “the older generation that still tends to make up the command staff, who by and large tend to be much more homophobic than their younger counterparts” (Cam).
Participants agreed LE change is slow, but societal attitudes toward gays and lesbians are slowly influencing LE:
It’s cool to be gay right now. I don’t know that that transcends in the police world necessarily, but I think people are more accepting of it, because it’s out in the spotlight now. It’s out in the media. . . . Most people have a gay relative, a gay friend. I think things have definitely changed. (Marc)
Participants felt that “society is learning” (Shawn) and that worthwhile change requires time and patience. Most encouraged other gay men to enter LE careers if that is what they want to do, but suggested they use caution. While society may be learning, many gay LEOs remain cautious, but optimistic, about how they will be received on the job.
Rules of Engagement as Survival Consciousness: A Critical Interpretation of Gay Male Law Enforcement Officers’ Experiential Learning
Answering the research question “What do gay male LEOs learn about work and being gay in LE?” involved learning the rules of engagement in LE through experience. Though the ROE apply to straight LEOs, straight officers may be less consciously aware of the ROE because straight men have inadvertently or intentionally created and sustained such standards. The rules are often implied, and this tacit knowledge must be uncovered by gay LEOs so that they can survive at work by developing a survival consciousness. Survival consciousness is what enabled participants to navigate LE culture, manage their experiences, and learn from them.
The participants limited their disclosures and avoided reminding others of their sexual orientation. Like participants in Charles and Arndt’s (2013) study, our participants indicated being out at times invited homophobic microaggressions. This was most clearly illustrated in Alan and Carter’s assertions that gay LEOs cannot talk about the same things as straight LEOs. These men’s stories point to a sobering performative contradiction in their mindsets—an officer can simultaneously believe everyone is okay with their sexual orientation while also actively disengaging from situations where sexual orientation is evident. In other words, these officers’ experiential learning directed them to diminish awareness of their sexual orientation, while increasing others’ perceptions of them as professionals. Participants perceived the need to be more confident, more put together, and more professional. Participants learned through experience that if they could follow the rules successfully, their vulnerability at work might decrease. However, the ROE demonstrate how continual (non)disclosure is exercised for the benefit of straight officers.
Talking about being gay is often seen as inappropriate around straight colleagues (Colvin, 2012). But when straight people want to know about dealing with sexual minority issues (as was the case for Burke), it becomes a salient issue. Therefore, continual (non)disclosure choices were exercised to establish a valued positionality which viewed (a) competence as masculinity, (b) colleagues as brothers and sisters, (c) struggles as natural to LE work, and (d) change as a constant process.
Positioning Competence as Masculinity
The participants were consistent in their description of LE as a masculine, male-dominated domain (see Miller et al., 2003), and positioned their competence as officers as a version of masculinity. Participants perceived LE as a straight man’s world, in which straight men are more likely to be promoted and respected (Rule 1). However, establishing oneself as professional means demonstrating competence on the job (Rule 4). When coupled with participants’ perceptions of LE as survival of the fittest (Rule 2), the conflation of competence, masculinity, and sexual orientation is problematic because gay LEOs can improve skills but they cannot change sexual orientation, creating opportunity for macroaggression and microaggression. As an example, Cam received excellent evaluations and was then fired. Thus, positioning competence as masculinity might diminish homophobia but heteronormativity still exists.
Positioning Colleagues as Brothers and Sisters
Participants positioned LE as a brotherhood and their colleagues as brothers and sisters, which facilitated overlooking gay-related teasing and/or offensive language (Rule 1) and promoted LEOs as equal in times of crisis (Rule 5). Viewing LE as a brotherhood allowed participants to exercise performative consistency in their interactions because if colleagues are family, then harassment, discrimination, and stress can be rationalized. The ideal of brotherhood might lead gay LEOs to ignore or diminish instances when being gay influenced work experiences.
Positioning Struggles as a Natural Part of Law Enforcement Work
LE culture encouraged an extreme dedication to work as a form of survival common to all officers (Rule 2), while setting gay officers apart by amplifying stress and safety concerns (Rule 3). The participants accepted the bad experiences with the good. In congruence with Charles and Arndt’s (2013) findings, the participants at times saw their identities (gay and LEO) as complementary and at times LEO identity was more important than being gay. The participants rationalized their experiences; for instance, Alan qualified that “macho” should not be taken “in a bad way” in reference to LE culture. Alan’s statement is an example of actively working to reframe an experience others might perceive to be negative. Similarly, the participants highlighted performative consistencies across their descriptions of the rules of engagement. For example, Liam indicated that he is fully out at work, a choice made easier by a relatively supportive department. Matt indicated his prior experience with a more conservative department influenced the way he works with others, despite now working for a supportive department. Both Liam and Matt made such statements in alignment with their respective levels of disclosure (openly gay for Liam and closeted for Matt), suggesting they are comfortable in their LE careers and have developed a sense of personal stability.
Positioning Change as a Constant Process
The participants reflected on maintaining a positive attitude about gay men’s future careers in LE (Rule 5) in the face of stressors (Rule 3) and rules and regulations (Rule 4). These reflections positioned change as a slow process, dependent on societal norms and values. Participants observed that younger generations in LE, not yet in command, are generally more accepting, creating optimism about the future. Participants were hopeful that gay men will one day be accepted in LE careers, despite witnessing sociopolitical changes regarding women and racial minorities that have done little to change cultural norms and behaviors in LE (Prokos & Padavic, 2002).
Implications
Figure 1 uses D. A. Kolb’s (1984) ELT model at the top, with our critical interpretation process at the bottom. The merger of ELT with critical interpretation creates a novel framework by which to examine learning in other contexts. While ELT places the learner at the center of the formal learning opportunity (A. Y. Kolb & Kolb, 2012), this is not what occurs when learning from experience occurs outside of formal learning contexts and instead occurs during the performance of work, leisure, or relationship formation. Learning outside of formal contexts is not guided or facilitated by a trainer, teacher, or guide. In this study, gay LEOs’ learning occurred through internal processing and was not facilitated in a formal context. Scholars conducting research on ELT or other learning theories can use the critical interpretation model to determine contradictions and consistencies in learning and action.
This study stretches ELT through the elucidation of both performative consistencies and performative contradictions in the participants’ learning. The fact that officers could take actions that seemingly contradicted their learning (i.e., perceiving others are okay with their sexual orientation but still choosing to disengage from certain conversations) is an important finding that moves the boundaries of ELT. Despite articulating the ROE, which limited the extent to which they could be themselves at work, the participants also communicated a consistent feeling that LE could be a positive career choice for gay men. The contradictions in the gay LEOs’ statements pointed to their survival consciousness, which enabled them to ignore inconvenient truths about their work.
To elicit change in LE and the acceptance of gay LEOs, critical thinking and creative practices must be undertaken by stakeholders at many levels: researchers, officers, department leaders, command staff, and even government/state officials. The practice of challenging long-held assumptions in LE might begin with addressing normative behaviors of LEOs. Stakeholders should advocate a “policing with consent” (Douglas, 2004) mentality, wherein LE is designed to: (a) “surface and challenge perception[s],” (b) “facilitate a shift in perception to enable difference not only to be recognized but celebrated,” (c) “do the right thing morally and ethically,” and (d) “focus on the needs of the customer in the community” (p. 201). When policing with consent, LEOs understand that people lend them power to serve. Thus, LEOs might begin to understand the work truly as a service, in which no willing servant should be marginalized. LE trainers should “discuss gay identity, heteronormativity, and misleading stereotypes in training” and “train about such concepts as intersectionality and develop exercises for . . . [LEOs] to deconstruct and recognize their identities related to privilege and oppression” (Collins, 2014, p. 20). Such discussions would help LEOs deal fairly with citizens and LEOs in the gay community. As the peacekeepers and enforcers of law, LEOs may benefit from seeing themselves as primary examples of acceptance and diversity, leaving behind stereotypes regarding masculinity and sexual orientation. LEOs can seek opportunities to change the way their power is perceived and received by (a) intentionally confronting homophobia, heterosexism, and other forms of discrimination within departments and (b) seeing themselves first as role models and secondarily as authorities.
To understand the importance of context and culture in LE, we promote a more critical examination and modification of common, official LE policies that may perpetuate informal, discriminatory standards. One such policy might be the range of discretion LE command staff has in hiring, firing, promoting, and engaging with officers. National, state, and local LE policy makers should consider revisiting the policies that allow for blatant discrimination that is technically legal. Even if laws are passed like the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation among other identities, departments and agencies will still need to develop and put into place nondiscriminatory policies. To address this complex issue, adult educators situated in LE environments should “discuss strategies for deconstructing masculinity in relationship development” and “stress that competency and skill know no race, gender, sexual orientation, age, disability, and so on” (Collins, 2014, p. 21).
Individuals who are selected for educational/training roles should have proven track records as competent and skilled officers with positive attitudes toward diversity. If newer generations of LEOs are trained in such a way that de-emphasizes masculinity, straightness, and Whiteness, perhaps LE will begin to be seen as changeable. Furthermore, LE professionals should “approach conflict and problems in the workplace from a place of honesty by acknowledging all views, even the outlying or dissimilar ones, and developing solutions that respect various positions on a given issue” (Collins, 2014, p. 21).
Finally, this study contributes to the sparse amount of existing research exploring the experiences of gay men (Rumens & Broomfield, 2012) in LE. This distinction is particularly important because while gay men and lesbians share some experiences on the basis of being sexual minorities, the conceptualization of LE as a “masculinized” industry (Collins, 2014) positions gay men as unique exceptions to male privilege and gendered rules. Thus, among the most important suggestions for future research, particularly in masculinized industries, is that gay men, lesbians, and other sexual minorities be examined separately and in comparison with one another, as this may allow for the emergence of a more nuanced view of their experiences and learning. Future research on gay LEOs could more specifically aim to answer questions related to their stress and safety, as we were unable to identify any prior research speaking intentionally and directly to these issues. The examination of more specific aspects of gay men’s experiences, like their interpretations and enactments of the ROE, may prove meaningful. However, we believe this research also raises issues regarding how sexism and genderism infiltrate LE work, which has ramifications for women, transgender people, and others beyond biological males. In addition, most of our participants were White. While LE tends to be dominated by White men, this limits what we know about the intersection of sexual orientation, race, and ethnicity. We suspect the experiences of gay LEOs of color, as double minorities, might vary from those represented in this study. We wonder, How do individuals from a variety of backgrounds and identities navigate LE as a worksite when exclusion and discrimination are pervasive?
Another important limitation of this study is that most participants were out to some degree. A good comparison would be to have participants who are deeply closeted, but this would be difficult to achieve, as the most deeply closeted officers are less likely to come forward for such a study. Future explorations using the ROE as a framework for understanding both gay and straight LEOs’ experiences might open dialogue around these rules. The notion of survival consciousness could be useful in making sense of the experiences of gay LEOs and gay men in other masculinized industries.
In conclusion, this research illustrates the multifaceted and nuanced experience of being a gay LEO. The five ROE provide a context for understanding how gay LEOs can simultaneously comprehend and embody rules that set them apart, while also feeling they are a valued part of the LE community. As the officers indicated LE culture continues to slowly become more accepting of sexual minorities, this article sets forth a number of possibilities that may help sustain or perhaps even accelerate the kind of change Shawn discussed, wherein LE professionals will see and accept individuals and know: “All we see is blue.”
Footnotes
Authors’ Notes
Earlier versions of this article were presented at the Research to Practice Conference in Adult and Higher Education in Muncie, Indiana, September 21 to 22, 2014, and the Academy of Human Resource Development International Research Conference in the Americas in St. Louis, Missouri, February 19 to 21, 2015.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.