Queer individuals’ experiences in STEM learning and working environments

Figures & data

Figure 1. Flow of information.

Table 1. Sample of the codebook.

Code		Description	Example
Theme	Subtheme
STEM culture (deductive)	Hypermasculine Sexist Cishetero Hostile Silent for queer identities	The term reflects a collection of historical trends, normalised beliefs, values, attitudes, assumptions, and cultural and societal expectations regarding STEM majors and professionals’ gender and sexual identities. We refer to (a) the culture of a specific context described by the participants, e.g. culture in campus, courses, extra curriculum activities, the workplace culture, etc. and (b) their perception of the overall S.T.E.M./STEM culture, which might reflect historically hegemonic ideas about who you need to be in order to be considered a valid/real/good scientist/engineer/technician, etc.	Findings of the study: The participants ‘experienced and navigated a pervasive culture of centering cisgender heterosexual men within STEM learning environments – referred to by students as dude or bro culture’ (Miller et al., 2021, p. 1).
	Example: Sexist culture (inductive)	A culture that promotes sexism. By sexism, we refer to ‘the cultural, institutional, and individual set of beliefs and practices that privilege men, subordinate women, and devalue ways of being that are associated with women’. (https://lgbtqia.ucdavis.edu/educated/glossary).	Findings of the study: heterosexual men bragging about how many women they have slept with or referring to peers as ‘hot’ women with whom they wanted to have sex (Miller et al., 2021).
Interpersonal-level experiences (deductive)	Discrimination Harassment Social Exclusion Professional devaluation Career consequences	Incidents where queer individuals were targets of negative behaviour vis-à-vis their sexual and gender identities, and gender expression.	Findings of the study: ‘Findings indicate that the majority of respondents experienced exclusionary behavior based on their gender expression or being a woman’ (Barthelemy, 2020).
	Example: Professional exclusion (inductive)	Not being included in collaborations, professional devaluation, less access to resources and opportunities for professional development, etc. because of their sexual and gender identities, and gender expression.	Quote of participants: “For example, one person’s mentor had said of another person ‘I think she’s a lesbian; I’d never trust her data’ (Bilimoria & Stewart, 2009, p. 90).
Individual-level experiences (deductive)	Negative emotions Additional burden Health and wellness problems	Experiences of queer individuals in STEM related to their gender/sexual identity, and gender expression, focusing on the individual’s feelings, thoughts, and wellbeing.	Findings of the study: Queer STEM students in the study felt ‘invisible’ or subtly ‘ignored’ (Miller et al., 2021).
	Example: Health & Wellness Problems (inductive)	Feeling nervous, anxious, depressed, having problems with sleeping, health problems, etc.	Findings of the study: Queer status found to be related to negative health and wellness outcomes of STEM students, i.e. feeling exhausted, nervous, stressed, unhappy or depressed (Cech & Rothwell, 2018).
Coping mechanisms (deductive)	Hiding Covering Working harder Separating personal from professional life	Mechanisms that queer individuals in STEM enacted in order to navigate through the culture of STEM environments.	Findings of the study: Coping techniques used by queer engineering students to navigate the climate: passing, covering, the achievement of expertise, living compartmentalised lives (Cech & Waidzunas, 2011).

Figure 2. Synthesis of the findings of the systematic literature review.

*Miller, R. A., Vaccaro, A., Kimball, E. W., & Forester, R. (2021). “it’s dude culture”: Students with minoritized identities of sexuality and/or gender navigating STEM majors. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 4(3), 340–352. https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000171

 Google Scholar

*Barthelemy, R. S. (2020). LGBT+ physicists qualitative experiences of exclusionary behavior and harassment. European Journal of Physics, 41(6), 065703. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6404/abb56a

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Bilimoria, D., & Stewart, A. J. (2009). “don’t ask, Don’t tell”: The academic climate for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender faculty in science and engineering. NWSA Journal, 21(2), 85–103. https://doi.org/10.1353/nwsa.0.0077

 Google Scholar

*Cech, E. A., & Rothwell, W. R. (2018). LGBTQ inequality in engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education, 107(4), 583–610. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20239

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Cech, E. A., & Waidzunas, T. J. (2011). Navigating the heteronormativity of engineering: The experiences of lesbian, gay, and bisexual students. Engineering Studies, 3(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/19378629.2010.545065

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar