"Don't Ask, Don't Tell": The Academic Climate for Lesbian, Gay,

Bisexual, and Transgender Faculty in Science and Engineering

Diana Bilimoria, Abigail J. Stewart

NWSA Journal, Volume 21, Number 2, Summer 2009, pp. 85-103 (Article)

Published by The Johns Hopkins University Press

For additional information about this article

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/ff/summary/v021/21.2.bilimoria.html

Access provided by North Carolina State University (17 Aug 2013 16:55 GMT)

Dont Ask, Dont Tell: The Academic Climate for

Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Faculty in
Science and Engineering
DIANA BILIMORIA and ABIGAIL J. STEWART
In the present study, fourteen science and engineering faculty members
who identified as lesbian or gay at two research universities described
the workplace climate for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT)
faculty, the role pressures and choices they face, and the effects of the climate on their work performance and careers. While some faculty describe
overt hostility toward them, invisibility, interpersonal discomfort, and
pressure to cover their sexuality are much more pervasive, as is a felt
obligation to be supportive to LGBT students and junior colleagues.
Based on our analyses of the interview data, we propose a model of the
career consequences of the academic work environment for sexual minority faculty in science and engineering. We conclude by recommending
specific future research and suggesting institutional actions that can
be taken to make campus climates more affirming for LGBT faculty in
science and engineering, and other disciplines.
Keywords: LGBT faculty in science and engineering / lesbian or gay faculty /
academic climate / climate for LGBT faculty
Despite increased attention to the academic climate for faculty members
(Bilimoria, Joy, and Liang 2008; Settles et al. 2006; Settles et al. 2007;
Stewart, Malley, and LaVaque-Manty 2007), the everyday experiences and
career consequences of the climate for sexual minority faculty members
in science and engineering (S&E) remain understudied. In the present
study, S&E faculty members who identified as lesbian or gay1 described
their perceptions of the workplace climate for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and
transgender (LGBT) faculty at two research universities, the role pressures and choices they face, and the effects of the climate on their work
performance and careers. In the present paper, we propose a model of the
career consequences of the academic work environment for LGBT faculty
in S&E that can be tested with future research, and conclude by suggesting
institutional actions to transform the academic climate for LGBT faculty
in S&E and other disciplines.
A relatively extensive body of knowledge has demonstrated the impact
of the workplace climate on nonacademic employees performance and
satisfaction (Carr et al. 2003; Donovan, Drasgow and Munson 1998; Johnson and McIntye 1998). Researchers have shown that a variety of indicators of a chilly or hostile climate affect the performance and morale of gay
2009 NWSA Journal, Vol. 21 No. 2 (Summer)

86

Diana Bilimoria and Abigail J. Stewart

and lesbian workers (see, Badgett et al. 2007 for an excellent review). Using
many different methods including surveys, interviews, and controlled
experiments, these studies confirm that LGBT employees are subject
to discrimination in hiring and promotion (see, for example, Mays and
Cochran 2001) and salary (Arabsheibani et al. 2007), and experience hostile
or harassing acts by fellow employees, superiors, and/or clients (Ragins
and Cornwell 2001).
There is a smaller amount of literature focused particularly on discrimination in the academic workplace, including perceptions of campus
climate, identity development, educational experiences, and academic
outcomes of undergraduate and graduate students (for example, Augelli
1992; Brown et al. 2004; McKinney 2005; Herek 1993; Rankin 2003,
2007; Silverschanz et al. 2008; Tomlinson and Fassinger 2003). A few
studies have focused on LGBT faculty, across universities and disciplines (for example, McNaron 1997), within a single university (for
example, Noack 2004), or within specific humanities or social science
disciplines such as English (for example, Crew 1978), social work (for
example, LaSala et al. 2008), education (for example, Sears 2002), psychology (for example, Liddle, Kunkel, and Kick 1998), and sociology (for
example, Gagnon et al. 1982; Taylor and Raeburn 1995). These studies
provide details of the everyday slights, harassment, intimidation, fears,
exclusion, and discrimination experienced by LGBT faculty, including
tokenism, stereotyping, increased visibility and scrutiny, isolation and
boundary heightening, difficulties in the classroom (for example, Russ,
Simonds, and Hunt 2002), and constraints on choices of scholarship (for
example, LaSala et al. 2008). They also document some of the perceived
negative career consequences experienced by LGBT faculty, including
discrimination in hiring, tenure and promotion, exclusion from scholarly and professional networks, and devaluation of scholarly work on
LGBT topics (for example, Taylor and Raeburn, ctd. in McNaron 1997).
These studies also offer testimonies about the deep satisfaction experienced by LGBT faculty from doing LGBT scholarship or political work
on campus or mentoring out or closeted LGBT students and junior
faculty (for example, McNaron 1997).
Our study adds to the emerging literature on inclusiveness in the workplace by exploring the climate for LGBT faculty specifically in science and
engineering disciplines. Despite much recent attention to the workforce
composition (particularly gender and racial/ethnic minority representation) of academic S&E (for example, The National Academies 2006), to our
knowledge no research has specifically assessed the campus climate for
LGBT faculty members in S&E. This is an important area of study because
building a diverse faculty in academic S&E has become a national priority
as highlighted by the National Science Foundations ADVANCE funding
program to advance women faculty in S&E (www.nsf.gov/advance) and in

Dont Ask, Dont Tell

87

the National Academies (2006) report calling for elimination of all forms
of bias that may impede academic career success in S&E.
Several factors may contribute to the relatively low profile of LGBT
faculty in the scientific communitys attention to inclusion. First, sexual
orientation is relatively less visible than some other differences (gender,
race/ethnicity, and international origin, for example). Moreover, although
the precise number of faculty who identify as other-than-heterosexual is
not known, most estimates suggest that it is a relatively small minority.
Finally, some LGBT faculty are not out to their colleagues; the invisibility of their sexual identities is deliberate. These three issues may apply to
faculty in all fields, but there are, in addition, some particular factors that
may contribute to the invisibility of LGBT inclusion among scientists.
Science and engineering faculty might be expected to view an individuals sexual identity as irrelevant in the scientific workplace. According to
this perspective, individual characteristics generally should play no role in
scientific work, as the scientific method offers a guarantee of objectivity
(Keller 1984; Morawski 1988; Popper 1959); thus, indifference to individuals personal lives, and a belief in their irrelevance to scientific research,
might be expected to be particularly common among academic scientists
and engineers. Even more, broadly held tenets of the scientific method
(for example, positivism, objectivity, rationality) point scientists and
engineers away from consideration of individuals identities and personal
characteristics in evaluating their work experiences. In addition, because
few academic scientists and engineers examine social phenomena in their
own research, they may be less influenced by theoretical developments
that have advanced understanding of the social construction and implications of sexuality, race, and gender (see, for example, Shields 2008; Weber
1998). This relative lack of exposure to research and theory on sexuality
and identity may leave academic scientists and engineers more subject to
broadly held social attitudes about LGBT individuals that are less common
among social scientist and humanities faculty who are likely to be exposed
to sexuality studies within their disciplines (Dolan 1998). The experiences
of LGBT faculty in S&E fields are particularly important to study, since
faculty in these fields may not be aware of theories and research about
sexuality and identity that could inform their colleagues and students
attitudes and behavior. There are reasons to expect, then, that LGBT issues
might be unusually unlikely to seem important to heterosexual science
and engineering faculty.
Workplace climate refers to the formal and informal characteristics of
an employment setting affecting employees experience and effectiveness.
It is the feeling that is conveyed in a group by the physical layout and the
way in which members of the organization interact with each other, with
customers, or with other outsiders (Schein 1992, 9). As Liddle et al. (2004)
noted, Workplace climate matters. It affects employee recruitment,

88

Diana Bilimoria and Abigail J. Stewart

adjustment, productivity, stress, and commitment (33). Workplace climate has been linked in previous research to outcomes such as satisfaction, productivity, performance, retention, and emotional support (for
example, August and Waltman 2004; Carr et al. 2003; Settles et al. 2006;
Settles et al. 2007).
The study of workplace climate for LGBT faculty is important because
they may be especially vulnerable to bias, discrimination, and retaliation
in the academic workplace. Formal discrimination involves campus structures or policies that overtly discriminate in recruitment, advancement,
compensation, resource distribution, opportunity allocation, or retention
based on sexual orientation or gender identity or expression (Liddle et
al. 2004). Informal discrimination involves the tolerance of harassment
of LGBT personnel, or covert and subtle forms of discrimination based
on sexual minority status (Liddle et al. 2004; Cortina, 2008). Our study
employed qualitative analysis of open-ended interviews to explore these
and other relevant aspects of the inclusiveness of the academic climate
for lesbian and gay faculty in S&E disciplines.

Methods
We conducted in-depth interviews with fourteen faculty members in science and engineering disciplines at two research universities who identified as lesbian or gay, including six participants who were listed publicly as
willing to mentor LGBT students, five who were individually known and
out to the researchers, one who was recommended by an interviewee, and
two who responded to an e-mail sent to an LGBT listserv requesting participation in the study. Participants consisted of four men and ten women,
in science and engineering departments in liberal arts, engineering, and
medical schools within the two universities. Eleven of the participants
were on the tenure track; eight were tenured. They were drawn from all
academic ranks: lecturers (2), assistant professors (3), associate professors
(6), professors (2), and administrator (1).
We employed an open-ended interview protocol and began by asking
each participant to describe the climate for themselves and other LGBT
S&E faculty at their university and in their department. We then asked
about the recruitment process they underwent when they came to the
university, the positive and negative experiences they have had as a lesbian
or gay faculty member, their feelings about the importance of LGBT community and any efforts they had made to belong to it at the university,
and their perceptions of the experiences of LGBT graduate students and
postdoctorates. The focus of the interviews was on the nature of the job
experiences and career outcomes faced by the participants as lesbian or
gay science and engineering faculty. With one exception, interviews were

Dont Ask, Dont Tell

89

about an hour long; we took detailed notes (including some verbatim quotations) during the interviews because of potential concerns about taperecording sensitive data. The one exception was a very long (three-hour)
interview, which was audiotaped after an initial period by mutual agreement. We wrote up summaries of the interviews immediately following
them. Data were collected according to procedures approved by the Institutional Review Boards at both institutions, and included participants
informed consent to participate.
Using conventional content analysis procedures (see, Boyatzis 1998;
Smith 1992), the authors reviewed their notes and identified themes in
the interviews, then shared their observations and invited each other to
add examples to particular themes and to add themes. By mutual consent,
themes were consolidated after detailed review of their own and each
others notes and observations.

Results
Themes in the interviews were identified in four major areas: (1) the
reported work climate or atmosphere for LGBT faculty in their departments or fields; (2) the consequences of the climate for the lesbian or gay
faculty member; (3) identity-based role choices; and (4) the positive role
that the work climate can play in mitigating negative effects. We will
discuss issues mentioned by the interviewees in each of these four areas.
Because our goal is to develop a theoretical model, we will note the ways
in which our findings relate to other theory and research.
Climate for LGBT Faculty in Science and Engineering
One of the most common aspects of the work environment reported by
LGBT faculty in S&E fields was their sense that gayness or homosexuality was invisible, and that heterosexuality was routinely assumed. For
example, one participant commented, it is not part of the discourse; its
therefore hard to figure out where people are coming from. Mainly it is
just completely invisible. Another indicated that because LGBT issues
were so invisible he was totally shocked when he saw a sign for a gay
students group in his field. One faculty member attributed the invisibility
to the fact that personal lives are not on the table much, so it is easy to
assume that everyone fits a straight norm. Beatty and Kirby (2006) argue
that invisibility poses particular challenges in workplace social interactions, because it creates burdens on the employee to disclose or not. Toynton (2007) found that queer2 students felt invisible both in science contexts
and in queer discourses (which often ignore science).

90

Diana Bilimoria and Abigail J. Stewart

Participants mentioned direct and indirect expressions of hostility

about LGBT people less often, but at least four pointed to examples of it.
Some mentioned particular fields in which open hostility was encountered; others indicated that particular groups (students, staff, etc.) were
prone to making derogatory jokes or comments. One woman indicated
that some of her students come from communities where she would be
afraid to walk on the street. Some of the more indirect expressions
were particularly disturbing because they affected individuals perceived
value as scientists. For example, one persons mentor had said of another
person, I think shes a lesbian; Id never trust her data. These examples
echo previous findings that LGBT individuals face direct and indirect
workplace hostility (Badgett et al. 2007; Ragins and Cornwell 2001).
In contrast to the relatively low frequency of reports of hostility, many
interviewees mentioned that colleagues expressed or revealed their discomfort about minority sexualities in a variety of ways. For example,
study participants reported that peers expressed anxiety about sharing
a room with a colleague who was gay or lesbian at a conference, department chairs indicated that youd probably be uncomfortable bringing
your partner to a professional dinner, and interactions with faculty colleagues or their spouses were so awkward and uneasy that the individual
avoided social occasions with them. One faculty member mentioned that,
In my department there are faculty members who would never talk to
me about being gay or my partner and thats finetheyre the minority.
That same faculty member noted that I find in academics that if people
are uncomfortable with this, they are quiet about it ... they dont want to
create friction. Many participants noted that it was particularly painful
for them to realize how difficult it must be for gay graduate and undergraduate students to deal with so many clueless faculty. This discomfort
or awkwardness about sexuality is not well documented in the literature,
and little distinction is made between these sorts of actions and more
overt hostility. Recently Derald Wing Sue and his colleagues (2007) have
described racial microagressions in everyday life, or small gestures of
exclusion, disrespect, or hostility, which may be more like the experiences our gay and lesbian faculty describe. It is difficult to know whether
our interviewees are simply more gracious and careful than others about
describing their colleagues clumsiness and silence as not overtly hostile, or if in fact the S&E workplace is characterized more by silence and
awkwardness than direct hostility.
Some participants discovered that when their homosexuality was recognized and acknowledged it led to other difficulties, most commonly
either pressure to tone down the obviousness of their gayness, or extra
scrutiny. For example, one individual was encouraged to temper how gay
she looks in her job interview, and was explicitly advised to be more conservative in appearance, not to bring her partner to departmental events,

Dont Ask, Dont Tell

91

and not to adopt children. Another was advised not to communicate with
faculty and staff about partner benefits issues on campus, because some
people objected. Law professor Kenji Yoshino (2006) has described these
kinds of pressures as demands for covering, and links them to Goffmans
(1963) understanding of one of the social responses to stigma. Yoshino
argues that all subordinate groups are pressured to fit into the norms of the
dominant group, and that keeping their stigmatized identity out of view
makes social situations more comfortable for the majority. He points out
that the majoritys implicit demand to cover ones identity (or to tone
down a disfavored identity to fit into the mainstream; ix) constrains the
full personhood of minority group members self-expression, and for that
reason is experienced as deeply painful over time. Perhaps the implicit
demand for covering accounts for why some faculty noted that out LGBT
scientists and engineers were subject to special scrutiny. Participants
noted that being known to be gay or lesbian resulted in more rumors and
a higher level of evaluation, and suspicion that they had hidden agendas,
or did not understand other peoples views. Clearly, at least some LGBT
faculty might prefer to cover their sexual identity (including either concealing it from colleagues or maintaining a sharp boundary between work
and personal life) rather than attract this sort of suspicious surveillance.
Consequences of the Work Climate for LGBT Faculty
Consistent with the literature cited earlier, faculty interviewees felt that
the atmosphere had significant internal and external consequences for
themselves at various points in their careers, and for students and younger
colleagues they know.
Internally Experienced Consequences. First, the fact that LGBT faculty
are viewed at least with discomfort in many quarters, and sometimes with
suspicion and hostility, led many of the participants to indicate that there
is considerable fearfulness associated with sexuality for LGBT faculty and
students. One noted that many people are closeted, or avoid being out at
work for this reason, particularly during early stages of their career. Many
participants mentioned that they simply restricted their interactions
with colleagues to the professional and scientific, and did not discuss any
aspects of their personal lives. One referred to this as the equivalent of
dont ask/dont tell in science and engineering. They were aware that
this gave the false impression that they have no life, but to some degree
found this a safer or preferable course. Both fear of the reactions of others
and deliberate self-censoring are responses to the implicit demand for
covering a stigmatized identity in Yoshinos (2006) terms.
Several participants commented that they expended considerable labor
to try to interpret cues. One said she has the constant experience of
wondering if things are occurring because of gayness or because of other

92

Diana Bilimoria and Abigail J. Stewart

factors; another indicated that it was difficult to separate issues associated with being a woman from those associated with being gay. One gay
man said that the need to constantly wonder about what was going on
created a sense of being in a cage of my own construction. This labor
has been described in the literature most fully by Philomena Essed (1990)
in her account of everyday racism. According to Esseds account, many
slights in social interactionsfailures of normative politeness, slowness
of response, etc.are difficult to interpret. Do they result from the actors
personality, the situation, or something about the targets identity? This
labor adds to the psychological cost of social interactions for minorities
of all kinds.
Several interviewees commented on their own relative isolation, with
few or no other gay people in their departments. Some indicated that it
would be nice to have more community within the university, but mostly
it just doesnt happen. This isolation has been commonly found for
racial-ethnic minorities, and even for heterosexual white women, in science and engineering (Wright et al. 2003; Xie and Shauman 2003), suggesting that these environments are experienced as powerfully monolithic by
people who are not straight white men. Isolation is also a common experience of people with invisible identities (Beatty and Kirby 2006; Frable,
Platt, and Hoey 1998).
Negative Career Consequences. When asked if they were aware of
any direct negative consequences of their sexuality in their careers, two
pointed to specific academic jobs they knew they had not gotten because
they were gay. Another indicated that a colleague attempted to disrupt a
collaboration by outing her to a third party. Others were aware of not
being part of the power networks in the department, including not being
invited to recruitment dinners for new faculty, not being offered mentoring, or generally not being viewed as part of the group. These particular
outcomes are consistent with the literature based not only on self-reports
but on other sources of data (see, Badgett et al. 2007 for a summary). These
comments are noteworthy since it is common for individuals to underestimate discrimination against themselves in their careers (see, Crosby et
al. 1986; Crosby et al. 1989). Similar negative career consequences have
been documented for women in academic S&E fields (see, The National
Academies 2006).
Identity-Based Role Choices
Our interviewees reported facing specific role choices pertinent to their
lesbian or gay identities such as to be out, confront homophobia when
encountered, become representative of all LGBT people, serve other LGBT
students and faculty, and educate others. In the context of these pressures,
our faculty interviewees reported choosing various degrees of outness

Dont Ask, Dont Tell

93

at different stages in their careers, including being closeted, completely

out, and selectively out (for example, to colleagues but not undergraduate students). While these choices are strategies used by LGBT people to
manage social stigma, they carry additional burdens of stress in hiding or
censoring ones sexuality and lifestyle (LaSala et al. 2008).
Respondents described a range of responses to their efforts to be out,
to confront homophobia, and to be supportive of LGBT students, staff,
and faculty. One faculty member noted that my lab is a magnet for
gay people; another said, I try to be out for their sake. They find me.
Another reported that other faculty members with gay relatives want
them to talk to her because she is gay. Still another described talking with
a student who had very negative views about homosexuality based on a
particular kind of religious upbringing but who wanted advice about how
to relate to a gay friend. Other interviewees described their willingness to
serve LGBT students and faculty in their immediate S&E departments and
larger university environments. Some faculty members were deliberate
in signaling their LGBT status to students in particular, by placing themselves on public lists of available mentors for LGBT students, placing rainbow stickers in their offices, and serving as mentors or advisors for LGBT
student groups. Female and racial-ethnic minority faculty report similar
feelings of obligation to serve their groups (see, for example, Aguirre 2000)
Interviewees also described the decisions they made to educate others
about LGBT issues. For example, one interviewee suggested that a journal club discuss a research paper on the concept of gay genes. Another
described a request from her students to come out to a prospective graduate student in her laboratory; she chose not to do this because she thought
they were stereotyping the prospective student because of his conservative
religious background.
Positive Climate Can Mitigate Negative Effects
Although the lesbian and gay faculty detailed the negative and painful
features of their work environments, they also often noted positive features either of their current environment or of ones they have been in.
Some faculty described specific experiences of inclusion and comfort. For
example, several participants mentioned that they did feel comfortable
talking about family and personal life to colleagues, and one argued that
in the kind of department she is currently in, faculty didnt care much;
some were friendly, and asked about her partner; and she was welcome
at events. A third individual mentioned that in her own department,
I am afraid to be who I am. Im not comfortable at the social events
with colleagues where connections are made. In contrast, I went to my
partners department Christmas party: It was completely comfortable.
Everyone else was straight, but they expressed how glad they were I am in

94

Diana Bilimoria and Abigail J. Stewart

my partners life, and so on; the climate in that department seems really
positive.
Several participants noted that the explicit commitment to inclusion at
the university level (including advocacy at the state and national levels)
was significant. The importance of inclusive and family-friendly policies
for gay and lesbian faculty has been demonstrated in other research (Ragins
and Cornwell 2007). One of our interviewees indicated that the university plays a crucial role in establishing the social norms in the university
campus. Another noted that Partner benefits were widely advertised on
the Web site, and it was obvious that the university was really positive
about it. That made a huge difference. Others commented that a supportive or comfortable dean or chair made the crucial difference. For example
one said, There are no other gay/lesbian faculty in the department, but
that is fine. The chair sets the tone; shes very inclusive and its definitely
okay. At the most positive end of the spectrum, one faculty member
indicated, In my department its fantastic. They recognize that I have a
partner, they acknowledge her, they include her in department activities
(the department picnic, the Christmas party, etc.), and its a complete nonissue. People are just normal about it. ... Its completely different from
anywhere Ive ever been.
Finally, it is important to note that faculty who commented on positive features of the environment also experienced negative aspects of the
climate (and vice versa). While positive features of the environment were
certainly felt as supports and buffers, they did not (of course) prevent
negative interactions or experiences. Equally, although our sample is too
small for any systematic analysis of associations between particular disciplines and these experiences, it is important to note that both positive
and negative experiences were reported in all types of scientific disciplines
(for example, life sciences versus physical sciences and engineering; field
sciences versus laboratory sciences). In this sample, there was no sign
that some disciplines or types of fields were more open and inclusive, and
others were more problematic for sexual minorities. The variation seemed
attributable to many other factors, including the leadership of the chair
and the general climate of the department.

Proposed Model
Based on the themes that emerged from the interviews, we propose a
model (presented in figure 1) of the consequences of the academic workplace climate for LGBT faculty in science and engineering. We propose
that the nature of the S&E workplace climate experienced by LGBT faculty directly affects their internal experiences and directly and indirectly
influences their careers. As shown above and below the dashed lines in

Dont Ask, Dont Tell

95

Figure 1. Proposed Model of the Career Consequences of the Climate for Lesbian, Gay,
Bisexual and Transgender Faculty in Science and Engineering (S&E)

*Negative aspects are presented above and positive aspects are presented below the dashed
line.

figure 1, and documented in previous studies of non-academic LGBT

employees, lesbian and gay faculty work in academic climates that may
be characterized as negative and/or positive. Negative climates for LGBT
faculty consist of academic workplaces in which minority sexuality statuses are invisible, there are direct and indirect expressions of hostility, an
amorphous yet pervasive sense of discomfort on the part of heterosexual
colleagues and administrators, pressure to hide homosexuality or cover
it, and excessive scrutiny of the performance of those having minority
sexual orientations. Positive climates for LGBT faculty are open, supportive and inclusive, with clear and enforced university-level policies of
nondiscrimination, and administrative leaders who are supportive of and
comfortable with LGBT issues.
As figure 1 indicates, a negative climate experienced by LGBT faculty may have deleterious effects on internal experiences and career
consequences, while a positive climate may engender positive internal
responses and either create space for personal and institutional growth
or at least render sexual minority status immaterial to career success. A
negative academic climate for LGBT personnel in S&E may have direct
negative consequences for a faculty members career, for example, when
it leads to explicit exclusions from opportunities. Negative climates may

96

Diana Bilimoria and Abigail J. Stewart

also contribute to an LGBT facultys experience of fearfulness, restricted

interactions, labor to interpret cues and isolation, and those in turn may
ultimately result in negative career consequences. On the other hand, a
positive academic climate for LGBT faculty in S&E can lead directly to
positive outcomes (such as opportunities), as well as to positive internal
consequences such as openness, ease, and comfort, which in turn may
result in a faculty members LGBT status not being an issue for career
success.
Figure 1 also indicates that LGBT identity-specific role choices exercised by LGBT faculty may moderate the relationship between the academic S&E climate and an LGBT faculty members internal experience.
Choices to be out, confront homophobia, represent or serve other LGBT
faculty and students, or educate others may mitigate the effects of a negative S&E work climate and amplify the effects of a positive S&E work
climate for LGBT faculty. On the other hand, choices to be closeted, to not
confront homophobia, to not represent or serve LGBT populations, or to
not educate others may both protect the individual and at the same time
amplify the effects of a negative S&E work climate and limit the impact
of a positive S&E work climate.
The model presented in figure 1 contributes to the extant literature
by specifying some critical features of the academic climate, and their
implications for positive and negative internal experiences and career
outcomes for LGBT faculty. It highlights a crucial moderator variable:
the role choices exercised by LGBT faculty on an everyday basis. The
model generates propositions that may be investigated in future research
as follows.
Proposition 1: A negative S&E workplace climate is associated with negative
career consequences such as bias in recruitment, exclusion from networks,
and lower overall career satisfaction and success of LGBT faculty. Equally, a
positive S&E workplace climate is associated with LGBT status not being an
issue for career outcomes.
Proposition 2: A negative S&E workplace climate is associated with negative internal consequences (for example, fearfulness, restricted interactions,
labor to interpret cues and isolation) for LGBT faculty. A positive S&E workplace climate is associated with positive internal consequences (for example,
openness, ease, and comfort) for LGBT faculty.
Proposition 3: The internal experience of LGBT faculty partially mediates the
relationship between academic S&E workplace climate and career consequences.
Proposition 4: Identity-based role choices exercised by LGBT faculty moderate the relationship between features of the climate and internal outcomes for
LGBT faculty; that is, they amplify or buffer the effects of negative and positive
academic S&E workplace climates.

Dont Ask, Dont Tell

97

Discussion
Our study provides qualitative evidence about the workplace climate,
role choices, internal experiences, and career consequences perceived
by a sample of lesbian and gay faculty in science and engineering.
While similar experiences have been reported before by nonacademic
LGBT employees, the discomfort of heterosexual faculty colleagues
and administrative leaders appears to be particularly noteworthy in academic science and engineering environments. Pervasive discomfort with
minority sexualities may arise because heterosexual S&E faculty are
relatively indifferent to colleagues identities, personal lives, and experiences (since the characteristics of science itself steer scientists away
from consideration of these facets) and relatively uninformed about
sexual orientation (since most scientists do not study such topics) and
perhaps, therefore, can be awkward and uncomfortable relating to LGBT
colleagues. Future studies based in S&E work environments should
more specifically investigate the influence of disciplinary content on
the climate for LGBT faculty in academic S&E, including comparisons
with non-S&E disciplines. We also encourage comparisons of the climate
for LGBT employees in academic and nonacademic S&E workplaces. In
addition, it is important to learn more about the degree to which positive
climate features can compensate for negative ones, or may actually produce a diminution in the negative features. If departmental leaders set
an example of comfort and inclusiveness, might the average department
faculty member become sufficiently comfortable and inclusive that he
or she could create an inclusive climate in the classroom? Finally, we
recommend investigation of the relationship between specific LGBT
identity-based role choices and the internal experience of LGBT faculty, as well as the direct career consequences of these role choices. For
example, do LGBT faculty who select to be out, confront homophobia,
represent and serve other LGBT group members, and educate others have
a different internal experience and different career consequences than
LGBT faculty who make different choices?
Our findings have other implications for future research. First, while
our small-sample study qualitatively explored the climate for LGBT faculty in S&E, we encourage larger scale quantitative studies testing the
hypotheses specified by our model. Second, like most other studies of
LGBT issues, our study only investigated the perceptions of LGBT employees regarding the workplace climate and the treatment of LGBT workers.
Knowledge of the perceptions of heterosexual faculty is also important for
campus climate change interventions.
The findings of the present study and the model presented have direct
implications for practice. University administrations should address
the invisibility, covering, and scrutiny experiences of sexual orientation

98

Diana Bilimoria and Abigail J. Stewart

minorities by engaging their campus constituencies about LGBT issues.

Particularly in S&E environments, faculty colleagues and administrators
should be helped to understand the dimensions of the workplace climate
for LGBT faculty, especially the invisibility and pressure to cover. Zero
tolerance for overt or covert hostility toward LGBT persons should be
enforced. Efforts to facilitate networking and connection to reduce fearfulness and isolation should be encouraged for LGBT faculty, staff, and
student groups. Particularly in science and engineering disciplines, efforts
should be undertaken by administrators to directly address and dispel
any discomfort experienced by heterosexual faculty and students about
LGBT issues, through the sharing of information about university policies
about sexual minorities, and by convening educational forums to provide
information about LGBT experiences.
Our study has certain limitations. Our sample was small. Identification
of participants biased the sample toward faculty who are out, limiting the
generalizability of the findings to those who are not. Participants were
drawn only from two academic settings and both institutions are relatively
large research universities. Thus, the range of climate issues encountered
at different kinds of institutions may not have been adequately represented. Faculty members who identified as bisexual or transgender did
not participate in the study and these groups may face very particular and
different challenges than faculty who identify as lesbian or gay. We did
not have a comparison group of faculty who were heterosexual. As a result
we can only speculate about which of the findings are common to faculty
from any subordinate or stigmatized group, which are specific to LGBT
faculty, and which are common to all faculty.
In conclusion, science and engineering faculty generally hold strongly
meritocratic values about the conduct of science. Yet LGBT faculty members experience LGBT identity-based invisibility, rejection, pressure, and
isolation in many science and engineering departments. A more inclusive
work environmentone in which LGBT faculty felt accepted as whole
personswould not only be more humane, but might also facilitate
enhanced scientific productivity from these faculty and their colleagues.

Acknowledgments
The authors thank Cynthia Hudgins, Timothy Stewart-Winter, and several
of the study participants for thoughtful comments on an earlier draft of
this paper.
Diana Bilimoria, PhD, is a professor of Organizational Behavior at the
Weatherhead School of Management, Case Western Reserve University. Her research focuses on gender and diversity in governance and

Dont Ask, Dont Tell

99

leadership, and university transformation. She is a co-author of Handbook on Women in Business and Management and Women on Corporate
Boards of Directors. She has served as the editor of the Journal of Management Education and as a co-investigator on a 5year award from the
National Science Foundation to advance women faculty in the sciences
and engineering. She has published several articles and book chapters in
leading journals and edited volumes. Dr. Bilimoria serves as an adviser
and management educator for individuals as well as private, public, and
nonprofit organizations. She has received awards for her scholarship,
doctoral teaching, and professional service. For more information on Dr.
Bilimoria, please visit http://wsomfaculty.case.edu/bilimoria or contact
her at diana.bilimoria@case.edu.
Abigail J. Stewart is Sandra Schwartz Tangri Professor of Psychology and
Womens Studies at the University of Michigan and director of the UM
ADVANCE project. She holds degrees from Wesleyan University (BA),
London School of Economics (MSc), and Harvard University (PhD). She
has received the Henry Murray Award (in personality psychology) and the
Carolyn Wood Sherif Award (in psychology of women) from the American Psychological Association. Dr. Stewart has published many scholarly articles and several books, focusing on the psychology of womens
lives, personality, and adaptation to personal and social changes. Her
current research, which combines qualitative and quantitative methods, includes comparative analyses of longitudinal studies of educated
womens lives and personalities; a collaborative study of race, gender,
and generation in the graduates of a Midwest high school; and research
and interventions on gender and science and technology with middleschool-age girls, undergraduate students, and faculty. She can be reached
at abbystew@umich.edu.

Notes
1. We note here that our informants identified as lesbian or gay; however,
they addressed issues for individuals with other sexual minority identities
including those who identify as bisexual and transgendered. They often used
the expression LGBT, so although we refer to our participants as lesbian
or gay, we sometimes refer to the implications for the wider community of
sexual minorities, as they did. We believe it is important for future research
to include informants who are themselves bisexual and transgendered.
2. The term queer usually includes LGBT individuals as well as individuals
who resist being categorized within normative gender and sexuality categories.

100

Diana Bilimoria and Abigail J. Stewart

References
Aguirre, Adalberto, Jr. 2000. Women and Minority Faculty in the Academic Workplace: Recruitment, Retention and Academic Culture. ASHE-ERIC Higher
Education Report 27(6). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Arabsheibani, G. Reza, Alan Marin, and Jonathan Wadsworth. 2007. Variations
in Gay Pay in the USA and UK. In Sexual Orientation Discrimination: An
International Perspective, ed. M. V. Lee Badgett and Jefferson Frank, 4461.
London: Routledge.
Augelli, Anthony R. 1992. Lesbian and Gay Male Undergraduates Experiences
of Harassment and Fear on Campus. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 7(3):
38395.
August, Louise, and Jean Waltman. 2004. Culture, Climate, and Contribution:
Career Satisfaction among Female Faculty. Research in Higher Education
45(2): 17792.
Badgett, M. V. Lee, Holning Lau, Brad Sears, and Deborah Ho. 2007. Bias in the
Workplace: Consistent Evidence of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity
Discrimination. Los Angeles: The Williams Institute of UCLA School of Law.
Beatty, Joy E., and Susan L. Kirby. 2006. Beyond the Legal Environment: How
Stigma Influences Invisible Identity Groups in the Workplace. Employee
Responsibilities and Rights Journal 18(1): 2944.
Bilimoria, Diana, Simy Joy, and XiangFen Liang. 2008. Breaking Barriers and
Creating Inclusiveness: Lessons of Organizational Transformation to Advance
Women Faculty in Academic Science and Engineering. Human Resources
Management 47(3): 42341.
, Susan Perry., XiangFen Liang, Patricia Higgins, Eleanor Stoller, and Cyrus
Taylor. 2006. How Do Female and Male Faculty Members Construct Job
Satisfaction? The Roles of Perceived Institutional Leadership and Mentoring
and their Mediating Processes. Journal of Technology Transfer 32(3): 35565.
Boyatzis, Richard E. 1998. Transforming Qualitative Information: Thematic
Analysis and Code Development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Brown, Robert D., Brandy Clarke, Valerie Gortmaker, and Rachael RobinsonKeilig. 2004. Assessing the Campus Climate for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual,
and Transgender (GLBT) Students Using a Multiple Perspectives Approach.
Journal of College Student Development 45(1): 826.
Carr, Jennifer Z., Aaron M. Schmidt, J. Kevin Ford, and Richard P. DeShon.
2003. Climate Perceptions Matter: A Meta-Analytic Path Analysis Relating
Molar Climate, Cognitive and Affective States, and Individual Level Work
Outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology 88(4): 60519.
Cortina, Lilia. (2008). Unseen injustice: Incivility in modern discrimination in
organizations. Academy of Management Review 33(1): 5575.
Crew, Louie, ed. 1978. The Gay Academic. Palm Springs, CA: ETC Publications.
Crosby, Faye, Susan Clayton, Olaf Alksnis, and Kathryn Hemker. 1986. Cognitive
Biases in the Perception of Discrimination: The Importance of Format. Sex
Roles 14(11/12): 63746.
Crosby, Faye, Ann Pufall, Rebecca C. Snyder, Marion OConnell, and Peg Whalen.
1989. The Denial of Personal Disadvantage Among You, Me, and All the

Dont Ask, Dont Tell

101

Other Ostriches. In Gender and Thought, ed. Mary Crawford and Margaret
Gentry, 7999. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Dolan, Jill. 1998. Out On Campus. Academe 84(5): 4046.
Donovan, Michelle A., Fritz Drasgow, and Liberty J. Munson. 1998. The Perceptions of Fair Interpersonal Treatment Scale: Development and Validation of
a Measure of Interpersonal Treatment in the Workplace. Journal of Applied
Psychology 83(5): 68392.
Essed, Philomena. 1990. Everyday Racism: Reports from Women of Two Cultures.
Claremont, CA: Hunter House.
Frable, Deborrah, Linda Platt, and S. Hoey. 1998. Concealable Stigmas and
Positive Self-Perceptions: Feeling Better Around Similar Others. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology 74(4): 90922.
Gagnon, John, Suzanne Keller, Ronald Lawson, Patricia Miller, William Simon,
and Joan Huber. 1982. Report of the American Sociological Associations Task
Group on Homosexuality. The American Sociologist 17: 16480.
Goffman, Erving. 1963. Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identities.
Englewood-Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Herek, Gregory. M. 1993. Documenting Prejudice against Lesbians and Gay Men
on Campus: The Yale Sexual Orientation Survey. Journal of Homosexuality
25: 1530.
Johnson, Jocelyn J., and Cherita L. McIntye. 1998. Organizational Culture and
Climate Correlates of Job Satisfaction. Psychological Reports 82(3): 84350.
Keller, Evelyn Fox. 1984. Reflections on Gender and Science. New Haven, CT:
Yale University Press.
LaSala, Michael C., David A. Jenkins., Darrell P. Wheeler, and Karen I. Fredriksen-Goldsen. 2008. LGBT Faculty, Research, and Researchers: Risks and
Rewards. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services 20(3): 25367.
Liddle, Becky J., Mark A. Kunkel, Sherry L. Kick, and Anita L. Hauenstein. 1998.
The Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Psychology Faculty Experience. Teaching of
Psychology 25(1): 1925.
, Darrell A. Luzzo, Anita L. Hauenstein, and Kelly Schuck. 2004. Construction and Validation of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered Climate
Inventory. Journal of Career Assessment 12(1): 3350.
Mays, Vickie, and Susan Cochran. 2001. Mental Health Correlates of Perceived
Discrimination among Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Adults in the United States.
American Journal of Public Health 91(11): 186976.
McKinney, James S. 2005. On the Margins: A Study of the Experiences of Transgender College Students. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Issues in Education 3(1):
6376.
McNaron, Toni A. H. 1997. Poisoned Ivy: Lesbian and Gay Faculty Confronting
Homophobia. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Morawski, Jill G, ed. 1988. The Rise of Experimentation in American Psychology.
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Noack, Kerry Wayne. 2004. An Assessment of the Campus Climate for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Persons as Perceived by the Faculty, Staff and
Administration at Texas A&M University. PhD diss., Texas A&M University.
Accessed 29 April 2009. <http://txspace.tamu.edu>.

102

Diana Bilimoria and Abigail J. Stewart

Popper, Karl. 1959. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Hutchinson.

Ragins, Belle R., and J. M. Cornwell. 2001. Pink Triangles: Antecedents and
Consequences of Perceived Workplace Discrimination against Gay and Lesbian
Employees. Journal of Applied Psychology 86: 124461.
. 2007. We are Family: The Influence of Gay Family-Friendly Policies on
Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Employees. In Sexual Orientation Discrimination: An International Perspective, ed. M. V. Lee Badgett and Jefferson Frank,
10517. London: Routledge.
Rankin, Susan R. 2003. Campus Climate for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender People: A National Perspective. New York: The National Gay and
Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute.
. 2007. Campus Climate for Sexual Minorities. In Sexual Orientation
Discrimination: An International Perspective, ed. M. V. Lee Badgett and
Jefferson Frank, 23652. London: Routledge.
Russ, Travis L., Cheri J. Simonds, and Stephen K. Hunt. 2002. Coming Out in the
Classroom ... An Occupational Hazard? The Influence of Sexual Orientation
on Teacher Credibility and Perceived Student Learning. Communication
Education 51(3): 31124.
Schein, Edgar H. 1992. Organizational Culture and Leadership. 2nd ed. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Sears, James T. 2002. The Institutional Climate for Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual
Education Faculty: What Is the Pivotal Frame of Reference? Journal of Homosexuality 43(1): 1137.
Settles, Isis H., Lilia M. Cortina, Janet E. Malley, and Abigail J. Stewart. 2006.
The Climate for Women in Academic Science: The Good, the Bad, and the
Changeable. Psychology of Women Quarterly 30: 4758.
, Lilia M. Cortina, Abigail J. Stewart, and Janet E. Malley. 2007. Voice
Matters: Buffering the Impact of a Negative Climate for Women in Science.
Psychology of Women Quarterly 31: 27081.
Shields, Stephanie A. 2008. Gender: An Intersectional Perspective. Sex Roles
59: 30111.
Silverschanz, Perry, Lilia M. Cortina, Julie Konik, and Vicki Magley. 2008. Slurs,
Snubs, and Queer Jokes: Incidence and Impact of Heterosexist Harassment in
Academia. Sex Roles 58: 17991.
Smith, Charles P. 1992. Motivation and Personality: Handbook of Thematic
Content Analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Stewart, Abigail J., Janet E. Malley, and Danielle LaVaque-Manty, eds. 2007. Transforming Science and Engineering: Advancing Academic Women. Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan Press.
Sue, Derald Wing, Christina M. Capodilupo, Gina C. Torino, Jennifer M. Bucceri,
Aisha M. B. Holder, Kevin L. Nadal, and Marta Esquilin. 2007. Racial Micro
aggressions in Everyday Life. American Psychologist 62(4): 27186.
Taylor, Verta, and Nicole C. Raeburn. 1995. Identity Politics as High-Risk Activism: Career Consequences for Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Sociologists. Social
Problems 42(2): 25273.
The National Academies. 2006. Beyond Bias and Barriers: Fulfilling the Potential
of Women in Academic Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: National
Academies Press.

Dont Ask, Dont Tell

103

The National Science Foundation ADVANCE Program. Accessed 29 April 2009.

<http://www.advance.nsf.gov>.
Tomlinson, Merideth J., and Ruth E. Fassinger. 2003. Career Development,
Lesbian Identity Development, and Campus Climate among Lesbian College
Students. Journal of College Student Development 44(6): 84560.
Toynton, Robert. 2007. The De-Representation of Science and Queer Science
Students in Higher Education within the Queer/Gay Discourse. Teaching in
Higher Education 12(5/6): 593605.
Weber, Lynn. 1998. A Conceptual Framework for Understanding Race, Class,
Gender, and Sexuality. Psychology of Women Quarterly 22: 1332.
Wright, Anne. L., Leslie A. Schwindt, Tamsen L. Bassford, Valerie F. Reyna, Catherine M. Shisslak, Patricia. A. St. Germain, and Kathryn L. Reed. 2003. Gender
Differences in Academic Advancement: Patterns, Causes, and Potential
Solutions in One U.S. College of Medicine. Academic Medicine 78(5): 50008.
Xie, Yu, and Kimberly Shauman. 2003. Women in Science: Career Processes and
Outcomes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Yoshino, Kenji. 2006. Covering: The Hidden Assault on Our Civil Rights. New
York: Random House.