Chapter I

INTRODUCTION

Rationale

Gender discrimination persists within scouting environments worldwide,

particularly for gay male scouters who navigate peer dynamics shaped by

rigid masculinity. Research shows that homophobic teasing is common in

male-dominated youth organizations across global contexts, where toughness

and competition define social norms; gay scouts frequently experience

derogatory jokes, feminizing mockery, and labels such as “soft,” creating

hostile climates that undermine belonging and mental well-being (Chang &

Darley, 2023). These discriminatory interactions are reinforced by the broader

heteronormative culture of scouting—an international movement historically

rooted in traditional masculine ideals that reward heterosexual conformity and

marginalize those who do not fit expected gender expressions. Because these

patterns appear across diverse cultural settings, examining the narratives of

gay male scouters is essential to reveal how global issues of gender

discrimination operate within youth movements and why inclusive reforms

often fail to address deeper cultural biases embedded in scouting traditions

(Robinson & Ferfolja, 2020).

In Asian nations, similar patterns of gender policing among boys

highlight how cultural norms intensify homophobic teasing within youth

organizations. Comparative research demonstrates that traditional gender-

role attitudes strongly correlate with bullying, especially in groups structured

around hegemonic masculinity. Studies from China show that boys who hold
rigid masculinity beliefs and receive less peer support are significantly more

likely to perpetrate homophobic discrimination, indicating that youth

organizations may disproportionately target gay male students (Gao et. al,

2022). Complementing this, evidence from the United States and global

reviews identifies protective factors—such as supportive adult intervention,

inclusive school policies, peer-ally programs, and anti-bullying frameworks—

that help mitigate harm and promote safer environments for sexual-minority

youth (Semprevivo, 2023; Stańczykiewicz, 2024).

In the Philippines, the broader cultural and institutional landscape

presents equally significant challenges for gay male students participating in

youth organizations such as the Boy Scouts of the Philippines. Human Rights

Watch (2017), in its report Just Let Us Be, documents how schools and youth

programs often maintain heteronormative norms through bullying,

discriminatory disciplinary rules, and inadequate protective mechanisms—

conditions that undermine the dignity, safety, and academic well-being of

LGBT learners. Reinforcing these concerns, (Manalastas & Torre, 2017)

explain how institutional practices and the lack of inclusive policies create

psychological distress and minority stress among LGBT youth. These patterns

are further shaped by cultural expectations unique to Filipino masculinity:

Angeles, illustrates how deeply rooted norms of toughness, obedience, and

heterosexuality constrain acceptable behaviors among boys, intensifying the

vulnerability of gay and gender-nonconforming youth in male-dominated

spaces like scouting. Thus, institutional and cultural norms reproduce

exclusion among gay Filipino youth.

 In the Davao Region, the issue becomes more urgent, as

discrimination persists despite the existence of local anti-discrimination

policies, creating a pressing local rationale for this study. Research indicates

that the weak implementation of Davao City’s Anti-Discrimination Ordinance

enables ongoing harassment, exclusion, and public stigma against gay

individuals (Lidasan, 2024). Further, a systematic review by Ramos et. al

(2025) shows that despite the ADO’s legal strength, barriers to enforcement

continue to sustain discrimination, while Salazar & Villanueva (2023) reveal

that stigma persists in public and workplace settings, compounded by

inadequate mental-health support. These conditions are particularly significant

for gay male Scouts in the region, who must navigate not only

heteronormative expectations within scouting institutions but also a

surrounding socio-cultural environment where prejudice remains deeply

normalized. Thus, the Davao Region presents a critical local setting where

addressing discrimination is both timely and socially necessary.

The research gap emerges when considering that the Boy Scouts of

the Philippines remains a major youth institution (League of Cities of the

Philippines [LCP], 2021; Department of Education [DepEd], 2025), yet

scholarly research specifically addressing LGBTQ+ identities within its

structures is notably scarce (jSMS Journal, 2024). Despite growing national

visibility of queer experiences (Wikipedia, 2023; Philippine Journal Reviews,

2024), little is known about how gay Scouts navigate identity, belonging, and

5 within the culturally conservative environment of Philippine scouting. This

absence of research becomes even more consequential when viewed against

the persistent regional discrimination documented in Mindanao and the Davao

Region. Because BSP units are embedded within local schools and

communities, this lack of scholarly attention leaves a significant void in

understanding how institutional heteronormativity intersects with community-

level prejudice to shape the lived experiences of gay male Scouts. Addressing

this research gap is essential for building inclusive scouting practices and

advancing academic work in narratology, gender studies, and queer theory.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this narratological study is to understand the

experiences of gender discrimination of gay male students scouts in the Boy

Scout Program at a public school in Asuncion Davao del Norte. At this stage

in the research, gender discrimination is generally defined as challenges

including stigma, gender bias, stereotyping, and criticism.

Theoretical Lens

The relevance of Judith Butler’s (1990) theory of gender

performativity to this study rests in its ability to clarify how gendered behaviors

and identities emerge from repeated social practices rather than innate

characteristics. By framing gender as something individuals perform in

response to societal expectations, Butler’s framework helps the study interpret

participants’ actions as products of cultural norms. This theoretical lens is

valuable because it reveals how individuals either conform to or challenge

these expectations within their specific contexts, allowing the patterns

observed in the research to be understood as socially constructed

phenomena shaped by power, repetition, and social regulation.

Social Identity Theory

This study is viewed on Social Identity Theory, developed by Henri

Tajfel and John Turner (1979), which explains that individuals shape their

identities through the social groups they belong to. The theory states that

people categorize themselves, adopt group norms, and seek acceptance

because their self-esteem is linked to how well they fit within a collective.

Tajfel and Turner emphasize that individuals strive for belonging, recognition,

and a positive social identity within their chosen groups.

In the context of this study, Social Identity Theory guides the

conceptualization of how the participant negotiate their identities within a

traditionally masculine organization. Using this framework, the study

examines how gay male students balance their personal sexual identity with

the norms, expectations, and behaviors promoted by the Boy Scouts. It

highlights how these students seek belonging while managing potential

conflict between their individuality and the group’s collective identity. Through

this theory, the research interprets their narratives as an active negotiation

between personal authenticity and group conformity, revealing how their

experiences are shaped by the social pressures, roles, and cultural

expectations within the scouting environment.

Queer Theory

This study is supported by Queer Theory, introduced by foundational

scholars such as Judith Butler (1990) and Eve Sedgwick (1990), which

examines how gender and sexual identities are socially constructed and

shaped by dominant cultural expectations. Queer Theory challenges fixed

definitions of sexuality and argues that identities are fluid, performative, and
often constrained by heteronormative systems. Butler highlights that gender is

performed through repeated social behaviors, while Sedgwick emphasizes the

tension between societal norms and the lived realities of LGBTQ+ individuals.

This theory critiques structures that privilege heterosexuality and exposes

how marginalized identities navigate social pressure and cultural

expectations.

In the context of this study, Queer Theory helps conceptualize how

participants negotiate their sexual identity within a traditionally masculine and

heteronormative institution. Through this lens, the study explores how gay

male students manage disclosure, adapt to gender expectations, or resist

normative behavior while attempting to belong in the Boy Scouts. The theory

allows the research to identify how their narratives reveal strategies of silence,

resilience, self-assertion, and subtle resistance to heteronormative norms. By

applying Queer Theory, the study understands their experiences as ongoing

negotiations between personal identity and the cultural expectations

embedded in scouting.

Role Theory

This study is also grounded in Role Theory, introduced by Ralph Linton

(1936) and later expanded by Bruce Biddle (1986), which explains that

individuals behave according to the social roles assigned to them by society.

Role Theory argues that each social position carries specific expectations,

norms, and responsibilities that shape how individuals act and present

themselves within a group. Biddle emphasizes that these roles influence both

behavior and identity, as people adjust their actions to meet what is expected

of them while seeking acceptance and stability within their social environment.
 In this study, this theory helps conceptualize how participants

negotiate the expectations attached to being a Boy Scout. Through this lens,

the study examines how gay male students manage the role of a “proper

Scout,” which traditionally emphasizes masculinity, obedience, discipline, and

strength. The theory supports the analysis by revealing how these students

adapt, struggle with, or redefine these expected roles while maintaining their

sexual identity. By applying Role Theory, the research interprets their

narratives as a process of balancing personal authenticity with the behavioral

standards promoted by the Boy Scouts.

Significance of the Study

This study explores the narratives of gay male Boy Scout students who

participate in a long-standing youth movement, focusing on how they

articulate experiences, desires, and identities within a traditionally

heteronormative and masculine organization. By employing a narratological

approach, the research uncovers the symbolic and personal meanings

embedded in their stories, particularly the pursuit of recognition and belonging

represented by badges and rituals. The benefit here lies in giving visibility to

marginalized voices, allowing their experiences to be acknowledged and

validated within academic and social discourse.

Students. The study demonstrates the versatility of narratology by

applying it to lived experiences, thereby extending its reach beyond literary

texts. Students benefit from fresh perspectives on identity formation, inclusion,

and resilience, as the findings enrich discussions on gender, diversity, and

personal development. The benefit is not only theoretical but methodological,

as the study provides a model for analyzing real-life narratives, encouraging

learners to explore how stories shape understanding in diverse contexts.

Educational institutions and youth programs. The study offers

practical benefits by revealing the challenges and opportunities faced by

homosexual participants in extracurricular settings. Leaders and educators

benefit from insights that can guide the creation of inclusive policies and

practices, equipping them to foster supportive environments where all

students can thrive. The benefit here is tangible, as institutions gain tools to

reshape organizational culture toward acceptance and recognition of diverse

identities.

Policymakers and Government. The study provides evidence-based

insights that can support the development of inclusive youth policies, anti-

discrimination frameworks, and gender-sensitive programs. Policymakers and

government agencies benefit by gaining a deeper understanding of the lived

realities of LGBTQ+ students in youth organizations, allowing them to craft

interventions that promote safety, equity, and representation. The benefit here

is strategic, as the findings can inform national dialogues on youth

development, protection, and human rights.

Community. The study challenges stereotypes and fosters dialogue

on diversity and equality. Communities benefit from increased empathy and

awareness, as the research amplifies marginalized voices and highlights

resilience as a marker of identity. The benefit extends further by laying the

foundation for comparative studies across cultural contexts and organizations,

ensuring that scholarship and social practice remain responsive to evolving

realities of inclusion and diversity.

Future Researchers. Future researchers can build on this study by

expanding the narratives of gay male Boy Scout students across different

regions, cultures, and organizational structures to deepen the understanding

of how identity, desire, and belonging are negotiated in youth movements.

The study offers a methodological foundation through its use of narratology,

encouraging future scholars to explore how personal stories reveal hidden

power relations, social norms, and emotional landscapes within traditionally

masculine spaces. Researchers may also replicate or extend this approach to

other marginalized groups in scouting, such as transgender members or

lesbian participants, to enrich comparative perspectives. Additionally, the

study opens opportunities for longitudinal research that traces identity

development over time, allowing future investigations to capture shifts in

attitudes, policies, and lived experiences as organizations move toward

greater inclusivity and recognition. This provides a valuable pathway for

continued academic inquiry into gender diversity, youth participation, and the

evolving dynamics of belonging within educational and community institutions.

Definition of Terms

To provide a definite understanding of the terms used in this study, the

conceptual and operational keywords are defined as follows:

Boy Scout / Scouting Program. This is defined as a youth

organization that provides leadership training, outdoor activities, and

character development for male students (Baden-Powell, R., 1908). In this

study, it specifically refers to school-based Boy Scout programs where

participants interact during meetings, camps, and organizational tasks.

Gay Scout Students. This is defined as a male student who

experience romantic or emotional attraction to the same sex (American

Psychological Association, 2015). In this study, this term specifically means

gay-identifying boys who are active members of the Boy Scout program.

Discrimination. This is defined as unfair treatment of individuals

based on their membership in a particular social group (Schmitt, 2002). In this

study, this term refers to any reported actions statements behaviors within the

Boy Scout setting that exclude, demean or disadvantage the gay participants.

Review of Related Literature

In this section, various readings from books, theses, and scholarly

articles written by different authors that relate to the present study are

presented. The researchers considered literature on gender discrimination,

LGBTQ+ youth, and scouting organizations to provide a foundation for

understanding the experiences of gay male students in the Boy Scouts of the

Philippines. These works guide the study by showing how gender bias and

heteronormativity shape their participation and sense of belonging.

Gender Discrimination

Gay male often encounter discrimination that is compounded by

intersecting systems of oppression, including racism, sexism, and classism,

which shape their experiences in unique and often unequal ways. For Black

gay men, discrimination is particularly heightened because they face both

racial and sexual marginalization, with studies showing that race remains a

strong predictor of the discrimination they encounter in public spaces,

institutions, and interpersonal interactions. Additionally, transgender and non-

binary men within the gay community experience similar compounded biases

due to gender nonconformity, making them especially vulnerable to violence,

exclusion, and systemic neglect. This intersectional marginalization leads to

persistent disparities in accessing healthcare, education, stable employment,

and safe housing, ultimately contributing to worse mental and physical health

outcomes among marginalized groups within the broader gay community

(Silva et al., 2024).

Intragroup marginalization has emerged as a significant stressor for

sexual minority men, highlighting that discrimination does not only occur

between heterosexual and gay individuals, but also within the gay community

itself. Research by Dellers et al. (2025) shows that gay men may be excluded

or judged based on factors such as physical appearance, body type, ethnicity,

socioeconomic background, or even their relationship status, leading to

feelings of inadequacy and alienation from their own community. These subtle

but pervasive forms of internal exclusion can have serious psychological

consequences, including heightened anxiety, reduced self-worth, and

increased risk for depression. The findings emphasize the need to address

not only external heterosexist discrimination but also the internal hierarchies

and biases within the gay community that contribute to poorer mental health

outcomes for sexual minority men.

 Furthermore, gay male continue to face multiple forms of societal

discrimination that influence their sense of identity, emotional well-being, and

social inclusion. These experiences often manifest through verbal

harassment, exclusion from social groups, stigmatizing attitudes, and

structural barriers in healthcare, employment, and other public services, all of

which can threaten their psychological safety and limit life opportunities.

Despite these ongoing challenges, many gay male demonstrate resilience by

developing coping mechanisms, seeking supportive communities, and

engaging in personal growth and identity strengthening as they navigate these

discriminatory environments. This dual reality, discrimination alongside

resilience, highlights both the persistent societal obstacles facing gay male

and their ability to pursue transformation and self-acceptance in the face of

adversity (Exploring the Experiences of Gay Men in Dealing with Societal

Discrimination, 2025).

Even in a workplace, discrimination continues to affect LGBTQ+

employees, including gay male, particularly those who do not conform to

traditional gender norms or masculine expectations. Presto (2025) notes that

these individuals are more likely to encounter microaggressions, subtle bias,

and unequal treatment, which can hinder their career advancement and

overall sense of belonging in professional settings. This discrimination often

manifests through exclusion from leadership opportunities, derogatory

remarks, or pressure to downplay aspects of their identity to fit workplace

expectations. To combat these issues, organizations must adopt inclusive

policies, implement diversity training, and foster supportive environments that

affirm the identities of LGBTQ+ employees, ultimately promoting fairness,

psychological safety, and equitable professional development (Presto, 2025).

Additionally, anticipated discrimination remains a major factor shaping

how LGBTQ+ individuals navigate their social and professional lives.

According to Aksoy (2023), many gay male strategically conceal their sexual

orientation due to the fear of rejection, hostility, or unequal treatment,

especially in settings where heteronormative expectations dominate. This

concealment can lead to emotional strain, reduced authenticity in

relationships, and greater psychological distress, as individuals feel compelled

to hide core aspects of themselves to remain safe or socially accepted. The

persistence of this behavior demonstrates that despite progress in legal

protections and social attitudes, significant challenges remain, and many

LGBTQ+ individuals still do not feel secure enough to disclose their identity

openly in various contexts (Aksoy, 2023).

Gay men continue to experience layered and intersecting forms of

discrimination that operate across social, community, and institutional

contexts, shaping their well-being in profound ways. Studies show that

marginalized subgroups—such as Black gay men and transgender or non-

binary men—face heightened vulnerability due to the combined effects of

racism, gender nonconformity, and sexual stigma, resulting in unequal access

to healthcare, employment, education, and safe housing (Silva et al., 2024).

Discrimination also emerges from within the gay community itself, where

intragroup marginalization based on appearance, ethnicity, class, or

relationship status contributes to anxiety, diminished self-worth, and

depression (Dellers et al., 2025). Beyond community settings, gay men

frequently encounter workplace microaggressions, exclusion, and pressures

to conform to traditional masculinity, all of which undermine career

advancement and psychological safety (Presto, 2025). Moreover, many gay

men cope with anticipated discrimination by concealing their identity, a

strategy that protects them from potential rejection but increases emotional

strain and limits authentic social engagement (Aksoy, 2023). Collectively,

these findings illustrate how societal, structural, and intracommunity biases

create persistent psychosocial challenges for gay men, while also highlighting

the resilience they employ in navigating these inequities.

Gender Role

Masculine ideals continue to hold significant influence within the gay

community, shaping how many gay male view themselves and others. O'Neil,

et. al (2018) found that gay male often place considerable value on appearing

masculine in public settings, perceiving masculinity not only as socially

advantageous but also as an essential trait in both romantic partners and

themselves. Despite this emphasis, many gay male experience internal

conflict related to fears of violating traditional masculine norms, especially

when expressing affection toward other men or engaging in behaviors

perceived as feminine. Additionally, societal expectations regarding work,

family, and emotional restraint create further tension, contributing to negative

feelings about their gay identity. The study underscores how deeply

masculinity shapes self-acceptance and mental health among gay men,

revealing that internalized masculine expectations can be both a source of

identity validation and psychological burden.

Gay men frequently experience tension between societal gender norms

and their sexual identity, navigating pressures to conform to traditional

masculinity while also seeking authenticity in their gender expression. Chen

(2022) shows that gay male construct and interpret masculinity and femininity

through complex social, cultural, and personal lenses, often negotiating these

ideals in response to expectations from both heterosexual society and their

own community. Participants described struggles with internalized

homonegativity, stemming from beliefs that femininity is inferior or

unacceptable, which can lead to shame, self-policing, and emotional distress.

These tensions influence not only self-perception but also relationships and

social belonging, shaping how gay men move through the world. Chen’s

findings demonstrate that masculinity remains a powerful organizing force in

identity and mental health, highlighting the need to challenge binary gender

expectations within and beyond the gay community.

In research made by Armisen and Baugher (2024), they reveals that

rigid adherence to traditional masculine gender roles contributes to significant

gender role stress, which can manifest in harmful behaviors toward both

women and gay male. When men feel they are failing to meet normative

masculine expectations, such as emotional toughness, dominance, or

physical strength, they may react with aggression, controlling behaviors, or

discriminatory attitudes toward individuals perceived as feminine. This

dynamic underscores how gender role norms operate not only as personal
expectations but as social pressures that reinforce hierarchies and

marginalization. Gay male are particularly vulnerable because they are often

stereotyped as feminine and therefore viewed as violating masculinity

standards, making them frequent targets of discrimination, harassment, or

violence. The study provides important insight into the cultural forces that

shape hostility toward gender nonconforming individuals and highlights the

broader societal consequences of rigid gender expectations.

The implicit inversion theory proposes that gay male are widely

stereotyped as embodying feminine traits and lacking traditional masculinity,

which profoundly shapes how they are perceived and treated in social

contexts. Clarke (2018) examines how sexual orientation influences

assumptions about gender role fit, showing that many people implicitly view

gay men as violating the expected link between male gender and masculine

behavior. This perceived inversion of gender roles affects not only how others

interact with gay male, often treating them as less competent, less dominant,

or less aligned with masculine norms, but also how gay male choose to

present themselves. Many may adjust their behavior, speech, or appearance

to avoid reinforcing these stereotypes or to align with community

expectations. The study highlights the pervasive influence of gendered

stereotypes on the lives of gay men and underscores the cultural power of

assumptions that link sexuality with gender expression.

Gay male frequently encounter situations in which their masculinity is

questioned or perceived to be under threat, whether through social

interactions, cultural stereotypes, or the expectations of both heterosexual

and gay communities. Mokhwelepa (2025) notes that such threats can elicit a

range of defensive responses, including displays of bravado, aggression, or

efforts to assert social dominance, as individuals attempt to reaffirm their

masculine identity in the eyes of others. The research further indicates that

gay male who strongly internalize masculine ideals are particularly likely to

respond to these threats with heightened competitive or dominant behaviors,

and in some cases, with negative attitudes toward individuals who challenge

or blur traditional gender boundaries, such as transgender people. These

dynamics reveal the complex interplay between masculinity, sexual

orientation, and social behavior, showing that adherence to rigid masculine

norms can influence interpersonal interactions, reinforce hierarchies, and

perpetuate prejudice within the gay community itself. Mokhwelepa’s study

underscores the psychological and social pressures faced by gay men as they

negotiate their gender identity, highlighting how societal expectations of

masculinity can shape not only self-perception but also the way individuals

engage with others in both affirming and discriminatory ways.

Gender Bias

Gay male frequently face internal conflicts as they navigate societal

expectations surrounding gender expression, often struggling to balance their

authentic identity with prevailing cultural norms of masculinity and femininity.

Andreeva et al. (2025) emphasize that this tension is shaped both by personal

identity development and by external pressures, including peer attitudes,

media representations, and broader societal beliefs about what constitutes

“appropriate” male behavior. These competing influences create a dynamic

and sometimes contradictory experience, where gay men must constantly

negotiate how much of their true selves to express versus how much to

modify in order to gain acceptance or avoid judgment. The study highlights

how such internal conflicts are not merely psychological but are socially

embedded, affecting self-esteem, emotional well-being, and the ability to form

authentic social and romantic connections.

Social psychology research underscores that societal stereotypes

about masculinity play a significant role in shaping how gay men perceive and

express their gender identities. According to Jaspal (2022), cultural norms that

equate masculinity with heterosexuality and authority can pressure gay men

to conform outwardly, even if this conflicts with their internal sense of self.

Such pressures often lead to internalized homophobia, where gay men adopt

negative beliefs about their own identity, and may inhibit authentic gender

expression in social or professional contexts. The study illustrates that the

influence of societal perceptions extends beyond external discrimination,

affecting self-perception, relational dynamics, and psychological health,

demonstrating the pervasive impact of gendered norms on the lived

experiences of gay men.

The implicit inversion theory suggests that gay male are culturally

stereotyped as highly feminine and lacking in traditional masculinity, which

profoundly affects both their social interactions and self-presentation. Clarke

(2018) demonstrates that these stereotypes influence how gay men are

perceived by others and, in turn, how they choose to present themselves to

navigate social spaces. The perception that gay men are “inverted” in gender
roles can create pressure to overcompensate by emphasizing masculine

traits, or conversely, to suppress behaviors considered masculine or feminine

depending on context. This societal lens not only shapes external interactions

but also impacts internal self-concept, reinforcing the link between cultural

stereotypes, gender norms, and the strategies gay male employ to maintain

social acceptance while negotiating authentic self-expression.

The development of a gay male identity is heavily influenced by

societal expectations to conform to traditional gender roles, which can

generate substantial stress and mental health challenges. Cámara-Liebana et

al. (2023) highlight that many gay men experience a persistent tension

between staying true to their personal identity and meeting external

expectations about masculinity and femininity. This tension can result in

internal conflict, emotional distress, and feelings of inadequacy, particularly

when cultural messages devalue traits associated with femininity or

nonconformity. The study underscores that mental health struggles among

gay men are not solely individual or biological but are closely tied to social

pressures and structural norms, indicating the critical importance of supportive

environments that validate diverse expressions of gender.

Gender identity and expression in gay men are shaped by an interplay

of biological, social, and developmental factors across the lifespan. Roberts

(2024) demonstrates that male gender norms exert a strong influence on how

gay men experience and express masculinity at different life stages, from

adolescence through adulthood. These norms affect personal development,

social integration, and the formation of relationships, often dictating how

comfortable individuals feel in expressing traits that deviate from the expected

masculine ideal. The study highlights the cumulative effects of these

influences, showing that gendered socialization, peer expectations, and

cultural messaging collectively shape both internal identity and external

behaviors, with implications for mental health, social belonging, and

resilience.

Masculine norms continue to exert powerful influence on how gay men

understand themselves, relate to others, and navigate both societal and

community expectations. Research shows that many gay men place high

value on appearing masculine, often viewing masculinity as socially

advantageous yet simultaneously experiencing internal conflict when they fear

violating traditional gender norms, especially when expressing affection or

exhibiting traits coded as feminine (O’Neil et al., 2018). These internal

pressures intersect with broader cultural narratives that position femininity as

inferior, leading some gay men to self-police their behavior and struggle with

shame or internalized homonegativity, as they negotiate complex

interpretations of masculine and feminine identities (Chen, 2022). Rigid

gender role expectations can also produce gender role stress, which may

manifest in aggression, discrimination, or hostility toward those seen as failing

masculine standards—including gay men themselves, who are often

stereotyped as feminine and thus viewed as violating normative masculinity

(Armisen & Baugher, 2024). Stereotypes rooted in implicit inversion theory

further reinforce assumptions that gay men lack traditional masculinity,

shaping not only how they are perceived as less competent or less dominant

but also how they actively adjust their behavior to avoid stigmatization
(Clarke, 2018). When their masculinity feels threatened, some gay men may

respond with dominance, competitiveness, or negative attitudes toward

gender-nonconforming individuals, revealing how deeply societal masculine

expectations shape psychological responses and interpersonal dynamics

(Mokhwelepa, 2025). Collectively, these studies illustrate that masculinity

remains a central but often burdensome force in the lives of gay men,

influencing identity development, mental health, and social behavior across

multiple contexts.

Gender Stereotype

Stereotypes surrounding gay male, particularly those that label them as

effeminate, overly emotional, or lacking traditional masculinity, continue to

shape the experiences of many adolescents, reinforcing restrictive gender

norms that contribute to stigma, discrimination, and even internalized

homophobia. These stereotypes, including seemingly positive ones such as

being sensitive or artistic, still function to marginalize individuals by upholding

narrow cultural expectations about gender and sexuality and limiting

opportunities for acceptance and belonging. This continued pattern of

stereotyping highlights the importance of educational and community

initiatives that actively challenge these assumptions and promote more

inclusive perspectives toward LGBTQ+ people (Vicente-Cruz et al., 2025).

In addition, stereotypes that label gay male adolescents as less

masculine or emotionally fragile continue to hinder their identity development

and overall well-being. These pervasive societal messages often shape how

peers, families, and school communities perceive and treat gay male youth,
leading many to experience heightened levels of social exclusion, bullying,

and rejection. Over time, these negative interactions can contribute to

internalized stigma, where adolescents begin to absorb and believe these

harmful assumptions about themselves, ultimately intensifying struggles with

self-acceptance and self-worth. Such stereotypes not only affect their

psychological health but also limit opportunities for authentic self-expression

and positive identity exploration during a critical developmental period. These

ongoing challenges underscore the need for affirming school climates,

supportive adult role models, and targeted interventions that actively

counteract stereotype-based marginalization and foster healthier identity

formation among gay male youth (Baams & Kaufman, 2023).

A school that tolerates homophobic stereotypes, such as portraying

gay male students as weak, hyper-emotional, or deviant, it creates a climate

where discrimination becomes normalized and unchallenged. In such

environments, peers may feel emboldened to engage in verbal harassment,

social exclusion, or even physical bullying because the institutional culture

implicitly suggests that LGBTQ+ students are less worthy of respect or

protection. These stereotypes not only undermine the safety of gay male

adolescents but also damage their psychological well-being, academic

engagement, and sense of belonging. To counter this, schools must enforce

stronger, clearly communicated anti-discrimination policies, ensure consistent

consequences for biased behavior, and integrate LGBTQ+ inclusion into

school culture. Additionally, comprehensive teacher training is essential so

educators can recognize subtle forms of homophobia, intervene effectively,

and model affirming language and behaviors. Such proactive measures

cultivate an environment where all gay male students may feel valued,

protected, and supported (Elipe et al., 2022).

Stereotypes that label gay male adolescents as abnormal, immoral, or

deficient severely hinder their ability to form a positive sense of self,

particularly in cultural settings where LGBTQ+ identities continue to be

silenced. Such negative social messages often lead to internalized

homophobia, heightened anxiety, depression, and a persistent fear of

rejection from family, peers, or religious communities. These pressures can

restrict their willingness to seek help or openly express their identities, further

isolating them during a critical period of development. Ganbaatar (2024)

emphasizes that community-based education, peer support networks, and

youth-focused advocacy programs play an essential role in countering these

harmful narratives. By creating safe spaces, offering mentorship, and

promoting accurate, affirming information about sexual orientation, these

community systems help gay male youth develop resilience, increase their

confidence, and foster healthier pathways toward self-acceptance and mental

well-being.

Furthermore, stereotypes depicting gay males as effeminate, overly

emotional, or lacking traditional masculinity can significantly disrupt their

identity development during adolescence, a stage already marked by

heightened self-evaluation and vulnerability. When young gay males

internalize these limiting social expectations, they may experience confusion

about how they are “supposed” to behave, suppress parts of themselves to

avoid ridicule, or overcompensate in ways that create emotional strain. This

internal conflict often leads to distress, lower self-esteem, and hesitation in

forming genuine friendships or romantic relationships due to fear of judgment

or invalidation. Cámara-Liebana (2023) underscores that identity-affirming

interventions such as school counseling, peer support groups, and structured

LGBTQ+-inclusive programs are vital in helping adolescents dismantle

harmful stereotypes. These supports provide tools for self-understanding,

encourage healthy emotional expression, and promote environments where

gay male youth can explore and affirm their identities without pressure to

conform to restrictive norms.

Stereotypes portraying gay male adolescents as effeminate, emotionally

fragile, or lacking traditional masculinity continue to reinforce restrictive

gender norms that shape their social experiences, identity development, and

psychological well-being. These assumptions—whether overtly negative or

seemingly positive—contribute to stigma, bullying, and social exclusion in

families, peer groups, and school environments, often resulting in internalized

homophobia, lowered self-esteem, and limited opportunities for authentic self-

expression (Vicente-Cruz et al., 2025; Baams & Kaufman, 2023). When

schools tolerate or fail to challenge homophobic stereotypes, discrimination

becomes normalized, fostering climates where harassment and

marginalization flourish and undermining the safety, academic engagement,

and sense of belonging of gay male youth (Elipe et al., 2022). These harmful

narratives are further intensified in cultural settings where LGBTQ+ identities

are silenced, creating heightened fears of rejection and discouraging

adolescents from seeking support, which deepens isolation and psychological

distress (Ganbaatar, 2024). Across studies, scholars emphasize that affirming

school climates, inclusive educational programs, supportive adult role models,

and community-based interventions are crucial for countering stereotype-

driven marginalization. Such efforts help gay male adolescents build

resilience, strengthen self-acceptance, and navigate identity formation without

the burden of conforming to restrictive and damaging gender expectations

(Cámara-Liebana, 2023).

Cultural and Social Expectations

Social expectations around masculinity play a crucial role in shaping

the mental health and well-being of LGBTQ+ individuals. Cooper, et al (2023)

examined the influence of societal pressures to conform to masculine norms

among gay, bisexual, trans, Two-Spirit, and queer men, as well as non-binary

individuals. Their findings revealed that these social expectations were

associated with increased risks of depression, anxiety, and poorer self-rated

mental health. The study highlights how societal norms not only prescribe

certain behaviors and emotional expressions for men but also impose

additional psychological burdens on individuals whose identities or

expressions do not align with these expectations. This underscores the

broader impact of social masculinity norms on the well-being of gender and

sexual minority populations, showing that adherence to, or the pressure to

meet, socially defined masculine ideals can exacerbate mental health

disparities in LGBTQ+ communities.

In addition, a recent study by Apego, et al (2024) explored how Filipino

college students understand and negotiate masculinity, focusing on

interpersonal relationships and gender norms in a modern Philippine context.

This phenomenological study found that students’ perceptions of masculinity

are shaped not only by traditional expectations such as strength, emotional

restraint, and provider/protector roles but also by contemporary social

interactions and relational dynamics. Moreover, by emphasizing the fluid and

negotiated nature of masculinity, the study demonstrates that cultural

constructions of “manhood” are deeply embedded in societal norms and peer

expectations. Furthermore, given that cultural masculinity expectations can

impose pressures even on heterosexual cisgender men, these norms may

present an even greater challenge for LGBTQ individuals whose gender

expression or sexual orientation does not conform to heteronormative ideals.

The social and interpersonal enforcement of masculine norms can thus lead

to marginalization, internalized stigma, identity conflict, and negative impacts

on mental health and well-being, highlighting the relevance of such research

for understanding the broader consequences of cultural masculinity

expectations in the Philippines.

Additionally, scouting organizations worldwide have historically

emphasized traditional masculinity, valorizing traits such as toughness,

leadership, and self-reliance. These cultural expectations can create

environments that marginalize LGBTQ youth, as adherence to

heteronormative masculine ideals often conflicts with non-heterosexual

identities. Studies show that gay and bisexual scouts may experience

exclusion, bullying, or internalized stress when their behavior or self-

expression deviates from dominant masculine norms (Miller & Davis, 2020).

Furthermore, such pressures highlight the challenges LGBTQ youth face in

navigating spaces designed around rigid gender norms, demonstrating how

institutionalized social expectations can directly influence mental health and

well-being. Together, these studies indicate that both broad societal norms

and context-specific organizational cultures contribute to the psychological

stress experienced by LGBTQ individuals when they confront pressures to

conform to traditional masculinity.

Cultural and social expectations surrounding masculinity significantly

shape the psychological experiences and well-being of LGBTQ individuals,

particularly those whose identities or expressions fall outside traditional

masculine norms. Research shows that societal pressure to conform to

masculine ideals contributes to heightened risks of anxiety, depression, and

poorer self-rated mental health among gay, bisexual, trans, Two-Spirit, queer,

and non-binary people, illustrating how these norms impose restrictive

behavioral expectations and emotional constraints (Cooper et al., 2023). In

the Philippine context, masculinity is constructed through both traditional

ideals—such as strength, emotional restraint, and provider roles—and

contemporary relational dynamics, creating additional identity conflicts and

internalized stigma for LGBTQ individuals who do not align with

heteronormative expectations (Apego et al., 2024). These pressures extend to

institutional settings such as scouting organizations, where rigid masculine

cultures valorizing toughness and self-reliance often marginalize gay and

bisexual youth, exposing them to exclusion, bullying, and internalized stress

(Miller & Davis, 2020). Collectively, these studies highlight how societal,

cultural, and organizational masculinity norms reinforce marginalization,

identity strain, and mental health disparities among LGBTQ populations,

underscoring the need for more inclusive and flexible understandings of

gender.

Psychological Impact

Research shows that gay male adolescents involved in traditionally

masculine or gender-normative institutions often face heightened

psychological pressures due to heteronormative expectations. For example,

Toomey, et. al (2018) found that LGBTQ youth in gendered peer groups

experience elevated stress when environments reinforce rigid masculinity,

often leading to internalized stigma, emotional withdrawal, and reduced self-

esteem. Their findings further demonstrate that environments without explicit

inclusion policies intensify minority stress and pressure youths to conceal their

identities. Similarly, Snapp, et al (2015) reported that sexual minority boys in

extracurricular settings often experience anxiety and hypervigilance due to

fear of rejection or exclusion, especially in organizations with traditional

masculine cultures. These studies highlight that the absence of affirming

structures can negatively influence identity development and mental-health

outcomes.

In addition, research consistently shows that when gay adolescents are

embedded in affirming, inclusive, or structured youth environments, they

experience notable psychological benefits. Pollitt, et. al (2018) found that

supportive peer groups and identity-affirming youth organizations significantly

enhance self-esteem, emotional well-being, and social connectedness among

gay and bisexual youth. Likewise, Puckett, et. al (2019) demonstrated that

gay and bisexual young men develop stronger identity pride and experience
reduced minority stress when they participate in inclusive, affirming

community spaces. Their findings emphasize that safe, structured

organizations can serve as protective contexts that promote resilience and

positive identity development.

However, more recent work also demonstrates that institutional

structures play a pivotal role in either reinforcing or reducing psychological

risk for gay adolescents. Craig, et. al (2021) reported that participation in

LGBTQ-affirming youth programs not only enhances coping skills but also

strengthens leadership confidence, peer relationships, and social problem-

solving abilities, helping gay adolescents navigate both academic and social

environments with greater competence. Similarly, Watson, et. al (2020) found

that involvement in inclusive school-based organizations such as Gay-Straight

Alliances (GSAs) or supportive extracurricular groups, predicts higher overall

well-being, a stronger sense of belonging, and lower internalized stigma.

These organizations provide safe spaces for identity exploration, mentorship,

and peer support, allowing adolescents to express themselves without fear of

judgment or exclusion. Together, these studies illustrate that while gay youth

may experience psychological strain in traditional or heteronormative

institutions, environments that actively affirm and support diverse sexual and

gender identities can act as protective contexts, fostering resilience,

enhancing social connectedness, promoting healthy identity integration, and

ultimately improving overall mental health and psychosocial functioning.

Psychological research consistently shows that gay male adolescents

experience significant mental-health challenges when embedded in

traditional, heteronormative, or masculine-dominant institutions, yet benefit

substantially from inclusive and identity-affirming environments. Studies

reveal that youth in gender-normative settings often face heightened stress,

internalized stigma, emotional withdrawal, and lowered self-esteem due to

rigid masculinity expectations and the pressure to conceal their identities in

unsupportive environments (Toomey et al., 2018; Snapp et al., 2015). In

contrast, participation in affirming peer groups and inclusive youth

organizations enhances emotional well-being, strengthens self-esteem, and

promotes identity pride by reducing minority stress and fostering social

connectedness (Pollitt et al., 2018; Puckett et al., 2019). More recent research

underscores that institutional structures—such as LGBTQ-affirming programs,

GSAs, and supportive extracurricular contexts—play a critical protective role

by improving coping skills, leadership confidence, peer relationships, and

feelings of belonging among gay adolescents (Craig et al., 2021; Watson et

al., 2020). Collectively, these findings demonstrate that while heteronormative

and masculine-rigid institutions contribute to psychological strain, inclusive

and flexible understandings of gender—embedded within affirming

organizational environments—significantly foster resilience, positive identity

development, and improved mental health outcomes for gay male youth.

Historical and Policy

The historical exclusion of openly gay members by the Boy Scouts of

America has had a profound impact on the experiences of LGBTQ+ youth

within a traditionally heteronormative and masculine organization. Such

policies shaped how gay scouts navigated identity formation, a sense of

belonging, and personal safety within scouting environments. Over time,

advocacy efforts by scouts and leaders, combined with evolving societal

attitudes toward LGBTQ+ rights, prompted the organization to revise its

membership rules beginning in 2013. Accounts from gay youth further

highlight how these restrictive policies influenced their participation, resilience,

and overall sense of inclusion (De Socio, 2024).

Further, the Boy Scouts’ traditions, such as badges, rituals, and

hierarchical recognition, reinforce gendered expectations, complicating

identity expression for LGBTQ members. Research indicates that gay scouts

often conceal their identities or adopt “straight-acting” behaviors to gain social

acceptance, which can contribute to psychological stress and decreased well-

being (Smith, et. al, 2019). These findings show that cultural norms of

masculinity not only shape behavior but also influence the mental health and

social integration of LGBTQ participants within scouting.

Moreover, promoting inclusivity in scouting requires re-evaluating

traditional masculine norms and fostering environments where all scouts can

express themselves authentically without fear of stigma or discrimination.

Protective factors, such as supportive peers, affirming leaders, and inclusive

policies, can help LGBTQ youth navigate these challenges and improve their

well-being (Fernandes, et. al, 2023). The evolving landscape of scouting

reflects broader societal shifts toward acceptance and inclusion of LGBTQ

individuals in youth institutions, highlighting the importance of culturally

sensitive practices in traditionally gendered organizations.

The Boy Scouts of America’s historical exclusion of openly gay

members profoundly shaped the experiences of LGBTQ youth navigating a

traditionally masculine and heteronormative institution. Early policies

constrained gay scouts’ identity development, sense of belonging, and

psychological safety, often forcing them to conceal their identities or adopt

“straight-acting” behaviors to gain acceptance, which contributed to emotional

stress and reduced well-being (De Socio, 2024; Smith et al., 2019). As

advocacy efforts and shifting societal attitudes increasingly challenged these

restrictive norms, the organization began revising its membership policies in

2013, reflecting broader cultural moves toward LGBTQ inclusion. Research

indicates that supportive peers, affirming leaders, and inclusive institutional

practices can mitigate the negative effects of these historically gendered

structures, allowing LGBTQ scouts to participate more authentically and

safely (Fernandes et al., 2023). Collectively, these developments highlight

how institutional policy changes and culturally responsive leadership play vital

roles in improving the experiences and mental health of LGBTQ youth in

traditionally masculine organizations.

Gender Discrimination in Youth Organizations

Research on gender dynamics in youth organizations has highlighted

how structural norms and interpersonal interactions shape members’

experiences. MacLeod and Johnston (2022) found that even when

organizations promote inclusivity, individuals who do not conform to traditional

gender expectations may still experience subtle discrimination or

microaggressions, which can affect their sense of belonging and participation.

These findings are particularly relevant to gay male students in the Boy

Scouts, as they navigate gender-based challenges, seek acceptance, and

negotiate their place within a traditionally heteronormative and masculine

environment. Such studies underscore that both organizational policies and

everyday interactions play a critical role in shaping the experiences of gender-

diverse youth in structured social settings.

Furthermore, research indicates that LGBTQ adolescents frequently

experience high rates of both general and bias-based bullying within school

and youth organization contexts, which can significantly undermine their

mental health and psychosocial well-being. Gower, et. al, (2020) used data

from the Minnesota Student Survey and found that LGBQ adolescents are

disproportionately exposed to both general and bias-based victimization.

Importantly, their findings demonstrate that supportive school or community

environments, such as the presence of LGBTQ-affirming supports and an

inclusive school climate, can buffer the negative effects of bullying, reducing

emotional distress and promoting resilience.

In addition, McDermott, et. al (2023) conducted a systematic review of

school-based interventions and highlighted that poor school experiences,

including homophobic, biphobic, and transphobic bullying, are strongly

associated with adverse mental health outcomes among LGBTQ youth. Their

review also emphasizes that inclusive interventions, such as support groups,

inclusive curricula, and anti-bullying policies, significantly mitigate these

harms, suggesting that targeted institutional efforts can reduce psychological

risks and foster well-being for LGBTQ adolescents.

Nevertheless, Chan, et. al (2022) provided empirical evidence showing

that repeated homophobic bullying and victimization at school act as barriers

to psychological well-being for LGB youth. Their findings indicate that

exposure to discrimination is linked with higher levels of depression, anxiety,

and a reduced sense of safety. This underscores that, despite interventions

and supportive environments, discrimination within youth organizations and

school settings continues to pose significant challenges, highlighting the need

for ongoing protective and affirming measures to safeguard the mental health

of LGBTQ adolescents.

Studies on youth organizations reveal that structural gender norms and

daily interpersonal interactions critically influence the experiences of LGBTQ

adolescents, particularly those who do not conform to traditional masculinity.

Even within groups that present themselves as inclusive, nonconforming

youth often face subtle discrimination and microaggressions that undermine

their sense of belonging and participation (MacLeod & Johnston, 2022).

Widespread research further shows that LGBTQ adolescents experience

disproportionate levels of both general and bias-based bullying, which is

strongly linked to heightened emotional distress, anxiety, depression, and

reduced feelings of safety (Gower et al., 2020; Chan et al., 2022). However,

institutional supports—such as affirming climates, inclusive policies, LGBTQ-

focused programs, and targeted anti-bullying interventions—can buffer these

harms and promote resilience, as highlighted by systematic reviews

emphasizing the effectiveness of school-based inclusion initiatives

(McDermott et al., 2023). Together, these findings illustrate that while

discrimination in youth organizations and schools remains pervasive,

intentional and well-implemented affirming structures significantly improve

mental health outcomes and foster greater well-being for LGBTQ adolescents.
Research Questions

The aim of this study is to explore the lived experiences of gay male

students in the Boy Scouts. Specifically, it seeks to answer the following

questions:

1. How do gay male students describe his experiences during Boy Scout?

2. What are his stories of rejection and acceptance in his Boy Scout

journey?

3. What are the most important lessons he has gained from his Boy Scout

experience?

Scope and Limitations

This study focuses on describing the lived experiences and personal

narratives of selected students engaged in scouting activities at a public

school in Asuncion, Davao del Norte. Using a narratological approach, the

research seeks to understand how these students construct identity, negotiate

belonging, and articulate experiences of acceptance and exclusion within the

school-based scouting environment. The participants are students selected

through purposive sampling to ensure that those with relevant experiences

are included. The study will be conducted from November 2025 to March

2026, covering one academic semester. Ethical considerations are strictly

observed, including the securing of informed consent from participants and

the acquisition of an approval letter from the school administration. The scope

is confined to the perspectives of student participants within the school

context, emphasizing their lived experiences rather than broader

organizational policies or national-level practices.

 This study is limited to the school-based context of a public school in

Asuncion, Davao del Norte, and does not cover community-level or nationwide

scouting activities, so findings cannot be generalized beyond this setting. As

qualitative research relies on self-reported narratives, participants’ accounts may be

influenced by subjectivity, stigma, or social desirability. The small sample size,

consistent with purposive sampling and phenomenological design, may limit the

diversity of perspectives. Additionally, the study excludes the views of scout leaders,

parents, and administrators, which could offer further insights into organizational

culture and inclusion practices.

 Chapter 2

METHODOLOGY

This chapter discusses the methods and techniques that are utilized in

collecting all the data needed for the study. The chapter covered the research

design, role of the researcher, research participants, data collection

procedure, trustworthiness of the study, and ethical considerations.

Research Design

This study uses a qualitative research an approach that seeks to

understand human experiences, meanings, and social processes through

non-numerical data such as interviews, observations, and written narratives,

emphasizing depth, context, and interpretation (Creswell and Poth, 2018).

Specifically, the narratological approach is also used as it focuses on

analyzing how narratives are structured and how story elements such as plot,

characters, sequencing, and point of view, shape meaning and experience

(Herman, 2019).

In this study, senior high school students often face subtle and overt

forms of discrimination that shape their identities and daily experiences, as

recent studies highlight the persistence of bias and exclusion in school

environments. Because these experiences are deeply personal and vary

widely across individuals, qualitative research is appropriate since it allows

students to express their feelings, perceptions, and lived realities in their own

words. A narratological approach further strengthens the study by enabling

researchers to examine how these students construct, organize, and make

sense of their discrimination experiences through the stories they tell.

Role of the Researcher

The role of the researcher is defined as the primary instrument

responsible for gathering, interpreting, and giving meaning to participants’

lived experiences. This is crucial in a narratological inquiry exploring the

stories of gay male students joining the boys’ scout. The researcher must

engage reflexively, ethically, and sensitively, acting as both a listener and

interpreter of participants’ narratives (Brinkmann, 2018).

As interviewers, the researchers facilitate open and safe conversations

that encourage participants to share personal and often sensitive stories

about identity, desire, and belonging within the scouting environment. This

role requires the researcher to build rapport, actively listen, and respond

empathetically to verbal and non-verbal cues, creating a space where

participants feel heard and understood. Interviewing is not simply a process of

asking questions but a collaborative meaning-making activity, in which the

researcher engages in dialogue that allows the participant’s experiences to

emerge authentically. The researcher must also be reflexive during interviews,

continuously examining how their own positionality, assumptions, and

reactions may influence the conversation and the data collected.

As transcribers, the researchers meticulously converting spoken

interviews into accurate written records. This process goes beyond simply

documenting words, it involves capturing pauses, intonation, emphasis, and

other subtle cues that convey emotion and nuance in participants’ narratives.

Decisions made during transcription such as how to punctuate sentences,

indicate silences, or represent laughter can shape the meaning and

interpretation of the text. By carefully attending to these elements, the

researcher ensures that the participants’ voices remain authentic and faithful

to their original intent, providing a rich and reliable foundation for subsequent

analysis.

As translators, the researches, particularly when participants switch

between languages, dialects, or culturally coded expressions that reflect

queer identity and the boys’ scout environment, translate contexts that

requires more than linguistic accuracy; it demands a deep understanding of

the social, cultural, and emotional meanings embedded in the original

expressions. The researchers must carefully balance fidelity to the

participants’ words with the need to make the narrative comprehensible to a

wider audience, ensuring that the subtleties of identity, emotion, and

experience are preserved. This role requires constant reflexivity, as every

linguistic choice can influence how participants’ identities and experiences are

represented and understood.

As data analysts, the researchers interpret the transcribed and

translated narratives to identify patterns, themes, and meaningful insights.

Using narratological tools, the researcher examines plotlines, turning points,

and symbolic elements within the participants’ stories to understand how

experiences of desire, identity, belonging, and resistance are expressed in the

scouting context. Analysis is an active and interpretive process, requiring the

researcher to make thoughtful and reflective decisions about what constitutes

a theme, how narratives are constructed, and how meaning is co-created

through the storytelling process. In this role, the researcher integrates all

previous steps interviewing, transcribing, and translating to construct a

nuanced understanding of the lived experiences being studied.

Research Participants

A research participant is the individual who voluntarily takes part in a

study by providing information through interviews, surveys, observations, or

other data-collection procedures, and whose rights, consent, and well-being

must be ethically protected throughout the research process (Creswell &

Creswell, 2018). To select the participants, purposive sampling is a non-

probability sampling technique used primarily in qualitative research, where

participants are deliberately selected based on specific characteristics or

criteria relevant to the study's objectives, rather than through random

selection. This method, also known as judgmental or selective sampling,

relies on the researcher's expertise to choose information-rich cases that best

address the research problem, ensuring the sample aligns with the

phenomenon under investigation (Etikan et al., 2020).

Table 1. Inclusion Criteria

Participant Quantity Qualification

● Bonafide student of

school A in

Asuncion.

● A Gay Male boy

High School Students 2
scouts

● Who experienced

discrimination upon

joining Boy Scout

 In this study, it involves selecting two high school students at a public

school of Asuncion. The qualification for these participants is that they have

experienced discrimination joining the Boy Scouts. This inclusion framework

ensures that the study focuses on individuals with a relevant connection to the

school and experiences related to discrimination. With this, it helps the

researcher to gather meaningful insights about the effect of discrimination.

Data Collection

Data collection is the systematic process of gathering and measuring

information on targeted variables within an established system to enable

analysis, answer research questions, and evaluate outcomes. This

foundational step in research across fields such as the social sciences,

business, and healthcare ensures the capture of accurate evidence for

credible decision-making and trend prediction (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). To

conduct the interviews, this study employs in-depth interviews (IDIs), which

are defined as qualitative data-gathering techniques involving one-on-one,

semi-structured conversations that allow participants to share detailed

personal experiences, perceptions, and meanings in their own words (Boyce

& Neale, 2006).

Firstly, an approval letter from the principal is an official document

granting permission to a researcher or student to conduct a study or project

within the school premises or involving the school's community. This letter

serves as formal acknowledgment that the proposed research aligns with the

institution’s policies and ethical standards and ensures that the principal, as

the school authority, endorses the study’s legitimacy and support. According

to DepEd Research Management Guidelines (2024), such approval is

essential for maintaining institutional oversight, guaranteeing adherence to

ethical protocols, and facilitating smooth coordination between researchers

and the school environment. The letter often accompanies research proposals

and consent documents, reflecting the principal’s role in fostering a supportive

and regulated research atmosphere while protecting the rights and welfare of

participants (DepEd, 2024).

An approval letter from the principal is a formal document that

authorizes a researcher or student to conduct a study or project within a

school's premises. This letter is significant as it illustrates the principal’s

endorsement, assuring that the research complies with the institution’s

policies, ethical guidelines, and standards for protecting participants' rights

and welfare. Serving as a bridge between researchers and the school

community, the approval letter facilitates organized coordination, oversight,

and communication, which are vital for maintaining trust and transparency. It

is often required alongside research proposals and consent forms to

guarantee that the study is conducted responsibly within the educational

context, reflecting the principal’s critical role in overseeing ethical adherence

and supporting academic inquiry.

Secondly, informed consent for research participants is a fundamental

ethical process requiring researchers to provide comprehensive disclosure of

the study's purpose, procedures, duration, foreseeable risks, potential

benefits, alternatives, confidentiality measures, and voluntariness of

participation, while ensuring comprehension and absence of coercion to

enable autonomous decision-making. Updated 2025 guidelines from

institutional review boards emphasize key elements such as plain-language

explanations, assessment of participant competency, opportunities for

questions, and documentation via signed forms unless waived, with provisions

for vulnerable populations, re-consent on protocol changes, and ongoing

safeguards to protect rights and welfare. This process, rooted in federal

regulations like 45 CFR 46, promotes trust, prevents exploitation, and upholds

human dignity in evolving research contexts (William Paterson University IRB,

2025).

Informed consent for participants is a critical ethical process where

individuals are provided with clear, comprehensive information about the

research study, including its purpose, procedures, duration, potential risks and

benefits, and their rights to decline or withdraw at any time without penalty.

This process ensures that participation is voluntary and based on an

understanding sufficient to make an informed decision, with particular

attention given to communicating in accessible language and safeguarding

vulnerable populations. Guidelines from 2025 emphasize that informed

consent is not merely a formality but involves an interactive, transparent

dialogue that respects autonomy and protects participant welfare throughout

the research process. Proper documentation and ongoing communication

about any changes in the study are key components of maintaining trust and

ethical standards in research participation.

Thirdly, interview in research refers to a structured or semi-structured

qualitative method involving direct, interpersonal communication between the

researcher and participant to elicit in-depth insights, experiences, and

perspectives on a specific topic, often through open-ended questions that

foster rapport, active listening, and probing for richer data. Preparation entails
developing a flexible interview guide aligned with research objectives, piloting

questions to avoid bias, ensuring ethical practices like informed consent and

emotional support, and considering logistics such as scheduling and recording

to minimize disruptions and maximize authenticity. During the process,

interviewers maintain neutrality, empathy, and conversational flow to

encourage honest responses, while post-interview transcription and analysis

preserve contextual nuances for thematic interpretation ([Link], 2025).

Interviews in research serve as a primary qualitative data collection

method, involving purposeful conversations between the researcher and

participants to explore perspectives, experiences, and meanings through

structured, semi-structured, or unstructured formats that range from rigid

question sets for comparability to flexible dialogues fostering depth and

nuance. In this study, in-depth interviews (IDIs) are employed as a one-on-

one, semi-structured approach that allows participants to provide detailed and

reflective accounts of their lived experiences in their own words. This

approach excels in capturing contextual richness, attitudes, and behaviors

that surveys cannot, demanding careful preparation such as question piloting,

rapport-building, ethical safeguards including informed consent, and post-

interview transcription for thematic analysis while minimizing bias through

active listening and probing. Widely applied in the social sciences, market

research, and ethnography, interviews, particularly IDIs enable researchers to

validate interpretations in real time and uncover unanticipated insights,

balancing standardization with adaptability to enhance data validity and

participant engagement.
 Fourthly, transcription in qualitative research is the systematic

process of converting audio or video recordings from interviews, focus groups,

or observations into verbatim written text, serving as a foundational step for

accurate data analysis by capturing verbal and non-verbal nuances, pauses,

and emphases that reveal deeper meanings and contextual subtleties. This

labor-intensive practice, evolving with digital tools like speech-recognition

software and AI-assisted platforms, demands decisions on verbatim fidelity,

intelligent verbiage (omitting fillers), or clean reads, while addressing

challenges such as researcher bias, confidentiality, and time efficiency

through repeated listening for interpretive insights. Contemporary guidelines

emphasize transcription as both data preparation and initial analysis,

balancing technological innovations with ethical rigor to enhance

trustworthiness and replicability in findings (Point et al., 2023).

Transcription in qualitative research involves meticulously

converting audio or video recordings from interviews, focus groups, or

observations into accurate written text, capturing verbatim speech along with

non-verbal cues like pauses, laughter, or emphasis to preserve contextual

nuances essential for thematic analysis and interpretation. The process

typically begins with repeated listening in a quiet environment, followed by

typing or using AI-assisted tools for initial drafts, then rigorous manual review

for corrections in accents, jargon, or filler words, and final formatting with

speaker labels, timestamps, and anonymization to protect confidentiality. This

foundational step not only transforms ephemeral spoken data into analyzable

form but also facilitates coding, pattern identification, and trustworthiness,

balancing efficiency with fidelity through decisions on detail levels like full

verbatim, intelligent (omitting fillers), or clean reads.

Fifthly, translation in qualitative research is the systematic process

of converting data from a source language to a target language while

preserving meaning, cultural nuances, and contextual integrity, often involving

forward and backward translation, collaboration with bilingual experts, and

reflexivity to mitigate loss of subtleties during cross-lingual analysis. Recent

advancements emphasize culturally responsive practices that treat translation

not just as linguistic transfer but as a multi-layered cultural and political act,

recommending early-stage translation, audit trails for decisions, and

integration of AI tools alongside human oversight to enhance accuracy and

transparency in multilingual studies. This approach addresses challenges like

equivalence, power dynamics, and ethical representation, ensuring findings

remain credible across linguistic boundaries (Lv & Chen, 2025).

Translation in qualitative research is a meticulous, multi-step

process of converting data from a source language to a target language to

preserve semantic accuracy, cultural nuances, and contextual meaning,

typically involving forward translation of transcripts, back-translation for

validation, team discussions for equivalence checks, and iterative revisions to

address idioms, metaphors, and power dynamics that could alter

interpretations. Researchers decide on timing, whether before, during, or after

analysis, while employing bilingual experts or committees for independent

checks, maintaining audit trails of decisions, and prioritizing reflexivity to

mitigate biases and ensure ethical representation of participants' voices in

multilingual studies. This approach not only facilitates credible cross-cultural

analysis but also enhances trustworthiness through third-party validation and

responsiveness to epistemological considerations, making findings accessible

and reliable for global audiences.

Lastly, Thematic analysis is a flexible, widely used method for

identifying, analyzing, and reporting patterns (themes) within qualitative data,

such as interviews or transcripts, enabling researchers to interpret underlying

meanings and construct rich insights into participants' experiences without

rigid theoretical constraints. It typically follows a six-phase process

familiarizing with data, generating initial codes, searching for themes,

reviewing themes, defining and naming them, and producing the report,

allowing for both inductive (data-driven) and deductive (theory-guided)

approaches to ensure rigor and reflexivity. This method's accessibility and

adaptability make it suitable across epistemologies, from realist to

constructivist, while emphasizing the researcher's active role in meaning-

making (Kiger & Varpio, 2020).

Thematic analysis serves as a foundational method in qualitative

research for systematically identifying, organizing, and interpreting patterns,

known as themes, within textual data such as interview transcripts or field

notes, enabling researchers to uncover deeper meanings, experiences, and

narratives without being bound to a specific theoretical framework. This

flexible approach accommodates inductive strategies, where themes emerge

directly from the data, or deductive ones guided by prior theory, typically

progressing through phases like data familiarization, coding, theme

development, review, refinement, and reporting to ensure themes are

coherent, evidence-based, and relevant to research questions. It excels in

handling complex datasets across disciplines by emphasizing researcher

reflexivity, iterative analysis, and contextual depth, distinguishing surface

descriptions from insightful interpretations that reveal how phenomena

interconnect and influence participants' realities.

Trustworthiness of the Study

In a qualitative research, observing trustworthiness is essential because

it enhances credibility, dependability, confirmability, and transferability,

ensuring that the findings genuinely represent participants’ lived experiences

rather than researcher bias. As Ahmed (2024) emphasizes, maintaining

trustworthiness not only strengthens the rigor and transparency of qualitative

inquiry but also ensures that other scholars and practitioners can confidently

rely on the study's interpretations and conclusions.

Credibility refers to the extent to which qualitative research findings are

believable and accurately reflect the participants’ lived experiences. It focuses

on the truth value of the data and the confidence that readers can place in the

interpretations made by the researcher. In qualitative inquiry, credibility is

established through methodological rigor, transparency in data collection and

analysis, and strategies such as careful interviewing and faithful

representation of participants’ voices (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).

In this study, which examines discrimination toward gay male scouts,

credibility determines whether participants’ personal accounts of exclusion,

stigma, and acceptance are recognized as authentic representations of their

lived realities. Credible narratives allow researchers and institutions to

meaningfully interpret the seriousness of the injustices described, rather than

dismissing them as subjective or exaggerated. When these experiences are

granted credibility, they contribute to a deeper understanding of the

challenges faced by LGBTQ+ youth within traditionally masculine and

heteronormative organizations such as the Boy Scouts

Dependability. This word refers to the consistency and stability of

the research process, ensuring that methods and procedures are logical,

traceable, and well-documented over time (Kakar, Rasheed, & Rashid, 2023).

It emphasizes maintaining detailed records of data collection, analysis, and

methodological decisions, so that another researcher could reasonably follow

the same steps and examine whether findings remain coherent. Dependability

allows qualitative research to achieve rigor similar to reliability in 0quantitative

studies, even in dynamic social or organizational contexts.

In this study, discrimination experienced by gay male Boy Scouts,

dependability ensures that the research process is carefully documented and

consistent, so findings about exclusion, bias, or stigma are stable and

trustworthy. By maintaining detailed records of interviews, observations, and

coding, researchers can show that conclusions genuinely reflect participants’

experiences in boy scout rather than arbitrary variations. This strengthens the

credibility of the study, making it more likely that its findings will be recognized

by institutions, policymakers, and the wider public.

Confirmability, According to S. K. Ahmed (2024), confirmability

refers to the impartiality and objectivity of qualitative research findings,

ensuring that conclusions are shaped by participants’ data rather than the

researcher’s own biases or preferences. In rigorous qualitative work,

strategies such as audit-trails, reflexive journaling, peer debriefing, and

member checking are employed to make the analytic process transparent and

verifiable.

In our study of gay students joining the Boys Scout, confirmability

means that the themes, narratives, and interpretations you present should be

traceable back to what the participants themselves said or experienced, not

your expectations or assumptions about sexuality or scouting. For example,

when you analyze interviews or personal narratives, you keep detailed

documentation of how codes/themes are derived, note how interpretations

shifted (if they did), and possibly include verbatim quotes so readers (or other

researchers) can see the direct link between data and findings. This

transparency helps to legitimize your conclusions about the lived experiences

and narratological meaning of “joining boys scout” from the participants’

perspectives.

Transferability, As defined by Megan, et. al (2025), transferability

refers to the extent to which findings from a qualitative study can resonate

beyond the original setting, applied or transferred to other contexts,

populations, or settings. They propose a tri-dimensional model: applicability

(practical relevance), theoretical engagement (conceptual resonance), and

resonance (emotional or experiential resonance).

In the context of this study on homosexual students in a Boys Scout

setting, transferability means describing the context, participants, setting, and

methods in enough rich detail that other scholars (or practitioners) can assess

whether your findings might apply to similar yet different environments for

example, other scout organizations in different regions, or similar youth

groups in other cultural settings. By providing thorough descriptions, future

readers can judge whether themes like identity negotiation, acceptance, or

conflict that you identified might be relevant in their own context.

Ethical consideration

Ethical considerations in qualitative research encompass principles like

informed consent, confidentiality, respect for autonomy, harm minimization,

and responsible data handling to protect participants' rights, dignity, and

welfare amid power imbalances, reflexivity, and cultural sensitivities,

extending beyond IRB approvals to ongoing vigilance in data collection,

analysis, and reporting for trustworthy knowledge production (Innovate MR,

2025). Researchers must prioritize participant well-being through transparent

communication, secure data management, and balanced voice representation

to prevent exploitation or misrepresentation in vulnerable contexts (Innovate

MR, 2025).

Social Value

It refers to the ethical requirement that studies generate meaningful

societal benefits through valuable knowledge production addressing

significant health or social needs, justifying participant burdens and resource

use while promoting public trust, preventing exploitation, and ensuring

equitable outcomes beyond mere scientific validity, as articulated in the

CIOMS 2016 Guidelines and elaborated by Rid and Wendler (2021) who

emphasize its role in protecting non-consenting participants, maintaining

researcher integrity, and optimizing risk-benefit assessments in health

research. Contemporary analyses from 2020-2025, such as those by van der

Graaf (2025), reinforce that poor social value undermines clinical trials,
advocating rigorous evaluation by ethics committees to prioritize community-

relevant impacts over low-priority projects.

Social value in research ethics requires studies to generate meaningful

societal benefits through knowledge addressing significant health or social

needs, justifying participant burdens, resource allocation, and ethical risks

while fostering public trust and equitable outcomes, as outlined in CIOMS

2016 Guidelines and detailed by Rid and Wendler (2021) who stress its

protection of non-consenting parties and optimization of risk-benefit ratios,

with van der Graaf (2025) critiquing low-value trials for undermining integrity.

Connecting this to research on gay male adults joining Boy Scouts, the study

holds high social value by producing knowledge on affirmative inclusion

practices, empowering marginalized participants, enhancing scouting

programs for resilience-building, and informing anti-discrimination policies,

thereby addressing local vulnerabilities, promoting mental health equity, and

yielding sustainable benefits like stronger community cohesion and ethical

models for SOGIE-affirming interventions in religious contexts.

Informed consent

It is a cornerstone ethical process in research that ensures participants

voluntarily agree to involvement after receiving full, comprehensible disclosure

about the study's purpose, procedures, risks, benefits, alternatives,

confidentiality protections, and their right to withdraw without repercussions,

thereby respecting autonomy and preventing coercion. This process

encompasses three essential elements, disclosure of relevant information,

participant competency to comprehend and decide, and voluntariness, while

requiring ongoing updates for new developments and tailored approaches for

vulnerable groups to foster trust and safeguard welfare (Infonetica, 2025).

Connecting this to research on gay male adults joining Boy Scout,

informed consent involves layered processes, initial private disclosures for

adults detailing psychosocial risks like ostracism, followed by family-inclusive

sessions for youth programs, empowering voluntary participation in scouting

mentorship while addressing coercion risks through independent witnesses

and reassent at key stages, fostering trust for ethical inclusion and stigma

reduction.

Vulnerability of Research Participants

This refers to conditions where individuals or groups face heightened

risks of harm, coercion, exploitation, or compromised autonomy due to

inherent traits (e.g., cognitive impairments), situational factors (e.g., poverty or

political repression), or research-induced effects (e.g., untested interventions

exacerbating preexisting issues), necessitating tailored protections beyond

standard consent processes. This multifaceted concept shifts from static

categorical lists, such as children or prisoners, to dynamic assessments

emphasizing diminished decision-making capacity, increased susceptibility to

undue influence, and limited ability to safeguard interests, ensuring equitable

inclusion with safeguards like enhanced monitoring and benefit access

(Findley et al., 2024). Recent analyses from 2020-2025 highlight analytical

approaches identifying factors like environmental disadvantages or consent

barriers, advocating for context-specific strategies to prevent overprotection

while upholding ethical integrity (Grigis, 2025).

 Connecting this to research on gay male adults joining Boy Scouts,

ethical design must implement safeguards like layered informed consent,

anonymous data collection, independent advocates for participants, and

phased integration to mitigate coercion risks, while ensuring equitable benefits

such as stigma reduction and empowerment reach both vulnerable LGBTQ+

adults and youth, preventing overprotection and fostering inclusive resilience

amid local disadvantages.

Risk, benefits, and safety

This is ensuring that any potential risks or harms to participants are

minimized and are proportionally outweighed by the anticipated benefits,

either to the individual or society at large. Ethical research design requires

careful identification, assessment, and management of risks to protect

participants' welfare throughout the study. Benefits may include gains in

knowledge, health improvements, or societal welfare, which must justify any

discomfort, inconvenience, or danger posed by the research. Safety protocols

and monitoring mechanisms are necessary to promptly address adverse

events and protect vulnerable populations. This balance is foundational to

ethical acceptability and is emphasized in contemporary guidelines and

discussions, reinforcing that ethical research hinges on a favorable risk-

benefit ratio while maintaining transparency and participant autonomy (van

Rijssel, 2025; National Statement on Ethical Conduct, 2025).

Risk, benefits, and safety in research ethics require minimizing potential

harms to participants while ensuring anticipated benefits, such as knowledge

gains, health improvements, or societal welfare, outweigh risks like discomfort

or danger, with thorough assessment, mitigation protocols, and monitoring as

mandated by Philippine guidelines like those from UPLB REB and national

ethical standards that emphasize a favorable risk-benefit ratio for vulnerable

groups. In the rural, conservative barangay of Cambanogoy, Asuncion, Davao

del Norte, marked by agricultural dependence, tight-knit Catholic families,

mining-related vulnerabilities, and rigid gender norms, these principles

demand careful navigation of psychosocial risks like stigma, family rejection,

or community backlash for gay male adults, balanced against safety

measures such as anonymous data collection and supportive debriefing.

Connecting this to research on gay male adults joining Boy Scouts in

Cambanogoy, risks of social isolation or reputational harm from participation

must be mitigated through informed consent, phased involvement starting with

private consultations, and monitoring via ethics committees, while benefits like

enhanced youth mentorship, reduced LGBTQ+ stigma, and community

cohesion from inclusive scouting programs justify the study, aligning with local

priorities for child protection and empowerment in mining-affected areas.

Privacy and confidentiality of information

Privacy and confidentiality in research ethics involve protecting

participants' personal identifiable information and sensitive data from

unauthorized disclosure, ensuring that identities remain anonymous or

securely managed to prevent harm, stigma, or discrimination while building

trust essential for valid data collection. Privacy refers to controlling access to

one's information, while confidentiality entails researchers' obligation to

safeguard shared data through techniques like de-identification, secure

storage, encryption, and limited access, particularly in qualitative studies

where rich narratives risk re-identification via contextual cues. These

principles require ongoing procedural ethics, such as ethics committee

approvals, informed consent specifying data handling, and transparent

reporting of limitations like focus group breaches, balancing dissemination

needs with participant welfare in vulnerable populations (OER Collective,

2023).

Privacy and confidentiality in research ethics, which protect participants'

identifiable information and sensitive data through de-identification, secure

storage, encryption, and limited access, are crucial to prevent harm, stigma,

or discrimination, especially in qualitative studies where contextual details risk

re-identification, while fostering trust via informed consent, ethics approvals,

and transparent data handling. In the rural, conservative context of

Cambanogoy, Asuncion, Davao del Norte, a tight-knit, Catholic-dominated

barangay reliant on agriculture amid mining challenges and rigid gender

norms, these principles must address heightened vulnerabilities like family

ostracism or community backlash against LGBTQ+ identities, ensuring

procedural safeguards align with local values of honor and discretion.

Connecting this to research on gay male adults joining Boy Scouts in

Cambanogoy, confidentiality safeguards sensitive narratives of stigma and

resilience by anonymizing data in interviews or focus groups, using

pseudonyms and aggregated reporting to mitigate re-identification risks in a

small community, while privacy measures enable safe participation in scouting

programs, balancing ethical dissemination with post-study benefits like anti-

discrimination training for empowered inclusion.

Justice

Justice in research ethics refers to the principle of ensuring fair distribution

of research burdens and benefits among participants, avoiding exploitation of

vulnerable populations, and promoting equitable access to the knowledge and

outcomes generated, while addressing issues of inclusion, representation,

and post-study responsiveness. This concept, rooted in frameworks like the

Belmont Report, mandates that researchers prevent the undue concentration

of risks on disadvantaged groups and extend benefits proportionally,

encompassing distributive justice (fair allocation) and commutative justice (fair

exchange in participation). Contemporary applications emphasize advancing

health equity, epistemic justice, and social justice at population levels,

particularly in global health policy and systems research, where obligations

extend to funders, ethics committees, and policymakers to foster relational

equality and agency (Pratt & de Vries, 2020).

Justice in research ethics, rooted in the Belmont Report's principles of

respect for persons, beneficence, and justice, ensures fair distribution of

burdens and benefits, equitable participant selection without exploiting

vulnerable groups, and inclusive representation to promote health equity and

social justice, as emphasized in contemporary frameworks addressing

epistemic and relational equality. In the rural Philippine context of

Cambanogoy, Asuncion, Davao del Norte, a conservative, agriculture-

dependent barangay with tight-knit Catholic families facing mining impacts,

child labor, and rigid gender norms, this principle requires safeguarding

LGBTQ+ gay male adults from disproportionate risks like social stigma or

family ostracism while ensuring they access benefits such as community

empowerment and reduced isolation. Connecting this to research on gay male

adults joining Boy Scouts in Cambanogoy, justice mandates inclusive

recruitment via community-based participatory methods that avoid

overburdening marginalized participants, equitably distribute mentorship

benefits to youth and families, and commit to post-study actions like anti-

stigma training and policy advocacy with barangay leaders, thereby fostering

agency, fair exchange, and sustainable inclusion amid local vulnerabilities.

Transparency

Transparency in research refers to the deliberate and comprehensive

disclosure of all stages of the research process, including data collection

methods, analytical procedures, decision-making rationales, and potential

biases, to enable scrutiny, replication, and validation by others, thereby

enhancing credibility, trustworthiness, and rigor in qualitative inquiry. This

practice encompasses methodological transparency (detailing design,

sampling, and ethics), analytical transparency (documenting coding, theme

development, and interpretations with evidence like quotes), and reflexive

transparency (acknowledging researcher subjectivity), which collectively

mitigate skepticism and foster collaborative knowledge advancement. In

qualitative contexts, transparency balances ethical constraints like participant

confidentiality with openness, allowing peers to assess confirmability and

transferability while promoting best practices amid evolving tools like

dedicated software ([Link], 2025).

Transparency in qualitative research, encompassing methodological,

analytical, and reflexive disclosure of processes like data collection, coding,

interpretations, and researcher biases, ensures scrutiny, replication, and

trustworthiness as highlighted in recent 2020-2025 guidelines and tools such

as [Link] for rigorous documentation. In the rural Philippine barangay of

Cambanogoy, Asuncion, Davao del Norte, marked by agricultural

communities, conservative Catholic values, and sensitivities around gender

norms and family honor, this practice must balance openness with ethical

safeguards for participant confidentiality amid tight-knit social networks and

potential stigma. Connecting to research on gay male adults joining Boy

Scouts, transparency involves detailing semi-structured interviews with

LGBTQ+ participants, families, and leaders; documenting thematic analysis of

stigma resilience and mentorship via software-tracked audit trails; and

reflexively addressing researcher positionality as an outsider navigating local

evangelical influences, thereby enhancing confirmability, cultural relevance,

and collaborative validation in this mining-impacted context.

Qualification of the researcher

The researcher qualification in research emphasizes that a researcher must

possess the necessary academic background, skills, and ethical

understanding to design and conduct studies responsibly and rigorously.

Qualified researchers are expected to uphold high standards of integrity,

possess deep knowledge of the relevant methodology, and continuously

develop their expertise through training and mentorship to ensure credible

and ethical outcomes. The researcher’s qualifications contribute significantly

to data quality, ethical adherence, and the ability to navigate complex

situations such as participant interaction and sensitive data handling. This

responsibility is critical, especially in qualitative research, where the

researcher’s role is intensely interactive and interpretive, making their

competence essential for trustworthy and meaningful findings (Lim, 2025;

Creswell & Poth, 2020).

The concept of adequacy of facilities in qualitative research ensures

access to essential resources like suitable interview spaces, reliable recording

tools, secure data storage, and trained personnel to maintain ethical rigor,

data quality, and participant safety, particularly amid resource constraints that

could undermine validity in intensive studies (Mazzocchi & Marino, 2025). In

the rural Philippine context of Cambanogoy, Asuncion, Davao del Norte, a

barangay with limited infrastructure such as barangay health centers (BHCs)

reliant on barangay health workers (BHWs) for basic services, poor road

access, and challenges from mining impacts, this demands adaptive

strategies like mobile phone interviews, community halls for focus groups, and

solar-powered recording devices to navigate geographic isolation and power

inconsistencies common in grassroots qualitative studies. Connecting this to

research on gay male adults joining Boy Scouts in Cambanogoy, adequate

facilities are critical for confidential interviews with LGBTQ+ participants amid

conservative norms, using private scout meeting spaces or BHW-supervised

BHCs for sensitive discussions on stigma and mentorship, while partnering

with local leaders for transcription support and secure cloud storage to uphold

reflexivity, minimize risks to vulnerable youth, and ensure trustworthy

outcomes aligned with community health initiatives.

Adequacy of facilities

The concept of adequacy of facilities in qualitative research refers to

ensuring that researchers have access to appropriate resources,

infrastructure, equipment, and support systems necessary to conduct studies

ethically, rigorously, and effectively, minimizing risks to data quality,

participant safety, and overall validity while addressing resource constraints

that could lead to methodological shortcuts. This includes suitable spaces for

interviews or observations, reliable recording and transcription tools, secure

data storage, trained personnel, and sufficient time/budget allocations to

uphold standards like confidentiality and reflexivity amid qualitative research's

resource-intensive nature. Inadequate facilities can compromise ethical

integrity and trustworthiness, particularly in dynamic or vulnerable contexts,

necessitating institutional support and planning to foster high-quality

outcomes (Mazzocchi & Marino, 2025).

The concept of adequacy of facilities in qualitative research ensures

access to essential resources like suitable interview spaces, reliable recording

tools, secure data storage, and trained personnel to maintain ethical rigor,

data quality, and participant safety, particularly amid resource constraints that

could undermine validity in intensive studies (Mazzocchi & Marino, 2025). In

the rural Philippine context of Cambanogoy, Asuncion, Davao del Norte, a

barangay with limited infrastructure such as barangay health centers (BHCs)

reliant on barangay health workers (BHWs) for basic services, poor road

access, and challenges from mining impacts, this demands adaptive

strategies like mobile phone interviews, community halls for focus groups, and

solar-powered recording devices to navigate geographic isolation and power

inconsistencies common in grassroots qualitative studies. Connecting this to

research on gay male adults joining Boy Scouts in Cambanogoy, adequate

facilities are critical for confidential interviews with LGBTQ+ participants amid

conservative norms, using private scout meeting spaces or BHW-supervised

BHCs for sensitive discussions on stigma and mentorship, while partnering

with local leaders for transcription support and secure cloud storage to uphold

reflexivity, minimize risks to vulnerable youth, and ensure trustworthy

outcomes aligned with community health initiatives.

Community involvement

Community involvement refers to the active participation and collaboration

of community members and organizations in the planning, decision-making,

and implementation of projects or research that affect their lives. This concept

emphasizes inclusive engagement where the community contributes local

knowledge, priorities, and resources, fostering shared ownership and trust for

sustainable social change. Contemporary research from 2020 to 2025

highlights various levels of involvement, from informing and consulting to

cooperation and full collaboration, where community members not only

provide input but also play decision-making roles, such as in community-

based participatory research (CBPR). Such involvement enhances the

relevance, effectiveness, and ethical integrity of projects by ensuring that

actions are culturally sensitive, mutually beneficial, and aligned with

community needs, thereby promoting equity and empowerment (Israel et al.,

2020; Wamba, 2024; Akintobi et al., 2025).

Community involvement, defined as active participation in planning,

decision-making, and implementation, aligns with the International Association

for Public Participation (IAP2) spectrum, from informing and consulting to

collaborating and empowering communities, as emphasized in recent 2020-

2025 studies for fostering ownership, equity, and sustainable outcomes in

local projects. In the rural Philippine context of Cambanogoy, Asuncion,

Davao del Norte, a barangay marked by agricultural communities, tight-knit

family structures, and conservative Catholic values influenced by regional

evangelical movements, this involvement must navigate cultural sensitivities

around gender norms, family honor, and youth development to avoid

resistance, underscoring the need for culturally attuned engagement that

draws on local knowledge to respect priorities like child protection and moral

upbringing. Connecting this to research on gay male adults joining Boy Scouts

in Cambanogoy, community-based participatory research (CBPR) principles

facilitate inclusive collaboration among LGBTQ+ individuals, scouts, families,

and barangay leaders to co-identify needs such as mentorship for youth

resilience amid stigma, progressing from consulting elders via town halls to

empowering gay male scouts in decision-making committees for program

design, thereby enhancing relevance and trust in mining-affected communities

that prioritize collective empowerment. This approach ensures ethical integrity

by integrating local priorities, like aligning scouting with anti-child labor

initiatives through inclusive leadership training, to yield mutually beneficial

outcomes including reduced social isolation and strengthened community

cohesion.