Introduction

A paucity of research exists on sexual and gender minority (SGM) topics in STEM. In particular, the experiences and perspectives of SGM STEM teachers in K12 education are noticeably absent. If students are interested in STEM, but they cannot learn more about it, or succeed at it, they may lose interest (Cech 2015). One evidence-based way to counter this is to improve representation (Steele 2011). That is, increase the number of individuals from SGM backgrounds in STEM fields, including STEM education. The lack of representation and attrition of these individuals has been a concern to SGM scholars and their allies throughout the world (Freeman 2018). Non-dominant individuals in STEM have reported discrimination (Dave 2019; Cech and Pham 2017), gender inequality (Fouad et al. 2016), stereotype threat (Steele 2011), and poor work performance (Li and Nagar 2013).

The term K12 refers to primary and secondary education in the United States (U.S.) K12 education begins in kindergarten and ends in grade 12 when students are typically around the age of 18. Demographic data rarely include sexual and gender minorities. As a result, SGM people are statistically underrepresented (Freeman 2020). Representation and visibility of SGM people vary depending on the STEM field (Downen and Olcott 2023) and country (Ipsos, 2024). A search of PsycINFO and education research complete databases using the terms LGBT* and STEM yields approximately 60 results in each database. The acronym LGBT stands for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender. Along with the acronym SGM, the acronym LGBT is also used in this article. Of these 120 studies, very few of them examine how and why SGM individuals study, persist, and advocate in K12 STEM education if they become teachers. Thus, considering a phenomenological approach which aims to describe and understand the fundamental nature (eidos) of a phenomenon, we developed and conducted a qualitative study to examine this phenomenon more closely. Our guiding question was: “What are the lived experiences of SGM STEM teachers in K12 education?”

The absence of data on the prevalence of SGM persons teaching in primary and secondary STEM education is problematic. For example, without this data it is difficult to discern if pedagogical practices could be improved based upon the experiences of SGM people in STEM. Additionally, it is not possible to compare research findings in a cross-national context because no findings exist. Our study, therefore, sets the stage to do this. More knowledge about the experiences of SGM teachers in STEM to inform practice, both in- and outside of the U.S., can help improve STEM training and education for SGM individuals and others in STEM (Akinci-Ceylan 2021; Henri et al. 2023; Mau and Li 2018; Pain 2017). Structural stigma faced by SGM people in STEM is high (Hughes 2018). SGM scientists have reported being harassed and discriminated against when conducting fieldwork in countries with anti-LGBT policies (e.g., Uganda) (Atchison 2021; Downen and Olcott 2023; HUREED 2023).

Yoder and Mattheis (2016) found that despite more inclusion in the LGBT community, some LGBT STEM teachers continue to remain closeted even though they could serve as positive role models by being out. They remain closeted due to lack of acceptance and thwarted belonginess, and their psychological and social well-being may be compromised over time (Frost 2020). Closetedness also results from working in schools with unclear or hostile policies (Barres et al. 2017). In nations with negative laws, for example, SGM people will conceal their true sexual orientation and gender identity, the latter of which is related to masculinity which is often prized over femininity (Bejerano and Bartosh 2015; Simon et al. 2017). Identities that do not represent typical masculine gender norms in STEM are more likely to be censored (Danielsson et al. 2023). This dynamic tends to occur in climates with fewer people regardless of gender who are willing to challenge the status quo (Bejerano and Bartosh 2015).

Theoretical framework

Identity Behavior Theory (IBT; Simons 2021a) served as the theoretical foundation for our study. IBT extends social cognitive theory (SCT; Lent, Brown and Hackett 1994) to focus on strengths and behaviors which is helpful when studying those who have been historically marginalized (Simons 2021a). IBT has been used to study educator advocacy for gender minority students (Simons 2021b), marketing practices (Weathers et al. 2023), experiences of sexual minority teachers and queer men (Carley 2023), STEM achievement, responsible financial and environmental behavior (Lučić and Uzelac 2024; Hazel 2023), internship satisfaction (Feng et al. 2023), vocational identity behavior (Thole 2023), academic success among military members (Groll 2023), and terrorism (Shabout 2023). Our study advances the application of IBT to study STEM achievement, STEM advocacy, and experiences of sexual minority teachers and queer men.

IBT posits that a need exists to examine the experiences of minorities to better predict and promote how to best train K12 STEM educators to work with SGM and other non-dominant students. IBT is focused on examining the experiences and behavior(s) of individuals in relationship to attitudes toward STEM, well-being/personal strength, support, and STEM identity (Fig. 1). Attitudes toward STEM are defined as one’s tendency to view participation in STEM either favorably or unfavorably. Support is defined as one’s perception of being supported by others in STEM. Well-being is defined as one’s ability to advocate either successfully or unsuccessfully for self or others in STEM. Recognizing the influence of intersectionality, all significant identities of interviewees were explored in the context of STEM identity as defined by the degree to which one subscribes to being a STEM person.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Applying IBT to Examine the Lived Experiences of LGBTQ + K12 STEM Teachers.

Full size image

Methodology

Our pluralistic directed phenomenological study (Giorgi 1985; Smith and Osborne 2008) using consensual qualitative research (CQR; Hill et al. 2005) involved interviewing participants to examine the essence of their lived experiences and behaviors in STEM considering attitudes, identity, social support, and well-being. CQR is a favorable method for examining topics that are complex such as the expectations of a STEM teacher (American Psychological Association 2015); CQR pays heed to interviewees’ experiences while identifying commonalities across all of them (Hill and Knox 2021).

SGM K12 STEM educators participated in life course story interviews facilitated using a semi-structured interview protocol (Appendix A). Semi-structured interviews combine both the unstructured and structured interview styles and allow for gathering data that will be analyzed using both undefined and pre-defined codes (Drummond et al. 2019). Participants also completed an identity map (Appendix B) and STEM lifeline (Appendix C). Use of identity mapping helps participants to identify and reflect on social identities to parse out meaning tied to those identities and positionality (Jacobson and Mustafa 2019). Use of lifeline activities helps participants to recall life events and to reflect during interviews (Gray and Dagg 2018).

Our findings provided insights which illuminated how SGM STEM teachers facilitated inclusive STEM education with students. As a team, we held bi-monthly meetings to review findings and to work toward achieving consensus considering all interview data.

We identified the meaning of the teachers’ responses both in- and outside of IBT from the interview response data (Strauss and Corbin 1998). A directed approach requires that codes are defined before and during data analysis data (Mayring 2000). Data were coded using open coding techniques. Initial codes were derived from IBT to allow for measurement of average occurrence of the interview (Simons 2021a). Considering pluralism, additional codes were identified as part of analysis (Clarke et al. (2015)). All interviewees consented to participate. Interview protocols were developed by STEM education experts comprising two educational psychologists, a developmental psychologist, a counselor educator, a biologist, and a vocational psychologist.

Life course story interviews are conducted by researchers who recognize the role of culture and study the interactions between self and society as part of the identity-making process (Erikson 1968; Hammack 2005; Rogers 2018). Culture influences narrative self-development; a process known as “co-authorship” of personal identity (McLean 2016). Life course stories play an important role in the lives of many members of the LGBT community (Hammack and Cohler 2011), and, for example, an individual’s coming out story is usually a heroic tale, considered deeply personal and meaningful (Simons and Cuadrado 2019; Weststrate 2022). Life course story questions used to interview the SGM K12 STEM teachers addressed the trajectory of STEM life course (5 items); salient identities tied to STEM identity (5 items); perception of STEM, STEM relationships, and STEM cultures (4 items); challenges, stress, and coping (14 items); social and historical moments in STEM (3 items); STEM advocacy for self and others (13 items); and (7) STEM goals. Procedures for the storage of data and for maintaining confidentiality were established. As part of the coding process, members of the research team compared keyword and code definitions. By the tenth interview we agreed that saturation of knowledge was met because similar themes during interviews 8, 9, and 10 were identified (Bertaux 1981).

Research team

The research team comprised a counselor educator (a cisgender European American heterosexual male), two educational psychologists (a cisgender Czech heterosexual female and a gender non-conforming American European gay male), a developmental psychologist (a cisgender American heterosexual female), a biology professor (a cisgender Chilean gay male), and a vocational psychology expert (a cisgender European American heterosexual male). All team members had expertise conducting LGBT and STEM research. The lead researcher kept a field notes journal and asked for feedback throughout the coding process and presentation of data, including the impact of research bias on study findings.

Participants

We used purposeful sampling to recruit ten participants in different regions of the U.S. The age of participants ranged from 24 to 58. The teachers’ mean age was 38.60 (SD = 10.48). All the interviewees identified as SGM K12 STEM educators. See Table 1 for demographic data. All identified as sexual minorities: one (10%) as pansexual, two (20%) as bisexual, two (20%) as lesbian, four (40%) as gay, and one (10%) as queer. Regarding race and ethnicity, eight (80%) identified as Caucasian, one (10%) identified as Hispanic, and one (10%) identified as bi-ethnic (Caucasian and Hispanic). Two (22%) identified as first-generation college students. All the reported working full-time from one to 23 years with an average of 11 years. Seven (78%) were tenured. All teachers possessed a STEM advocacy identity based on a STEM advocacy definition. Three (30%) reported that the definition was about halfway true of myself, three (30%) reported it was mostly true of myself, and four (40%) reported it was true of myself. Two (22%) received STEM advocacy training as part of preservice education, and six (67%) received this training as part of continuing education.

Table 1 Participant Data.
Full size table

Management of data

After receipt of institutional review board approval by the lead author’s institution, the first author interviewed participants. The interview began with a focus on prior academic experiences, followed by discussion about career and job experiences. At the end of the interview (90–150 minutes) participants were asked to clarify responses and reflect on their participation. Interviews were recorded using Zoom conference software. Interview data were externally transcribed. Interviewers strove to provide a nonevaluative space so that interviewees would be more likely to share openly and honestly.

Trustworthiness of data and process of coding

We bracketed our assumptions and identified biases about the lives of the SGM K12 STEM educators prior to the collection of data, during data analysis, and before and after each research team meeting. (Kirn et al. 2019). When assumptions and biases are bracketed as part of phenomenological research this indicates that they have been identified as important to studying phenomena. As such, researchers reviewed verbatim statements for relevance to SGM STEM experiences and STEM pedagogy. Key meaning units were recorded and organized into themes. The lead researcher took notes about the process of research (Corbin and Strauss 2008). First, we conducted horizontal analysis on individual interview data to group key statements into meaning units. Second, we developed an electronic codebook to list themes with descriptions for all to review. Members of the team independently analyzed interviews to identify significant codes and text statements. To examine the frequency and quality of data analysis, the team met every two weeks. The most common bias present in the data was a belief that SGM K12 STEM teachers pursued a STEM career path because of negotiation their LGBT identity as they came of age. This bias was present throughout the coding process; however, it was discovered that this was not the case for all interviewees.

Results and Discussion

After interviews with the K12 STEM teachers were coded, the following themes were identified: (1) advocacy for self and others in STEM with SGM identity (e.g., coping to manage stress); (2) challenges both as a SGM person and as a SGM STEM educator; and (3) recommendations for implementing inclusive STEM education as important implications. See Table 2 for SGM STEM life course story experience themes by IBT ___domain and frequency across all participants. Seemingly, even if SGM individuals were found to persist through the negative effects heteronormativity and heterosexism within STEM education and training, they were also found to encounter similar, if not greater, forms of disadvantage later as K12 STEM teachers. As such, SGM K12 STEM teachers have a unique place from which to develop and utilize best practices for STEM inclusion.

Table 2 LGBTQ + STEM Life Story Experience Themes by IBT Domain and Frequency Across All Participants Excerpts (N = 198).
Full size table

Being closeted in STEM

Of the 10 SGM teachers committed to STEM advocacy, only 5 shared about being SGM in STEM. These educators appeared unable or unwilling to draw a connection between being SGM and being a K12 STEM educator. Bee, Amy, and Blue talked about closetedness in STEM being prominent among SGM individuals because of lack of resources, peer support, and role models. The most reported coping strategy was to conceal sexual orientation to others.

We suspected that SGM K12 STEM teachers would be more likely to be out because they worked in STEM; however, this was not the case (Polderman et al. 2018; Rinaldi 2022). Choosing to be out at work or school appears to remain a highly personal decision (Simons 2019; Simons et al. 2021). Bee, a 24-year-old White female science teacher, stayed in the closet even though she attended an undergraduate institution where inclusion and respect were common. This did not matter. She expanded, “I’m closeted about my LGBT status because of the pushback from the community and the, the kind of misconceptions that people can have.” She is dire about ever coming out: “One, because (…) I know that people are going to respect the work that I do a little less (…), and two, I don’t necessarily think I want that part of my identity to become my only identity”.

In our study, Amy, a 27-year-old White pansexual female math teacher, worried about the future of her out SGM STEM students, many of whom had already planned to stay in the closet throughout the course of their STEM careers. When Blue was a STEM student, he lived a double life. When interacting with his SGM friends, he was out, but when interacting with non-SGM friends, he was not.

SGM K12 STEM teacher experience

Bee, Blue, Chuy, Amy, Renee talked about their experiences as SGM STEM teachers. Bee considered her advocacy identity core to her identity as bisexual. She shared, “I treat my SGM students like I want to be treated, which is with respect.” Blue, a 35-year-old White gay male tenured science teacher, stated that his SGM identity was related to learning about his sexuality in school and when he gained access to the Internet. For Blue, this was tied to working at the intersection of creativity and STEM (Herrera Valderrábano et al. 2021). Stirratt et al. (2008) defined intersectionality as “the idea that the crossing of multiple forms of oppression with regard to gender, race/ethnicity, class, sexuality, etc. that produces distinct sets of perspectives and consequences among individuals” (p. 90). Blue also talked about creativity. He shared, “If my passion for being an advocate was taken out of the [creativity] equation, I really think (…) I wouldn’t have been a teacher.” Chuy, a 44-year-old White gay male tenured technology teacher had a different experience. For Chuy, development of his SGM and advocacy identities was connected to an exaggerated sense of manliness in Mexico. He disclosed:

I was in Mexico, so the gay [part affected me]. I would get treated differently or have students mock me. But it would stop when they would [ask] who can tutor us or (…) give me the answers, and that was me.

We will now review the role of STEM identity in conjunction with SGM identity.

SGM STEM identity

Blue realized that he was different from a young age and learned how to manage it. He realized that to become a scientist would mean that he would have to learn how to problem solve—even if some findings were not significant. He explained:

[Why] I wanted to get into the field of science, you know, was my sexual orientation. (….) I think sixth grade is when I kind of knew. I thought it was fate. I knew that I was gay. (….) I had a great science teacher who basically just sparked my interest. And I remember, I was like, Whoa, why am I the way that I am? You know? (….) So, I think that was the spark.

When asked about being a STEM educator in the SGM community, Amy shared, “My sexuality doesn’t really come up all that often.” Similarly, Renee, a 58-year-old White queer female science and technology teacher, said that she had not given it much thought; however, she wished she had. The reasons, however, for this were unclear to her, but some researchers have said it is due to the complexity of identity development (Stirratt et al. 2008). Chuy, like Blue, felt different in STEM stating:

There’s not a lot of LGBT people that go the STEM route. So, when I’m with my [LGBT] friends, I’m seen like an oddball. (…) Sometimes my friends will be talking about things that I don’t know and I’m feeling left out. (….) Honestly, I don’t have any other friends that are gay and have gone [my] route.

Renee’s STEM educator identity was influenced by her lesbian identity:

It is my personality because again, that feisty side of me is probably more prominent than discussing, you know, sexuality or being female. I think it’s my personality, but obviously my personality has those components. I am me, you know, lesbian female.

Role of gender in STEM

For Bee and Renee, the experience of being female, not lesbian, was more important. It was difficult for Bee be out as a lesbian because she felt that being out was unwise. Therefore, she was more inclined to talk about being female. Similarly, Bee shared:

I am more than willing to, um, advocate for myself as a woman in STEM and, um, you know, put that part of my identity at the forefront. But as far as my sexual identity goes, I know that (…) people would have very negative responses.

Renee found it easier to talk about being female in STEM versus being a lesbian in STEM. What she would say is: “You know, there weren’t teachers like me when I was younger. (….) [There] weren’t as many females in STEM.” She is now implicitly out to students about her queer lesbian identity and prioritizes female leadership. Relatedly, Amy teaches her students about the accomplishments of females in STEM. She also tries to recruit teacher colleagues who are interested in SGM issues in STEM. Ormand et al. (2022) thinks this is positive so teachers take time to meet in groups to discuss inclusion.

Amy explained:

I hope that in the future that there could be a larger presence to maybe find alternate viewpoints about how to address the needs of students who (…) may not get the same opportunities as heterosexual people. And, I hope to strengthen that core group of educators to [do this].

Amy also talked about gender and STEM. She believed that a lack of representation of SGM people in STEM was particularly related to a lack of females in STEM. A review of the research literature supports this (Bucholtz 2014; Henri et al. 2023).

Bucholtz (2014) reviewed feminist perspectives on the topic in conjunction with language use highlighting the works of Baker (2005) and Koller (2008). Both researchers have written about the need for better representation of all females including those who identify as lesbian. Henri et al. (2023) reported STEM texts do not adequately represent females and gender non-binary individuals. Foster (2018) citing the UK Institution of Engineering and Technology’s study with 13–23-year-olds found only 26% of girls wanted to pursue a STEM career versus 43% of boys. Approximately 29% of SGM respondents dismissed a STEM career because of discrimination. Amy expanded:

When you think about learning about different subjects, you learn about all the all the big scientists and all the big mathematicians and most of them are men. And so, it’s been something that I’ve been working on, acknowledging women. With the International Women’s Day recently, there was a lot of discussion about strong women in STEM. [I am] just taking pride in all the advancements that women have made because I feel like sometimes they get overlooked.

Amy added that STEM conferences do not often include sexuality as much as gender and race: “The conferences that I’ve attended are extremely diverse, whether it’s gender or race, but not so much with sexuality.” She routinely felt othered as a pansexual:

I haven’t really encountered other pansexual STEM educators, but there is a small, percentage at my current school of some other LGBT identifying educators. (….) I sometimes feel a little underrepresented [along with] homosexual STEM educators. I don’t see many bisexual STEM educators [either]. Maybe it’s just something that doesn’t come up as often. Maybe it’s one of those identifiers that isn’t as prominent.

Challenges as a SGM individuals in STEM

Bullying

Blue and Chuy reported being bullied. Blue was bullied for being gay and did not know how to cope. Chuy was bullied because of his appearance. He coped, as aforementioned, by helping his bullies with their homework by being the “smart kid.” He reflected:

I was bullied for being a little feminine and short, but then kids would see that I was able to (…) help with their homework or (…) the exams. (….) So, I did get treated differently [even by teachers].

Resources

Blue, Renee, and Amy reported not having supportive resources that they needed. Blue could not find information about being gay. Renee did not have female queer community nor technology to use as a resource during puberty and adolescence. Amy shared:

I really don’t remember there being campaigns anywhere, anything in schools discussing underrepresented minorities and getting them access to resources, whether they were STEM or not. Compared to now, I see much more going on.

Challenge as teacher

Beyond the challenge of feeling different and inferior because of lack of representation or resources, Chuy talked about teaching:

The assistant principal in my second year gave me calculus and there were 19 other teachers with me [and] 17 were male. There were only two females, and I was seen as this gay guy taking over and that I wasn’t maybe manly enough to be up there teaching high level mathematics. They tried to make my life a little bit, well, hell. I think they started seeing the results of kids saying, “Oh yeah,” and the kids [were] coming back saying thank you. I started earning respect little by little, but it was challenging.

Implications: STEM educator advocacy recommendations

Of the limited amount of SGM K12 STEM education research, much of it is on inclusive practices in STEM (Cicero and Wesp 2017; Downen and Olcott 2023; Wright and Delgado 2023). Consequently, we also asked teachers how they implemented inclusive STEM educational practices. We will now report on these practice recommendations noting that at this nascent stage findings should be interpreted with caution and readers should be encouraged not to jump to conclusions. They should draw out implications themselves. We, therefore, call for scholars to do more empirical research in this area. Bee, Chuy, Blue, and Renee thought the following areas were important to inclusive STEM education: degree of outness; adequacy of power and resources; perception of equitable support; and level of knowledge about how to best advocate. Regarding the decision to be out or not, Bee recommended talking to students about the benefits of coming out, and learning how all students learn the best (e.g., hands on learning). Bee also shared about having and displaying sensitive attitudes toward gender diverse students:

I’m able to be a little more sensitive to the identities of my students because I am aware of the struggles that people like me [have] undergone. [For example,] they may prefer to be called by a different name or they may have different pronouns.

Chuy advised a Gay Straight Alliance (GSA) and the math club at the same time. As such, SGM students and their allies were exposed to STEM and SGM topics simultaneously. Non-SGM students would learn from SGM students about how to dispel common negative stereotypes about SGM people. Chuy shared, “Now, I have the president of the GSA [who is] wants to become a math teacher. And, I have four girls on the math team.”

Like Chuy, Blue advised a GSA, but also offered professional development training. He reflected, “We had a transgender student (…) and the staff didn’t really understand. So, I did a little workshop on LGBT topics, including gender dysphoria.” Chuy invited LGBT community leaders to the school. The leaders presented on what it meant to live a productive life as a LGBT person. Both Chuy and Blue worked in school settings where they could facilitate these events; however, not all teachers can do this. They work in communities where events like this are prohibited. Herrera Valderrábano et al. (2021) have recommended getting civil society organizations involved. These organizations support social causes through conducting research, participating in community events, and litigating and lobbying to influence school and public policy. Educators may also encourage students to talk about LGBT issues to staff in their schools (Herrera Valderrábano et al. 2021).

Having knowledge of resources either to utilize as a teacher or share with others is recommended. Chuy kept a list of organizations to help SGM youth (e.g., The Network in El Paso). Renee routinely reviewed SGM professional development resources. Cicero and Wesp (2017) have recommended the following resources in their paper on transgender students: the Beyond Gender Project, Gender Spectrum, GLSEN, the National Center for Transgender Equity, the National LGBT Health Education Center, Trans Lifeline, the UCSF Center of Excellence for Transgender Health, and the World Professional Association of Transgender Health. We recommend the Family Acceptance Project (Ryan et al. 2010) and the Transgender Resilience Project (www.transgenderresilienceproject.com). Preston Agiro et al. (2015) recommends Teaching Tolerance’s “Gender Doesn’t Limit You” curriculum and Critical Theory Today: A User-Friendly Guide by Lois Tyson. See Table 3 for even more recommended resources.

Table 3 LGBQT + K12 Inclusive STEM Education Recommendations.
Full size table

Limitations

Our study had several limitations including self-selection bias: participants may have chosen to be in the study based upon their experiences and values. Next, our sample size was small (N = 10). As a result, our findings are tentative because they are not perfectly generalizable to other STEM populations, but they add preliminary knowledge to our understanding of the lived experiences and STEM advocacy efforts among K12 SGM STEM educators. The findings offer a glimpse into conducting qualitative research considering Identity Behavior Theory to understand how and why SGM individuals become K12 educators in STEM, cope with minority stress, and utilize STEM advocacy recommendations. This sets the stage for ongoing related research. Future studies should consider refinement of STEM advocacy in K12 education as a construct and involve larger and more diverse samples of school stakeholders. For example, considering the phenomenological goal to identify some kind of shared experience (the essence of a phenomenon), we could identify a homogenous LGBT school stakeholder group (e.g., only individuals who identify as lesbian) that can experience a particular STEM phenomenon differently.

In our study, our participant group was diverse, which is good for other qualitative approaches like this, and the way that LGBT was conceptualized was as an ideological umbrella term (in a good way) of people with a similar agenda, if not experiences, who possess SGM and STEM identities. Nonetheless, it might be plausible for researchers to consider if the experiences of pansexual, bisexual, or queer informants are similar to those of gay or lesbians, for example. Next, in future studies researchers may wish to examine other theories tied to STEM advocacy beyond IBT (Simons 2021a). Przybyla-Kuchek et al. (2022) have proposed using feminist post-structural discourse analysis.

Conclusion

Our qualitative research findings confirm complexities and stressors associated with being in STEM as a SGM person. The definition of multiculturalism does not always include SGM people (Pope 1995), yet SGM people are present in, and contribute to, STEM, along with other minoritized groups such as females who have come to play a significant role in advocating for SGM people. Our study is an interesting piece of original research which has explored an under-researched area and hence has the potential to make an important contribution to knowledge. Not all members of the LGBT community are out in STEM. As such, we believe our research provides some valuable and interesting, though small scale, data on SGM teachers in STEM. Like our interviewees, we encourage our readers to also reflect on the recommendations to promote more inclusion in STEM for all students.

We are grateful for the SGM K12 STEM educators who participated in our study. Their perspectives have been studied less than other STEM areas, and demographic data on SGM people is limited and intentionally restricted (Freeman 2020). If a subgroup of an important community (i.e., STEM) cannot be visible and open in the context of their work, it’s a disservice. Leadership opportunities are missed. Being closeted in STEM may negatively affect the health and well-being of SGM people over the long run and contribute to an educational and public health crisis (Frost 2020).

Holding a SGM identity in STEM is often synonymous with holding a STEM advocacy identity. Although not all SGM interviewees shared about SGM identity as part of STEM life course interviews, all shared about STEM advocacy. Narratives about this advocacy aspect varied greatly but a common theme was present: they knew what it felt like to be othered and wanted to support others who were also experiencing this regardless of background. Our findings have taught us that differences do exist even within subgroups of individuals despite stereotypes and monolithic views. That is, once you have met one SGM K12 STEM educator, you have just met one SGM STEM educator. Consequently, be prepared to ask questions and respect each person where they are at in their STEM life journey. This is how our team approached each STEM life course interview.

The STEM advocacy recommendations identified in the literature and gleamed from the interview data may be helpful. Greater representation and success of minoritized students may result, and, like our interviewees, some of these students may choose to become STEM educators. They too will have the potential to serve as role models, and hopefully will do so in ways that are congruent with their beliefs, interests, and values. Hopefully more SGM STEM educators will be visible in the future and contribute to the ever-evolving diversity in STEM.

SGM and STEM education researchers could help us understand about how and why particular STEM advocacy actions by SGM teachers (e.g., being out) are most effective. SGM K12 STEM teachers must also be supported (in policy, etc.) to feel comfortable and less fearful (Jeffers 2006). We conducted a comprehensive review of the literature pertaining to the development, training, and practice of SGM K12 STEM teachers. In agreement with our findings, a need still exists for more SGM representation in STEM. This remains difficult (due to lack of competence, fear of job loss, etc.) (Beck 2018). Amy, however, remains hopeful things will change. She shared, “I think we can make some changes happen, but it might have to be a change in the community rather than the change in the school itself or even in the classroom. You know, it must happen.” For greater numbers of SGM K12 STEM educators to be out, they will have to learn how to become more comfortable with being uncomfortable. Being out in STEM requires working from a place of non-dominance.

Within the school, teachers may help students explore careers, educational options, and salient identities including SGM identities. Outside the school, they could partner with groups to raise awareness (Herrera Valderrábano et al. 2021). These organizations often offer many ways for researchers to become involved bringing about change ranging from attending events, supporting the research initiatives of others, and lobbying politicians. It is key to find the best way to draw on one’s own skillset to effectively advocate. To begin this process, we encourage educators to reflect over the following questions:

  1. (1)

    How does your personality and school environment affect your ability to lead, promote well-being, and teach and learn?

  2. (2)

    How does your sexual orientation and gender identity play into this?

  3. (3)

    What is working? What is not working? How could you improve? What is missing (e.g., knowledge, skills, opportunity, risk)?

  4. (4)

    Do you need to learn more about your students and colleagues? If so, how could you get this information? What might you do?

It takes time to reflect over questions like these to develop and integrate new STEM advocacy plans. Be patient in the process to identify ways that will work for you, and learn from mistakes.