Sexual orientation and gender influence perceptions of disciplinary fit: Implications for sexual and gender diversity in STEM

Abstract

Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) represent a highly valued academic discipline and career path in the 21st century; yet some individuals are excluded or discouraged from pursuing STEM because of their social group membership. Despite decades of research on social identity and fit within STEM (e.g., by gender and race), the psychological literature on issues within STEM based on sexual orientation is scant. We draw on notions of false dichotomies (i.e., social versus technical, personal versus professional, and subjectivity and interpretivism versus objectivity and positivism) to theorize how gender and sexual orientation influence perceived congruity with STEM as well as the Humanities. In the current study, we randomly assigned heterosexual participants (N = 318, Mage = 40, 52% women, 74% White) to rate one of five target groups (lesbian women, gay men, heterosexual women, heterosexual men, scientists) in terms of their perceived overlap with STEM and Humanities. We also assessed differences between target groups in terms of being rated as communal, agentic, and scientific. Results indicated that participants perceived lesbian women and gay men as less close to STEM than heterosexual men because they perceived lesbian and gay people as less agentic. In contrast, participants perceived lesbian women and gay men as closer to the Humanities than heterosexual men because they perceived lesbian and gay people as more communal. Drawing from these findings, we emphasize the profound implications of academic exclusion for lesbian and gay individuals.

“Now I’m Not Afraid”: The Influence of Identity-Focused STEM Professional Organizations on the Persistence of Sexual and Gender Minority Undergraduates in STEM

“…Women-and race/ethnicity-focused organizations provided students safe spaces and exposure to other people like themselves who were excelling in STEM. For participants of SWE, it allowed them to escape the "dudebro" culture of engineering (Fisher and Waldrip, 1999;Seymour and Hewitt, 1999;Toynton, 2007;Antecol et al, 2008;Grunert and Bodner, 2011;Mattheis et al, 2019;Miller et al, 2020;Voigt and Reinholz, 2020;Palmer et al, 2021), and its legacy was also a motivating factor in continuing in STEM. For NSBE, seeing other Black engineers motivated students by increasing their confidence.…”

Inclusive Approaches for Measuring Demographics of Underrepresented Populations in STEM and Biomedical Research Training Programs

“…The NSF, but not NIH, consider women to be underrepresented in STEM (Appendix A). Yet, those who identify outside the gender binary as well as other SSGM individuals remain hidden and are not federally recognized as underrepresented despite facing significant marginalization, barriers, and exclusion (Campbell-Montalvo et al, 2022b;Freeman, 2020;Kronk et al, 2022;Palmer et al, 2022). Conflating gender and sex in research practices excludes entire populations whose physical characteristics do not fit neatly within the categories female or male (i.e., sex minorities) as well as those whose gender identities do not fit within the woman/man binary or are transgender (i.e., gender minorities; Ashley, 2022;Heidari et al, 2016).…”

“…However, research shows that LGBTQ+ populations face significant health disparities and discrimination (Gonzales et al, 2016;Kronk et al, 2022;Samuels et al, 2021). Not only are LGBTQ+ individuals underrepresented in STEM (Cech and Waidzunas, 2021), but they are more likely to be harassed as well as face stigma, discrimination, and bias (Campbell-Montalvo et al, 2022a;Cech and Waidzunas, 2021;Freeman, 2018;Freeman, 2020;Hughes, 2018;Marr et al,2022;Palmer et al, 2022). The distinct barriers that LGBTQ+ trainees face because of their sexual orientation and/or gender identity impede their career advancement despite making considerable contributions to STEM fields (Cech and Waidzunas, 2021;Marr et al, 2022).…”

Inclusive restoration: ten recommendations to supportLGBTQ+ researchers in restoration science

“…For LGBTQ+ researchers, this identity‐blind view of science has the consequences of re‐closeting them in discussions of science, erasing historical LGBTQ+ scientists, and ultimately leading to a view of science as heterosexual and cisgender by default. For example, gay men and lesbians are perceived as less scientific and less connected to STEM than straight men or women (Palmer et al 2021). To combat this misperception, LGBTQ+ scientists' identities should be celebrated, with individuals and institutions acknowledging their critical service as role models for future generations of LGBTQ+ researchers.…”