It is not an understatement to say that the world exists on a very fragile status quo. Until the past century, a dichotomous lens has been used to define social beliefs and any deviations from these norms resulted in mockery, exclusion, or public ridicule. However, through public efforts and campaigns, there has recently been increased emphasis on issues experienced by minorities and the discrimination they face. Literature and research studies have increased exploration of the disadvantages encountered in the workforce, especially in prominent fields like STEM. Additionally, the surge in awareness through social media and research has resulted in many significant steps towards diversity in the field, such as more inclusive hiring criteria. Although there have been great strides taken towards equality in STEM, there are still issues we must continue to bring to awareness and help resolve.

For instance, it is important to discuss intersectionality, which can include sexual orientation, race, age, and socioeconomic factors, within STEM and the prejudice faced by underrepresented minority groups, such as the Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual-Transgender-Queer (LGBTQ) community. A recent study was conducted by Cech & Waidzunas (2021) examining systemic inequalities for this community in the workplace, where they examined 5 workplace parameters across LGBTQ and non-LGBTQ workers (Cech & Waidzunas, 2021). To ensure validity, other job-related factors, such as discipline, employment sector, and demographics were controlled for (Cech & Waidzunas, 2021).

Cech & Waidzunas (2021) analyzed survey data from 21 STEM disciplines. The data collected included over 25,000 STEM professionals, which included 1,006 people who self-identified as members of the LGBTQ community. The participants were then asked questions regarding the 5 parameters and their responses were recorded on a scale from 1 to 5.

*The following data is retrieved from “Systemic inequalities for LGBTQ professionals in STEM” by Cech & Waidzunas (2021).

Career Opportunities & Whistleblowing

 The first parameter explored career opportunities and whistleblowing, which involves exposing a suspected breach of rules. As seen in Figure 1, it was found that LGBTQ employees reported fewer opportunities for career advancement, which was hypothesized to be, partly, due to more limited access to resources, like administrative support and equipment. Furthermore, LGBTQ workers also felt less comfortable whistleblowing due to the fear of unintended consequences associated with potential retaliation. This poses a problem in the workplace in the scenario that a serious violation is left unreported. Additionally, fear of punishment due to whistleblowing may further contribute to a hostile work environment.

Professional Devaluation

The next factor examined professional devaluation of LGBTQ employees and whether their skills were questioned by their peers and if they felt that they were held to greater standards of productivity. It was found that LGBTQ workers were more likely to have their expertise questioned than their non-LGBTQ coworkers. Furthermore, they were more likely to have their contributions underestimated or devalued.

Social Environment

In addition, the social environment experienced by LGBTQ individuals differed from their colleagues. As shown in Figure 3, the former were more likely to be excluded from social gatherings and feel isolated from their peers. Additionally, LGBTQ employees were more likely to experience workplace harassment, as seen in Figure 4. An unwelcoming social environment can be harmful to employees, as exclusion from work socials or feelings of segregation from their colleagues can decrease their opportunities to network and form peer relationships.

Health Issues

Partly due to their experiences at work, LGBTQ workers were also found to report health problems more frequently. These symptoms, depicted in Figure 5, included insomnia, stress, and depression. The same study performed a structural equation modelling (SEM) analysis and found that the previous parameters, which included social exclusion, professional devaluation, and restrictive opportunities, may have contributed to the health issues faced by LGBTQ workers.

Career & Field Withdrawal

Lastly, LGBTQ workers were more likely to consider leaving their job and the field of STEM entirely than their non-LGBTQ counterparts. It is important to note that the results were indicative of intentions and not of actual resignations. Using SEM analysis, it was found that these decisions were exacerbated by previous parameters like exclusion and career opportunities.

A valid question to ask regarding the inequality LGBTQ people face in STEM may be whether these issues are due to their gender, sexuality, or identity, or due to insufficient qualifications for the job. To answer this, Cech & Waidzunas (2021) compared factors that may influence the work ethic of LGBTQ individuals, including education levels and total hours worked. They discovered that LGBTQ and non-LGBTQ employees demonstrated the same level of dedication and hours worked towards their jobs (Cech & Waidzunas, 2021). Furthermore, they were equally as likely to hold primary job requirements and have a higher degree of education (Cech & Waidzunas, 2021).

Therefore, it is important to ask why there may be discrimination, even subconsciously, faced by these individuals in the workforce when they exhibit similar levels of competence and motivation. The STEM profession is highly competitive and values devotion and competence in the field (Cech & Waidzunas, 2021). It strives to be objective, which inadvertently creates a mold of the ideal employee and the qualities they possess. Any divergence from this mold can result in prejudice faced by minorities socially, even if the workplace itself does not foster discrimination (Cech & Waidzunas, 2021). In addition, Cech (2013) argues that depoliticization, which is the idea that social inequality is irrelevant to the advancement of STEM, undermines the ability of workplaces and classrooms from furthering the conversation of inequality. Thus, it does not allow for a deeper conversation regarding discriminatory behaviours within the workplace (Cech, 2013). This concept further isolates LGBTQ workers and may result in an unwillingness to disclose their identity in the workplace. Cech (2013) argues that “cultural space must be made before students,” rather than solely mentioning issues in an educational classroom talk. By encouraging discussion of social injustice at an earlier age, we may be able to retain more LGBTQ students within STEM and foster healthy conversations earlier on, rather than dealing with the aftermath of ignorance.

It is important to note that awareness of these issues will not resolve the problems faced in the workplace. Although the emphasis has been on the STEM field so far, these issues are faced by LGBTQ individuals across all disciplines. Therefore, we must work as a society to erase deep-rooted sentiments about minorities, and challenge the restrictive beliefs we are taught from a young age. Through greater exposure from media, education at an earlier age, and welcoming environments at work, we can slowly start to chip away at prejudice against the LGBTQ community and allow for greater diversification of incoming STEM students.

References

Cech, E. A. (2013). The (Mis)Framing of Social Justice: Why Ideologies of Depoliticization and

Meritocracy Hinder Engineers’ Ability to Think About Social Injustices. Philosophy of Engineering and Technology, 67–84. 

Cech, E. A., & Waidzunas, T. J. (2021). Systemic inequalities for LGBTQ professionals in 

STEM. Science Advances, 7(3).