Examining Scientific Inquiry of Queerness in Medical Education: A Queer Reading

Abstract

Phenomenon. The language of medicine (i.e., biomedical discourse) represents queerness as pathological, yet it is this same discourse medical education researchers use to resist that narrative. To be truly inclusive, we must examine and disrupt the biomedical discourse we use. The purpose of this study is to disrupt oppressive biomedical discourses by examining the language and structures medical educators use in their publications about queerness in relation to physicians and physician trainees. Approach. We searched PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and ERIC in October 2021 and again in June 2023 using a combination of controlled vocabulary (select terms designated by a database to enhance and reduce ambiguity in search) and keywords to identify articles related to sexuality, gender, identity, diversity and medical professionals. Searches were limited to articles published from 2013 to the present to align with the passage of The Respect for Marriage Act. Articles were included if they focused on the experiences and paths of physicians and physician trainees identifying with or embodying queerness, were authored by individuals based in the United States, and presented empirical studies. We excluded articles only discussing attitudes of cisgender heterosexual individuals about queerness. Two authors independently screened all articles for inclusion. We then used narrative techniques to “re-story” included articles into summaries, which we analyzed with four guiding questions, using queer theory as a sensitizing concept. Finally, we sought recurrent patterns in these summaries. Findings. We identified 2206 articles of which 23 were included. We found that biomedical discourse often: characterized individuals associated with queerness as a single homogenous group rather than as individuals with a breadth of identities and experiences; implied queer vulnerability without naming–and making responsible–the causes or agents of this vulnerability; and relied minimally on actual intervention, instead speculating on potential changes without attempting to enact them. Reflections. Authors each reflect on these findings from their positionalities, discussing: disrupting essentializing categories like “LGBT”; addressing harm through allyship around queerness; editorial responsibility to disrupt structures supporting oppressive biomedical discourse; the importance of program evaluation and interventions; and shifting the focus of medical education research toward queerness using QuantCrit theory.