Search for: All records

In this Work in Progress (WIP) paper, we detail the initial steps taken to study NSF grants that seek to benefit the LGBTQ+ community through understanding their experiences or by working toward their full participation in society. To this end, we have identified active and expired NSF grants that either advance knowledge of LGBTQ+ experiences or offer some benefit to the community (e.g., tailored professional development, addressing and changing the marginalizing culture of STEM, etc.). We then developed a coding scheme to categorize these grants with respect to the level of positive impact they have on the LGBTQ+ community using modified Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts criteria that parallels the NSF’s own criteria for evaluating proposals. The work established in this paper to identify and code LGBTQ-focused NSF grants will next allow us to extract trends in these grants over a period of over 4 decades. 

Although recent studies highlight the unique difficulties that lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) engineering professionals face in their careers, the availability of data concerning this underserved population remains scant. Postsecondary educational institutions play a critical role in the collection of LGBTQ+ demographic data related to sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) among students, faculty, and staff. Such data can be utilized to measure retention and success of LGBTQ+ individuals. However, many institutions choose not to collect these data for various reasons, which can potentially further the marginalization of LGBTQ+ individuals in academic settings. This study explores the motivations behind academic leaders—which includes facilitators of the demographic information collection process and advocates for the collection of SOGI data—along with the barriers that hinder efforts to make the collection of SOGI data a standard practice. We first administered a nation-wide survey to the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) Engineering Deans Council to determine what types of SOGI data, if any, these institutions collect. Among the 46 respondents, we found that three institutions collect some type of SOGI data for students, faculty, or staff. Survey respondents were then invited to participate in semi-structured interviews to discuss their insights into institutional practices with respect to SOGI data collection. In total, six institutions are represented through the perspectives of the 6 interviewees. We analyzed the transcripts from the interviews and identified themes within two categories: barriers and motivations. Although SOGI data collection is in nascent stages, this study provides insight into the critical conversations academic leaders navigate to better serve the LGBTQ+ community, which may aid further efforts to implement SOGI data collection in academia. 

This work-in-progress paper examines four free online courses addressing LGBTQ+ topics and issues and provides recommendations for creating new content and resources for allies in higher education. This exploratory work is guided by the following questions: What free LGBTQ+ courses are available for learners and educators? What content do these courses cover? What are the overlaps among these courses and what new strategies could be adopted when developing new LGBTQ+ resources for people in academia? The scope of this paper explores the content and instructional strategies of courses offered on Coursera, a massive open online course (MOOC) platform. Our preliminary findings indicate that the courses offer many insights and strategies for becoming an ally, fostering inclusive environments, and showing up for LGBTQ+ students; however, they put a smaller emphasis on LGBTQ+ academics and their experiences. Based on these findings, recommendations for educators and course developers are suggested. 

Recognizing the need to attract and retain the most talented individuals to STEM professions, the National Academies advocate that diversity in STEM must be a national priority. To build a diverse workforce, educators within engineering must continue working to create an inclusive environment to prevent historically underrepresented students from leaving the field. Additionally, previous research provides compelling evidence that diversity among students and faculty is crucially important to the intellectual and social development of all students, and failure to create an inclusive environment for minority students negatively affects both minority and majority students. The dearth of research on the experiences of LGBTQ individuals in engineering is a direct barrier to improving the climate for LGBTQ in our classrooms, departments and profession. Recent studies show that engineering can be a “chilly climate” for LGBTQ individuals where “passing and covering” demands are imposed by a hetero/cis-normative culture within the profession. The unwelcoming climate for LGBTQ individuals in engineering may be a key reason that they are more likely than non-LGBTQ peers to leave engineering. This project builds on the success of a previous exploratory project entitled Promoting LGBTQ Equality in Engineering through Virtual Communities of Practice (VCP), hosted by ASEE (EEC 1539140). This project will support engineering departments’ efforts to create LGBTQ-inclusive environments using knowledge generated from the original grant. Our research focuses on understanding how Community of Practice (COP) characteristics develop among STEM faculty who work to increase LGBTQ inclusion; how STEM faculty as part of the VCP develop a change agent identity, and what strategies are effective in reshaping norms and creating LGBTQ-inclusive STEM departments. Therefore, our guiding research question is: How does a Virtual Community of Practice of STEM faculty develop from a group committed to improving the culture for the LGBTQ community? To answer our research question, we designed a qualitative Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) study based on in-depth individual interviews. Our study participants are STEM faculty across all ranks and departments. Our sample includes 16 STEM faculty participants. After consulting with IPA experts to establish face validation, we piloted the interview protocol with three experienced qualitative researchers. The focus of this paper presents the results of the pilot study and preliminary themes from a sample of the 16 individual interviews. Most participants discussed the supportive and affirming nature of the community. Interestingly, the supportive culture of the virtual community led to members to translate support to LGBTQ students or colleagues at their home institution. Additionally, the participants spoke in detail about how the group supported their identity development as an educator and as a professional (e.g. engineering identity) in addition to seeking opportunities to combine their advocacy work with their research. Therefore, the supportive culture and safe space to negotiate identity development allows the current VCP to develop. Future work of the group will translate the research findings into practice through the iterative refinement of the community’s advocacy and education efforts including the Safe Zone workshops.