Overview. Legal protections in the United States based on gender and sexual orientation have expanded in recent decades, however, people identifying as LGBTQIA+ continue to face bias and discrimination in the workplace (Arabsheibani et al., 2007; Badgett et al., 2009; Tilcsik, 2011). This includes hiring and wage discrimination as well as interpersonal bias or prejudice from coworkers (Arabsheibani et al., 2007; Badgett et al., 2009; Cech & Pham, 2017; Cech & Rothwell, 2020; Davidson, 2016). Having to hide one’s identity at work impairs engagement and retention (Fidas et al., 2015). In line with minority stress models (Frost et al., 2015; Meyer, 1995), chronic stress associated with discrimination and stigma, including negative experiences within heteronormative workplaces, contribute to mental and physical health problems (Waldo, 1999).

STEM & Academia. Assessments of LGBTQIA+ experiences in the workforce often do not capture unique dynamics in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM), particularly academic settings. Academia has unique interpersonal (e.g., mentor-mentee relationships with inherent power imbalances) and systemic structures (e.g., tenure) requiring closer evaluation. Despite considerable evidence of disadvantage and discrimination toward women and people of color in academia and STEM (e.g., Cortes, 2008; McIlwee & Robinson, 1992; Tao, 2018; Hunt, 2015), LGBTQIA+ identity is not often surveyed, limiting our understanding of disparities. Accordingly, there are increasing calls for LGBTQIA+ people to be counted in broader data collection, which can provide actionable targets to lessen discrimination, improve inclusiveness, and bolster systemic support in academia (Fisher, 2021; Freeman, 2018; Freeman, 2020).

The Leaky Pipeline. Extant studies of academic STEM fields largely focus on LGBTQ undergraduates. Heteronormativity and prejudice contribute to feelings of isolation, pressure to ‘pass’ as straight, and compartmentalize one’s personal life.(Cech & Waidzunas, 2011) Campus climates can have a major impact on the STEM ‘pipeline’. Of students entering college to pursue STEM, LGBQ students were more likely to switch to non-STEM programs than heterosexual students (Hughes, 2018). Yet, LGBQ students experiencing more comfortable campus climate and institutional support, self-reported greater academic success (Garvey et al., 2018). Further, individual faculty members can provide critical support for LGBTQ students via formal and informal mentoring (Linley et al., 2016).

Similar findings persist for LGBTQ employees and faculty in STEM, i.e., more negative experiences, harassment, and isolation than those in non-STEM areas and compared to cisgender, heterosexual colleagues (Cech & Pham, 2017; Cech & Rothwell, 2018, 2020; Cech & Waidzunas, 2011, 2021; Hughes, 2018; Patridge et al., 2014; Vargas et al., 2021; Yoder & Mattheis, 2016). Disparities persist beyond other demographics and, critically, are amplified among those with intersectional identities.(Cech & Pham, 2017; Cech & Waidzunas, 2021) As with students, faculty can feel pressure to hide their identity, e.g., heterosexual, cisgender individuals often describe discussion of gender identity or sexual orientation in the workplace as “unprofessional” (Fidas et al., 2015), while not applying similar standards to discussion of their personal lives. Harassment or exclusion of LGBTQIA+ people is exceedingly common (Cantor et al., 2015; Gruberg et al., 2020; NIH, 2019; Taylor, 2013; Wang, 2016), particularly in the workplace. Critically, negative experiences, unwelcoming climate, and heteronormative expectations can push LGBTQIA+ faculty out of STEM (Bilimoria & Stewart, 2009; Mattheis et al., 2020; Patridge et al., 2014). Effects on retention are likely underestimated, as attrition from STEM fields starts earlier and thus, many people will not be represented.

Psych & Neuro. Another key gap is regarding psychology, psychiatry, and neuroscience; these fields have been largely underrepresented in prior surveys on LGBTQIA+ experience (or not parsed from other biological or social sciences). These fields lie at a unique nexus given the interface of basic scientists with clinicians, study of human behavior and biology, frequent interaction with human participants or patients, and potential work with LGBTQIA+ populations. It is critical to continue examining LGBTQIA+ experiences amidst shifting legal and cultural landscapes (Poushter & Kent, 2020; Taylor, 2013), e.g., recent waves of anti-trans legislation in the United States (Barbee et al., 2022). Continued assessment is needed to understand experiences of LGBTQIA+ people in STEM across fields and over time.

2022 Survey. Forthcoming survey results (under review) provide a snapshot of LGBTQIA+ experiences in academic psychology, psychiatry, and neuroscience, spanning students, staff, and faculty. Overwhelming, LGBTQIA+ people want their identities considered and voices heard. Workplace climate, particularly social support, is critical to career satisfaction and mental health. Participants called for academic institutions to make meaningful systemic change in supporting LGBTQIA+ employees. While recognizing limitations of cross-sectional surveys from convenience samples, these results are intended to contribute to rapidly evolving dialogue about experiences of LGBTQIA+ academics, acknowledging extensive and ever-changing complexities of experience and identity.

      Outness. Though most individuals were out socially, only about half were out to most people professionally (54%). Conversely, few respondents were out to no one at work (13%). People showed a similar degree of outness across personal and professional settings. Positive workplace climate strongly related to being out at work, driven by feelings of personal comfort and social support from a work friend/colleague. Being in a female-majority environments related not only to greater outness, but also more positive climate, less negative experiences, greater career satisfaction, and lower depression. Detrimental gender stereotyping, bias, and expectations often are observed in male-majority workplaces (e.g., Battams et al., 2014).

Individuals with typically less minoritized identities were more likely to be out, e.g., identifying as White and/or cisgender. People identifying as lesbian, gay, or queer were more likely to be out than those identifying as bisexual, pansexual, or asexual. These individuals reported often being assumed as straight, e.g., cisgender, bisexual women in heterosexual-presenting relationships, echoing themes from prior qualitative studies that assumptions of heterosexuality impair conversations about identity and foster negative workplace climate. Respondents also reported being unsure how they fit into the broader LGBTQIA+ community, e.g., not feeling ‘queer enough’ to warrant coming out, needing to put forth undue effort to educate others about their identity, and lacking representation in typically LGQ-focused diversity efforts. Issues of bisexual erasure or invisibility, both within the LGBTQIA+ community and in society broadly, have been repeatedly observed (Morgenroth et al., 2021; Stewart, 2021). Asexual individuals face parallel identity erasure within and beyond the queer community (Meyer, 2019; Mollet & Lackman, 2019). Importantly, for future work, asexual participants noted that using LGBTQIA+ (rather than LGBT) in recruitment materials highlighted inclusion of asexual populations and encouraged participation.

      Career Satisfaction. LGBTQ people often report lower career satisfaction than cisgender, heterosexual colleagues. Though most participants reported at least somewhat positive career satisfaction, this was highly related to an inclusive and supportive climate, including greater institutional support. Those working in female-majority spaces and who were more out at work also reported higher satisfaction. Interestingly, lower satisfaction was noted among those working face-to-face with patients or participants; such face-to-face work may open individuals to added identity stress from patients, participants, or colleagues, which could be explored in future work.

      Exclusionary Behavior. One quarter of participants herein reported observing or experiencing exclusionary behavior. Rates were lower than previously reported findings, yet still troubling high. Experiencing exclusionary behavior was far more common among trans, non-binary, and gender-non-confirming individuals compared to cisgender participants. Being out at work related to increased risk of experiencing such behavior, particularly in workplaces with poor climate.

      Mental Health. Depression was highly prevalent in this sample (19%), with rates were double that of the general U.S. adult population (7-9%). Aligned with minority stress models, poor climate, lack of inclusivity, limited institutional support, and negative experiences related to worse depression. Being out at work related to lower depression severity, though partially accounted for by climate. As noted, outness can be complicated, entailing both positive and negative outcomes (Chaudoir & Fisher, 2010). Concealing one’s identity can be a significant source of stress and contribute to mental health problems (Pachankis et al., 2020), particularly among younger populations, but coming out can open one to potential harassment.