Revealing the queer-spectrum in STEM through robust demographic data collection in undergraduate engineering and computer science courses at four institutions.

A M Aramati Casper,Rebecca A Atadero,Linda C Fuselier,Frederick Grinnell

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0264267

A M Aramati Casper, Rebecca A Atadero + Show 2 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0264267

Copy DOI

Journal: PloS one	Publication Date: Mar 10, 2022
Citations: 8	License type: CC BY 4.0

Affiliation: Colorado State University, University of Louisville

Abstract

Queer identities are often ignored in diversity initiatives, yet there is a growing body of research that describes notable heterosexist and gender-normative expectations in STEM that lead to unsupportive and discriminatory environments and to the lower persistence of queer individuals. Research on the experiences of queer-spectrum individuals is limited by current demographic practices. In surveys that are queer-inclusive there is no consensus on best practices, and individuals with queer genders and queer sexual, romantic, and related orientations are often lumped together in a general category (e.g. LGBTQ+). We developed two queer-inclusive demographics questions and administered them as part of a larger study in undergraduate engineering and computer science classes (n = 3698), to determine which of three survey types for gender (conventional, queered, open-ended) provided the most robust data and compared responses to national data to determine if students with queer genders and/or queer sexual, romantic, and related orientations were underrepresented in engineering and computer science programs. The gender survey with queer-identity options provided the most robust data, as measured by higher response rates and relatively high rates of disclosing queer identities. The conventional survey (male, female, other) had significantly fewer students disclose queer identities, and the open-ended survey had a significantly higher non-response rate. Allowing for multiple responses on the survey was important: 78% of those with queer gender identities and 9% of those with queer sexual, romantic and related orientations selected multiple identities within the same survey question. Queer students in our study were underrepresented relative to national data. Students who disclosed queer gender identities were 7/100ths of the expected number, and those with queer orientations were under-represented by one-quarter. Further work developing a research-based queered demographics instrument is needed for larger-scale changes in demographics practices, which will help others identify and address barriers that queer-spectrum individuals face in STEM.

Highlights

The heterosexist and gender-normative biases in STEM fields have the potential to create unsupportive environments for queer-spectrum individuals [1–7]
We found that students with queer gender identities and queer sexual, romantic, and related orientations were under-represented in our undergraduate engineering and computer science student dataset compared to similar age cohort general population data [22, 33]
Inequities for and discrimination against queer-spectrum individuals abound throughout the US, yet there is a growing body of literature demonstrating that queer students and professionals face greater inequities in STEM than in other fields [1, 4, 7, 12, 15]

Summary

Introduction

The heterosexist and gender-normative biases in STEM fields have the potential to create unsupportive environments for queer-spectrum individuals (i.e. not cisgender and/or not heterosexual) [1–7]. Queer-spectrum STEM professionals and students experience exclusion from networking and resources, harassment, devaluating of their contributions, a more negative work environment, decreased professional success, and a chilly climate towards any discussion of their identity, as queer identities are often seen as irrelevant and not to be discussed [1–3, 8–13]. The consequences of this chilly climate include queer-spectrum students’ under-representation and lower persistence than their cisgender and heterosexual peers, and the higher likelihood of queer-spectrum STEM professionals to consider and create plans to leave their profession, but STEM completely [1, 7, 14–16]. While we realize that not all individuals within a given umbrella term will necessarily identify with that term, this is true of any terminology that is used to define groups of people with queer-spectrum identities [22, 27]

Methods

Results

Conclusion