Some tweets as I read Cech and Waidzunas (2021) Science Advances.

The article explore responses from members of 21 STEM professional societies, which includes 25k people, of which 1k are LGBTQ+ identifying - with demographic, discipline and job factor insights 1/ https://twitter.com/freemanjb/status/1350169015294038019

A classic introduction - though notable changes to the language where the words "historical margininalized" and "minoritized" populations has qualified underrepresentation - and a discussion of the inequalities that LGBTQ persons face in STEM fields. 2/

This introduction extends to a carful discussion concerning the professional nature of STEM - which requires huge amounts of training - and the development of people - and the associated cultural norms that develop. 3/

The 21 STEM-related professional societies are:
8 in natural, life & physical sciences;
5 in engineering;
6 interdisciplinary;
and 2 STEM-teaching focussed societies.

So a great range of different folx reporting into the huge data set 4/

Inequality is explored in 5 dimensions - careers; professional devaluation; social exclusion; health & wellness difficulties; and intentions to leave STEM.

So here goes a trigger warning as I suspect there is uncomfortable reading ahead. 5/

Cech and Waidzunas propose 5 hypotheses that they want to test with this data set - which is a rigorous way to test if there are issues in the workforce.

Posing the hypotheses up front is why I love it when social scientists do this work! 6/

H1 - LGBTQ STEM professionals are less likely to have adequate career resources & opportunities, and feel less comfortable whistleblowing, and are more likely to be questioned/underestimated for their contributions 7/

The trigger warning was reasonable, sorry folks.

Cech & Waidzunas reveal that there is substantial evidence that LGBTQ people are less likely to have adequate career resources & opportunities, feel lees comfortable whistleblowing in STEM-professions.



https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/7/3/eabe0933

H2: LGBTQ+ respondents are more likely to have experienced devaluation in their professional expertise, as compared to their non LGBTQ peers.

Again true, .

https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/7/3/eabe0933

H3: LGBTQ+ STEM professional are more likely to report social exclusion in their workplace and are more likely to have experienced harassment.

Again, both true, .

(Fucking hell - AAAARGH - this is personally triggering, bring on plz)
https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/7/3/eabe0933

H4: LGBTQ STEM professional experience health and wellness difficulties more frequently than their non-LGBTQ peers, and these are mediated by LGBTQ people encountering career limitations, professional devaluation & social exclusion.

Again - all true,

https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/7/3/eabe0933

H5: LGBTQ STEM professionals are more likely to leave their current jobs, or intend to leave STEM entirely.

Again - all true, .

(Again - personally triggered, it's ok though - I haz beer, and a new job...)

https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/7/3/eabe0933

The paper continues to explore alternative explanations for the results.

Alternative one - supply side differences between LGBTQ and non-LGBTQ professionals, e.g. less LGBTQ equivalently trained people.

The analysis refutes this alternative explanation. 13/

Alt. two - LGBTQ individuals have a uniformly more negative view of their jobs that are unrelated to LGBTQ-specific mistreatment.

This is a bit more complex...

Job satisfaction is linked to devaluation & marginalisation, so it is harder to link directly to LGBTQ status.

14/

As a personal moment - this is make me question my views here.

Am I a marginalised trouble maker because I am less satisfied with my job, or is it because I am LGBTQ?

Are they ever decoupled? As a marginalised person am I more open to issues?

Hmm.. must think on this.

15/

Back to the paper - was derailed by some thoughts...

Cech and Waidzunas explore intersectional patterns - again transgender and gender non binary folx experience minor health problems, stress, and depressive symptoms than cisgender.

16/

They extend to other factors, such as LGBTQ STEM professionals of colour, and women - each of these intersections amplifies the effects even more than what is seen in the general population analysis.

(GULP - that is not good, but not surprising).

17/

Cech and Waidzunas discuss their findings:

This is bad for LGBTQ professionals day-to-day experiences, and their careers.
This is harmful in more personal ways.
Social marginalisation & devaluing of their work is important..

18/

We more onto the more capitalist approach - about how diversity helps fields - important to note, but the items in tweet 17 should be enough to effect change & make people listen.

19/

A major item in here is that LGBTQ STEM professionals are less likely to whistleblow. This is incredibly damaging for STEM, and STEM organisations more broadly.

But it's up to STEM and STEM organisations to fix this, NOT the LGBTQ people.

20/

"These results underscore the immediate need for STEM-related workplaces, societies, and funding agencies to address anti-LGBTQ sentiments and behaviors. No STEM field or sector was immune to these problems."

Cech and Waidzunas (2020)
https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/advances/7/3/eabe0933.full.pdf

I think it's now time for a NOT SO FUCKING SUBTLE subtweet.

Though tbh awareness training that they are offering is a good thing - but we need more than just awareness to address these issues.

Like - lets sack people who harass & bully?

22/ https://twitter.com/BMatB/status/1350111240023134208

"Professional STEM societies, further, continue to be
vital for fostering conversations about LGBTQ inclusion and intersectionality and should consider these matters in light of the cultural and institutional issues specific to their fields."

YAAS

https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/advances/7/3/eabe0933.full.pdf

"Research funding agencies, in turn, should encourage and fund proposals on STEM workplace experiences and diversity initiatives that include LGBTQ status as a focal axis of variation."

Oh... HAI @UKRI_News and @EPSRC who have no idea about their LGBTQ+ workforce numbers. 24/

Engagement of research funders and some of the barriers involved in the funding landscape for LGBTQ+ people has been also raised in a @tigerinstemm report https://twitter.com/tigerinstemm/status/1196359892048605184

Minor pause - my heart rate just spiked & is spiking. Curious.

Maybe my queer-rage is physiological...

BRB

26/

Back - not sure what's up - it's settled down. Some excitement for a Saturday.

Now back to the

27/ https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/7/3/eabe0933

"Factors that prevent talented and motivated LGBTQ individuals from succeeding in STEM, or even staying in STEM at all, are of scholarly, economic, and national concern."

In some ways I remain frustrated that this needs saying, but some cis-hets will protest at this idea anyway.

The close out remains true…

"It is vital for future research to investigate the mechanisms driving these patterns and the interventions that may help to ameliorate them."

While you may see lots of activism on twitter about this - is this supported by funders/institutions?

29/

minor/major interlude - HELLO TO @CechErin (one of the co-authors here!) - LGBTQ+ fan club assemble and follow / engage, and say thank you, lots and lots and lots, please.

30/

A few notes on the method section -

There is a great discussion on how to obtain sexuality and gender identity from survey participants, following best practice. And how these identities code into the data analysis.

Important vis. intersectional analysis 31/

I'm going to close with saying thank you to @CechErin and T.J. Waidzunas, and to @NSF for funding the study.

Data, and rigorous analysis, is one of the many ways we can get people to listen, advocate for change, and try to make things better. 31/31

Oh and read the paper - it's better than my tweet thread, obvs. 32/31.

https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/advances/7/3/eabe0933.full.pdf