Developing more nuanced research on and for LGBTQ+ staff

A cisgender gay professor and a queer non-binary early career researcher navigate workplaces in profoundly different ways.

To build policies that genuinely work for all LGBTQ+ staff in higher education institutions (HEIs), we must recognise how collective systems of oppression shape their working lives, and how LGBTQ+ staff themselves resist these pressures, whether through individual acts of refusal, peer support networks, staff LGBTQ+ groups or wider social movements that push back against discrimination. 

At the same time, we need to stay attentive to the fact that LGBTQ+ staff are not a single, uniform group, and their experiences of both oppression and resistance vary across identities, roles and institutional contexts. When we rely on the LGBTQ+ acronym alone, we risk flattening nuance, overlooking the most marginalised voices and missing the structural inequalities that shape people’s lives. 

A meaningful commitment to equity requires moving beyond symbolic inclusion to interrogate how gender, sexuality, race, class, disability and career stage intersect to produce profoundly different workplace realities. Without this deeper attention to complexity, even well-intentioned policies and practices can reproduce the very exclusions they aim to address.

Visibility and social acceptance vary considerably within the LGBTQ+ community, which can allow the experiences of the most privileged to overshadow others. Without disaggregated information, HEIs risk designing LGBTQ+ EDI policies that support the most privileged rather than the most vulnerable.

HEIs currently use several mechanisms to capture LGBTQ+ staff experiences, each with limitations.

1. Athena Swan invites HEIs to report on LGBTQ+ experiences under its expanded 2021 framework. Although it recommends mixed methods, quantitative indicators cannot capture microaggressions, exclusions or fears around safety: experiences that shift across time, place and relationships. Qualitative data is often gathered through focus groups, a method that can inhibit disclosure as LGBTQ+ staff may fear judgement or being outed, especially in small department settings. Dominant voices can overshadow those with intersecting marginalisations, producing a partial account of workplace culture. More confidential, individualised methods led by skilled researchers are essential.

2. Annual staff surveys and HR self-reporting mechanisms also fall short. Many LGBTQ+ staff choose not to disclose their identities because of concerns about confidentiality or identifiability, resulting in data that reflects only those most comfortable in the workplace. These schemes often require staff to fit themselves into predetermined categories that fail to capture the complexity or fluidity of gender and sexuality.

3. External accreditation schemes such as Stonewall’s Proud Employers programme have driven progress, but political backlash has prompted some institutions to withdraw, leading to a loss of data and a rolling-back of LGBTQ+ equalities work.

If understanding the diversity of LGBTQ+ staff experiences is vital but current mechanisms are not fit for purpose, what should HEIs do?

The advice in this article draws on a large qualitative research project exploring LGBTQ+ staff experiences at UCL. 

• Beyond Alan Turing: bringing LGBTQ+ role models into STEM
• What LGBTQ+ allyship means in academia
• Small steps that make a big difference to LGBTQ+ inclusivity

Planning

• Ensure research is designed and carried out by experienced social researchers
• Consult LGBTQ+ networks and EDI teams in the design and implementation
• Secure buy-in from senior leadership and plan pathways to impact at the start of the project
• Adopt an intersectionally inquisitive approach to look within the LGBTQ+ staff body and at how gender and sexuality intersect with other facets of staff identity
• Recognise minority stress and risks involved for LGBTQ+ researchers on topics that may have close personal relevance
• Take steps to mitigate minority stress, for example, by providing supervision for early career researchers and psychological support for research teams
• Read other institutionally focused case studies on LGBTQ+ experience to inform the study design
• Attend carefully to ethics, anonymity, confidentiality and data protection at all stages of the research. 

Sampling and recruitment

• Go beyond existing LGBTQ+ networks to reach more hidden staff populations. Diversify recruitment strategies by targeting institutional staff lists and other equalities networks (eg, race, disability)
• Critically assess whether the sample reflects the potential diversity of LGBTQ+ staff.

Methods

• Allow LGBTQ+ staff to self-identity their gender and sexuality in recruitment, data generation and reporting and avoid imposing normative categories
• Use exploratory interview questions which encourage participants to share experiences that they value
• Offer individual interviews at convenient times to support participant safety and accessibility
• Consider how online versus in-person interviews may affect participation and comfort.

Analysis and reporting

• Attune to the differences within institutional cultures (eg, STEM v humanities; professional services v academic teams) 
• Give participants control over their data, including transcript edits
• Confirm how participants wish to be attributed.

Research built on these principles can significantly improve outcomes for the most marginalised LGBTQ+ staff because it counters the structural and methodological barriers that obscure the differences in their experiences. These inclusive research practices create environments where all LGBTQ+ staff can speak openly and be heard accurately, providing foundations for institutional change that reflects their needs and realities.

Ultimately, recognising diversity within the LGBTQ+ umbrella is not about division but about ensuring that everyone is seen, understood and supported. Without nuanced qualitative data, we cannot know who is thriving, who is struggling, and why.

Emma Jones is a lecturer in education and gender, in the department of curriculum, pedagogy and assessment at UCL. Simon Lock is a professor of science, politics and culture in the department of science and technology studies at UCL.

If you would like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week, sign up for the Campus newsletter.