Broadening Diversity in Science,Technology,Engineering,and Mathematics (STEM) Through Gender and 2SLGBTQ+ Equity

“Courage is as contagious as fear”

—Susan Sontag (1933–2004)

Large gaps exist in gender parity and equity in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) fields worldwide. In the United States, women are underrepresented throughout higher education. In certain STEM fields (computer science, engineering, mathematics, and physical sciences), women account for only 38% of bachelor's degrees (Charlesworth and Banaji, 2019). From 2000 to 2015, the representation of women has actually decreased in computer science. Gender gaps in STEM begin early in middle and high school, and persist in the academic workforce where disparities are pronounced, and particularly in senior leadership positions.

In June issue of OMICS, Yosr Hamdi, Nicola Mulder, and Sonia Abdelhak make a timely contribution to the literature. They analyze and reflect on gender parity and equity in STEM, with attention to systems science. Importantly, they expand our gaze beyond North America and examine some of the hitherto overlooked gaps in gender equity affecting women scientists in Africa; the ways in which gendered disparities are further accentuated with the COVID-19 pandemic; and suggest possible solutions going forward. In addition, they highlight the emerging frontiers of systems science such as digital transformation, automation, the rise of cyber-physical systems, and the concept of Industry 4.0 where gender parity and equity are crucial.

We have much work to do for diversity and democracy in science, technology, and innovation, however. We need to think beyond heteronormativity and the gender binary (Joel, 2019), so transgender, nonbinary, and 2SLGBTQ+ scientists are well represented in science, health research, and society. Heteronormativity refers to societal and cultural biases, conscious or unconscious, which privileges heterosexuality, ignoring diversity and continuum in sexual orientation, and assuming all people are heterosexual.

2SLGBTQ+ stands for Two-Spirit, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and questioning; the plus sign acknowledges many other identities that are not covered in the acronym such as pansexual and asexual and that those identities are valid as well (see for further reading, Carrier et al., 2020; Hinsliff, 2019; Joel, 2019; Özdemir, 2021a; Rosenberg, 2018). Two-Spirit captures Indigenous individuals who identify as gay or lesbian, transgender, or occupy multiple gender categories and sexualities. It is important to note that Two-Spirit is not an all-encompassing term for Indigenous people in the LGBTQ community, however, as individuals must choose to adopt any gender-based term for themselves.

We live in an age of massive disinformation and post-truth (Springer and Özdemir, 2022). It is noteworthy in this context that social construction of heterosexuality, assumed as a universal norm, has thus far escaped critical analyses. In 1901, Dorland's Medical Dictionary referred to heterosexuality as an “abnormal or perverted appetite toward the opposite sex.” For readers who might want to read on “invention of heterosexuality,” we refer to the following BBC piece (Ambrosino, 2017).

Scholars, funders, and leaders in STEM ought to acknowledge that women's rights and 2SLGBTQ+ rights are human rights, and that diversity is a sine qua non (cannot do without) on principled, normative, and ethical grounds as well as practically. Achieving diversity in STEM means institutions in science will thrive better, creative ideas and innovations come to fruition in a robust manner.

In an interview on the LGBTQ+ STEM Day on November 18, Kyle Shanebeck notes, “queer people, people of color, people with disabilities, and other minorities bring lived experience and ways of thinking that are unique, which strengthens a team. We are resilient, hard-working, and creative because you must be to overcome inequalities. We are valuable not because we fulfill a diversity quota, but because we have perspectives and experience that cis/straight people do not.” (Q&A, 2021).

Sometimes, our best friends, neighbors, colleagues, families, and workplaces can be homophobic, sexist, xenophobic, or a NIMBY (an acronym for “Not In My Backyard,”) and lack the necessary critical gaze to advocate for inclusion and equity in STEM. An adequate knowledge of critical social sciences and humanities, and political theory are enormously important in this regard, and useful to understand and respond to such intersectional, structural, systemic, historical, and current social injustices (hooks, 2014).

OMICS has advocated for democratization of science and diversity in STEM and the importance of feminist conceptual lenses in study of emerging frontiers such as digital transformation (Özdemir, 2021b). We also need to adopt an intersectional conceptual lens (Crenshaw, 1989; hooks, 2014) and work across the board in support of universal human rights so we fight sexism, racism, homophobia, xenophobia, colonialism, class-based discrimination or commodification of planetary public goods such as air, water, and ecosystems that are currently putting planetary sustainability, social justice, and peace greatly at risk.

Finally, we shall mention that diverse publics and minorities do not want to be treated with tokenism. What minorities in STEM and society need is not pity nor to be others' feel-good stories. What they want is, among other things, dignity, autonomy, self-determination, and equal rights protected by constitution (Özdemir, 2021b). Although we advocate for diversity and inclusion here, we recognize that such efforts are often not enough in the context of institutional settings. Not because those who sit on such committees within universities do not believe in these principles, but rather because they are operating within the constrained parameters of a hierarchical institutional framework that risks tokenism at every conceivable turn.

In this sense we should be compelled to go a step further toward a liberationist perspective, wherein academics would seek to disassemble existing institutional structures that were from their outset designed to reinforce patriarchal, heteronormative, and indeed white supremacist ideas, and work to reconstruct them in ways that serve the broadest remit of our communities. To live into the promise of equity, the desire for diversity and inclusion must mean more than simply shuffling a stacked deck so that we might draw a better hand. Instead, we must be willing to do the difficult work of questioning and unpacking the game itself so that we are better positioned to rewrite its rules.

We welcome your new articles in systems science for peer review in OMICS. We also recommend the article by Hamdi and colleagues in this issue to readers interested in gender parity and equity in STEM specifically, and social justice in global science and society more broadly.