2023 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

The purpose of this research paper is to test the difference in likelihood that LGBTQ students are open about their sexual or gender identities to peers in STEM than other members of their networks. LGBTQ students face pressures in STEM to hide their sexual and gender identities, which threatens their ability to experience state authenticity within STEM, or a congruence between their social identities and the environment. Incongruence would lead LGBTQ students to leave STEM majors at higher rates which undermines efforts to broaden participation in engineering.
We used egocentric social network analysis to test differences in the likelihood that LGBTQ students are “out” to different members of their networks. We hypothesized that LGBTQ students are less likely to be out to peers in STEM than other members of their networks because of the culture and climate within STEM. Experiencing continued incongruence between one’s social identity and one’s environment, more common for minoritized individuals than others, can become a barrier to continued participation within that environment. Outness therefore serves as an indicator of how comfortable LGBTQ students are in STEM as an early predictor of whether they will persist in STEM.
More than 300 students, 205 of which were LGBTQ, were surveyed for this study in Spring 2022 across two research universities, one urban and one rural. Students were asked to identify three people who provide them the most support across two domains, personal and academic, individual characteristics of those people, and characteristics of their relationships with them. The dependent variable for this study is whether this network member is aware that the participant identifies as LGBTQ. Independent variables included whether the person identified was a source of personal or academic support, and whether the person was a peer in a STEM major.
With data collection continuing this academic year, preliminary results show participants were more likely to be out to members of their personal support networks compared to their academic networks. Further, compared to other members of their academic networks, participants reported being less likely to be out to peers in STEM majors, but, within their personal networks, they reported being no more or less likely to be out to peers in STEM majors. These results suggest some degree of inauthenticity experienced by LGBTQ people with their peers in STEM, which we will test further as we conclude data collection.
These results implicate the role of climate in STEM through LGBTQ students’ relationships with their peers. If they feel they must be less open about their sexual or gender identities with peers in STEM, LGBTQ students are likely not experiencing a level of state authenticity within STEM that would retain them within these fields. Educators should consider how academic environments are construed to provide a supportive climate that allows LGBTQ students to be open and that sets expectations for all students to respect and welcome the contributions of their LGBTQ peers.