Private versus public : how one gay professor negotiates the boundaries between his personal and professional lives /

This study examined how one university professor negotiated the boundaries between his personal life as a gay man and his professional life as a teacher. Using his sexual orientation as a focal point, the study explored the circumstances and underlying assumptions that influenced this professor's decisions to disclose information of a personal nature. Data collection was solicited from a number of sources: (a) In-depth interviews with the participant, his colleagues, students, and friends; (b) Field observation of the participant teaching over a 3 -day period; and (c) A document review of lesson plans, course outlines, student feedback forms, and the participant's teaching portfolio. The researcher maintained both observation journals and reflective journals during this process. Data analysis using the constant comparative method elicited several themes. The participant engaged in a variety of strategies in disclosing his sexual orientation that included: (a) no disclosure at all, (b) assuming people knew, (c) casually mentioning it in conversation, and (d) deliberately planning to tell someone. The participant also engaged in an ongoing assessment of his environment that included evaluating the level of risk in disclosing his sexual orientation and assessing the listener's ability to receive the information. The participant cited numerous reasons for disclosing his sexual orientation. Further inquiry revealed a number of belief systems that underlined these reasons. These belief systems included beliefs around privacy, authenticity, teaching, manners, professionalism, and homosexuality. The conclusions suggested that the participant utilized a consistent process in both his personal and professional lives to determine what information was kept private and what information was made public. While the process used to determine the degree of disclosure was consistent, the actual disclosures themselves varied widely in nature.

Burgoyne Centre for Entrepreneurship fonds

An Entrepreneurship Centre was established at Brock University in 1988 as a joint venture between the University and the City of St. Catharines. In Januaray 1989, a generous donation was made to the Centre by the Burgoyne family, proprietors of the St. Catharines Standard. The Centre subsequently became known as the Burgoyne Centre for Entrepreneurship (BCE). The Centre’s mission was to “promote excellence in research, education and training for entrepreneur development and new venture creation”. To achieve this objective, it was necessary for the BCE to become a community focal point and serve as a link between academic, private and government sectors in the Niagara Region that were involved in entrepreneurial activities. This was primarily done with the provision of educational programs offered through cooperating organizations. Funding for the Centre came from multiple sources, including fees for services and contract research, endowments and grants, as well as Brock University. An Advisory Council, composed of local prominent businesspeople and chaired by Henry Burgoyne, assisted the Centre with promotion and fundraising. The partnerships established by the BCE with other community bodies such as the Lincoln County Board of Education and the Niagara Region Development Corporation resulted in important collaborative community initiatives such as the Niagara Enterprise Agency and the New Enterprise Store. Such collaborations increased the Centre’s profile without duplicating or competing with services offered by existing agencies. The BCE was also instrumental in establishing an entrepreneurship curriculum for secondary school students, and collaborated with the Faculty of Education at Brock University to offer an Ontario Secondary School Entrepreneurship Specialist Teaching Certificate Program to teachers. As the BCE became more prolific in the community, and the iniatives it fostered in the community began to thrive, the Centre’s leadership required the authority to make instantaneous decisions. This was at odds with the hierarchical structure of the University, to which the BCE was accountable. Ultimately, this situation led to the demise of the Centre. The university focused its efforts on academic research and undergraduate courses, while the community partners took responsibility for any joint programs.