“Managing by Not Managing”: How Gay Engineering Students Manage Sexual Orientation Identity

Coming out in STEM: Factors affecting retention of sexual minority STEM students

“…In one study, LGB engineering students reported feeling alienated within their degree programs as a result of compartmentalizing their personal and academic experiences in response to hostility from their classmates ( 21 ). A second study determined that, in addition to open hostility, perceptions and beliefs about masculinity enacted by predominantly male engineering students demonstrate discomfort with sexual minorities and contribute to this climate ( 22 ). A third study of computing majors at one university demonstrated that LGB students were less likely to persist in the major than their heterosexual peers, which was attributed to their feeling a lower sense of belonging ( 23 ).…”

Engineering Identity Development: A Review of the Higher Education Literature

“…There was a strong concentration of engineering identity studies focused on the experiences of women students (e.g., Hug, Jurow, & Chi, 2011) or underrepresented racial/ethnic minority students (e.g., Fleming, Smith, Williams, & Bliss, 2013). In addition, scholars have addressed the unique experiences of women of color (see Black & Williams, 2013;Ross & Godwin, 2016;Martin, Simmons, & Yu, 2013) and international students (Dutta, 2015), as well as the experiences of other students with underrepresented or non-normative identities (see Hughes, 2017;Kirn, Godwin, Benson, Potvin, & Verdin, 2016). Of the 88 studies reviewed, three directly addressed men of color (Lu, 2015), gay men (Hughes, 2017), or engineering identity related to individual customs and religion (Black & Williams, 2013).…”

“…In addition, scholars have addressed the unique experiences of women of color (see Black & Williams, 2013;Ross & Godwin, 2016;Martin, Simmons, & Yu, 2013) and international students (Dutta, 2015), as well as the experiences of other students with underrepresented or non-normative identities (see Hughes, 2017;Kirn, Godwin, Benson, Potvin, & Verdin, 2016). Of the 88 studies reviewed, three directly addressed men of color (Lu, 2015), gay men (Hughes, 2017), or engineering identity related to individual customs and religion (Black & Williams, 2013). Studies specifically addressing engineering identity for Native American/American Indian, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, multi-racial, or White students were not found (See Figure 2).…”

Applying an intersectionality lens to expand equity in the geosciences

“…To date, the literature about participation of those with marginalized identities in geosciences has primarily focused on gender, race/ethnicity, class, and disability. Indeed, research shows that LGBTQþ 5 students are more likely to leave STEM fields in general (Hughes, 2018), and that gay male engineering students face challenges in integrating their sexual and scholarly identities (Hughes, 2017), but there is less scholarship available on lesbian, gay, bisexual transgender, queer and questioning (LGBTQþ) students' experiences in geosciences specifically. An intersectionality framework recognizes that identities vary in their degree and quality of privilege and marginalization, and that the nature of privilege and marginalization of identities can vary by context, as Hurtado et al (2015) suggest.…”