Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Abstract The purpose of this research paper is to test to see if science and engineering identity differ between students along the basis of minoritized sexual and gender identities. LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer or questioning) students are more likely to leave engineering and other STEM majors before the end of their fourth year of college, much of which is due to the hetero- and cisnormative climate they experience in STEM departments. The climate may undermine students' identification with science and engineering, affecting their motivation, belonging, and persistence in these fields. The data for this study was collected from student surveys at four research universities nationally, with 548 students forming the analytic sample. About 56% of the sample are LGBQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, or queer), 16% TGNC (transgender, gender nonconforming, or nonbinary), and 65% are in a STEM major. Students completed a two-part survey which encompassed data about their social networks and their college experiences. The data for this analysis were drawn from the section on students' college experiences, which included an adaptation of Godwin's engineering identity measures to assess students' interest in their chosen field of study, students' assessment of their competence and performance in their courses, and students' perceptions of being recognized as a science person and as an engineering person. Demographic data on sexual identity, gender identity, and major were used to test comparisons. ANOVA and regression modeling were used to test group differences. For the most part, few differences were observed between groups regarding measures of science and engineering identity. Interest in their field of study only differed marginally by LGBQ status, with LGBQ students scoring slightly higher than heterosexual students. Perceptions of competence and performance in their field of study differed only by STEM major, with STEM students scoring slightly lower, suggesting some potential degree of insecurity among STEM students regarding their academic performance. Recognition as a science person only differed by STEM major as STEM students reported much higher recognition than their non-STEM peers. Recognition as an engineering person also differed by STEM major similar to recognition as a science person, but to a somewhat lesser degree; however, LGBQ students also reported being less likely to be recognized as an engineering person as well. Taken together, if engineering and other STEM fields look to broaden participation among people from groups historically excluded from full, authentic participation, one factor is the extent to which LGBTQ people see themselves as part of these fields. The data presented here suggest to some extent that LGBTQ people score similarly to their peers on indicators of science and engineering identity, but that attention to their experiences is still warranted. As LGBTQ issues become politicized across the nation, LGBTQ individuals need safe environments in STEM fields to nurture their intrinsic motivation and pursue fulfilling careers.
Hughes et al. (Sun,) studied this question.