Queer Questions: LGBTQIA+ Issues Through the Lens of OR/MS Scholars

“I believe that no one should ever have to choose between a career we love and living our lives with authenticity and integrity.”– Selisse Berry, Executive Director, Out & Equal

The Stonewall Riots of June 1969 provided a major impetus for the LGBTQIA+ [1] rights movement in the United States. Ever since, substantial progress has been made in terms of abolishing laws that are discriminatory toward the LGBTQIA+ community, thereby helping LGBTQIA+ individuals to live as their authentic selves. For example, federal laws forbidding consensual homosexual activity have been struck down and same-sex marriage is now legal across the United States. Aside from this progress, LGBTQIA+ individuals still face considerable challenges in various walks of life. For example, until 2016, and then again between January 2019 and March 2021, transgender individuals were banned from serving in the military [2]. Despite the “corporatization” of annual pride parades across the country, there is still no federal law that protects LGBTQIA+ individuals from being discriminated against by business establishments [3]. And a recent event involving the harassment of LGBTQIA+ students at a university housing complex is a troubling reminder of the constant fear and intimidation that the LGBTQIA+ community is often subjected to.

Motivated by such observations and our own unique life experiences, the authors administered a survey to understand the demographics of INFORMS members (particularly with respect to LGBTQIA+ identity) and attempted to identify the distinctive support needs of LGBTQIA+ INFORMS members and their allies. This survey was carried out as a part of the inaugural INFORMS Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) Ambassadors Program. The survey of INFORMS members found that the representation of self-identifying LGBTQIA+ individuals (~17%) is almost three times higher than the U.S. national average (5.6%), though this percentage is likely to be influenced by the self-selection of survey respondents. In terms of the support needs for LGBTQIA+ INFORMS members, it was encouraging to see that ~60% of survey respondents demonstrated an openness toward accessing LGBTQIA+ resources online, with online resources provided by INFORMS being the most popular choice. These online resources provided by INFORMS could take the form of webinars, podcasts, online discussion boards or academic research that attempt to address the challenges faced by the LGBTQIA+ community.

This article discusses the evolving demographic and legal landscape for the LGBTQIA+ community in the U.S. and highlights a need for operations research and management science (OR/MS) scholars to conduct research on LGBTQIA+ issues. Specifically, we present the state of academic research in INFORMS journals that focuses on the distinctive challenges and support needs of LGBTQIA+ individuals and the role played by organizations in either improving or contributing to these challenges. We conclude by identifying future research opportunities in this area, thereby providing OR/MS scholars with a direction to systematically study and address some of the key challenges faced by the LGBTQIA+ community. 

The Evolving Demographic and Legal Landscape for LGBTQIA+ Community

The LGBTQIA+ population is growing in the U.S., with the most recent estimate at 5.6% of the population, which is a substantial increase from the estimate of 3.5% in 2012. The LGBTQIA+ population is also larger for younger generations. Nearly 16% of adult members of Generation Z and 9% of Millennials identify as LGBTQIA+; however, the percentage steadily drops to only 2% of Baby Boomers [5]. In addition, there is a large percent of the population that label themselves as heterosexual but behave or identify outside of heteronormative expectations [6]. Taken together, about 13% of the U.S. population identifies in some way with the LGBTQIA+ community, and this percentage is expected to grow as younger members of Generation Z are captured by surveys.

As the LGBTQIA+ population has grown, public sentiment and the legal landscape have also evolved. High-profile court cases have recognized same-sex marriage, as well as employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, as a form of prohibited sex discrimination. Despite these advances, there are no federal employment, housing, credit and banking, education or public accommodations protections based on sexual orientation or gender identity, and LGBTQIA+ individuals rely on a patchwork of state, county and municipal laws for legal protection [7]. Regardless of whether LGBTQIA+ people live under more legal protections, they have lower educational attainment and higher rates of economic insecurity than the non-LGBTQIA+ community [8]. 

Changing Workplace Environments for LGBTQIA+ Community

Even prior to shifts in broader public sentiment, many corporations formed interest groups and provided additional benefits, such as health insurance for same-sex domestic partnerships and inclusive family leave policies, in an effort to attract and retain employees. Today, 14 of the top 20 Fortune corporations achieve 100 from the Human Rights Campaign Foundation’s Corporate Equality Index, and 73% of Fortune 500 corporations complete surveys to be rated in the index [9].

The patchwork of legal protections for LGBTQIA+ individuals present a challenge to organizations across the U.S., in part due to the protections that they began voluntarily providing to employees. As a result, corporate reactions to anti-LGBTQ laws have been a powerful force for legislative change. For example, the boycotts in response to North Carolina’s anti-trans “bathroom bill” had a $3.76 billion economic impact on the state and ultimately led to repeal of the law [10]. Companies must balance the expectations of pro-LGBTQIA+ employees, customers and other stakeholders with the possible negative repercussions of those actions [11]. 2021 has already seen the highest number of anti-LGBTQ laws enacted in the United States, and more legislation is expected [12]. Despite these strategic and operational challenges faced by corporations in implementing LGBTQIA+ inclusive policies and actions, there has been little academic research, particularly in INFORMS journals, on the drivers and implications of these actions.  

LGBTQIA+ Research in INFORMS Journals and Future Opportunities

In recent years, there has been a growing interest among OR/MS scholars to conduct academic research on DEI-related topics. However, questions pertaining to the distinctive challenges and support needs of LGBTQIA+ individuals have received little attention in INFORMS journals. For example, the virtual special issue of Management Science on DEI curates 25 research articles, of which only four articles (16%) studied LGBTQIA+ issues. Typically, existing OR/MS research on DEI-related topics has studied gender diversity [13, 14], racial diversity [15, 16], religious diversity [17], disability diversity [18], etc. While the limited LGBTQIA+ research in INFORMS journals has examined the discrimination experienced by LGBTQIA+ individuals in ride-hailing services [19] and job hiring decisions [17, 20], several additional opportunities exist for OR/MS scholars to conduct impactful research in this domain. With more individuals in the U.S. self-identifying as LGBTQIA+ and a changing legal landscape for the LGBTQIA+ community across the country, a focus on studying the distinctive challenges and support needs of LGBTQIA+ individuals represents a contemporary and consequential line of inquiry for OR/MS scholars.

For example, existing research in INFORMS journals on gender diversity has conceptualized gender as a binary variable, i.e., male or female. However, the increasing recognition and acceptance of gender as a fluid social construct presents both empirical and conceptual challenges for researchers. When asked about gender identity in a more flexible manner as opposed to a single question, the percentage of Generation Z high schoolers who identify outside of the binary conceptualization of gender rises from 1.8% to 9.2% of the population [21]. As this generation enters the workforce, it will be more important to capture this diversity to prevent misclassification of nearly 10% of the population and to be cautious when developing hypotheses related to gender. With more individuals self-identifying as genderfluid or nonbinary, there also exists an opportunity to test whether findings from this existing stream of research on gender diversity are applicable for genderfluid or nonbinary gender identities. Relatedly, Chuang et al. draw upon institutional theory to investigate the drivers of adoption of same-sex partner health benefits in Fortune 500 companies [22], and Li and Nagar study the performance of U.S. firms initiating same-sex domestic partnership benefits [23]. While these studies focus on lesbian and gay couples, future research can investigate whether these drivers for the adoption of health benefits are similar or different for transgender individuals. Given the changing legal landscape for the transgender community in the U.S. and rising incidences of violence against this community [24], a focus on identifying mechanisms to create trans-friendly workplaces represents a fruitful and consequential line of inquiry for OR/MS scholars.

A key challenge faced by empirical researchers in conducting rigorous research on contemporary topics is a lack of availability of “rich” datasets. To circumvent this challenge, OR/MS researchers have typically carried out randomized field experiments on online platforms (e.g., ride hailing apps, dating apps, job search websites, etc.) and relied on observational field studies (e.g., see [25]). However, published studies have also relied on several publicly available secondary data sources that focus on the LGBTQIA+ community. Some of these secondary data sources include the following:

• U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey contains data about where American same-sex couples are located, their earnings, gender identities, etc.
• The Movement Advancement Project works to advance policy through data analysis and provides a breakdown of the legal environment in each state. Similarly, the Williams Institute is a research center focused on sexual orientation and gender identity and provides analysis of data from several sources.
• Human Rights Campaign Foundation Corporate Equality Index is a benchmarking tool that measures policies, practices and benefits pertinent to LGBTQIA+ employees in U.S. business establishments.
• Gayellow Pages is a directory that provides information on whether a business establishment in the U.S. and Canada is wholly or partly LGBTQ-owned or managed, as well as whether it exclusively serves LGBTQ individuals.
• com provides health-related data (e.g., adult tobacco usage, prevalence of HIV/AIDS, sexual violence) about LGBT individuals living in the United States.
• U.S. Transgender Survey conducted by National Center for Transgender Equality provides information about various forms of discrimination and violence faced by the U.S. transgender community. This survey was conducted in 2011 and then in 2016. Similarly, “Unerased: Counting Transgender Lives” is a comprehensive online repository of transgender murders in the U.S. since 2010.

Conclusion

The past three decades have witnessed significant progress in terms of granting basic human rights to LGBTQIA+ individuals in the United States. Nonetheless, the integration of the LGBTQIA+ community into mainstream society remains an unaddressed challenge with regular incidents of discrimination against LGBTQIA+ individuals being reported in the media. While existing research on DEI-related topics in INFORMS journals has highlighted the challenges faced by several underrepresented groups, the topics of discrimination and stigma surrounding the LGBTQIA+ community has largely escaped the attention of OR/MS scholars. As younger generations come of age comfortably, with more expansive sexual orientations and gender identities, it is becoming increasingly important for OR/MS scholars to conduct rigorous academic research on LGBTQIA+ issues. We hope that identifying new research opportunities and providing data sources will help generate momentum toward this area of research. We also hope that efforts such as these can bring about fruitful discussions on LGBTQIA+ issues in OR/MS academic circles and enable INFORMS to help our society become more welcoming and equitable for all.

References and Notes

1. A common abbreviation for the lesbian, gay, bisexual, pansexual, transgender, genderqueer, queer, intersex, agender, asexual and other queer-identifying community.
2. Wamsley, L., 2021, “Pentagon releases new policies enabling transgender people to serve in the military,” NPR, March 31, https://www.npr.org/2021/03/31/983118029/pentagon-releases-new-policies-enabling-transgender-people-to-serve-in-the-milit.
3. Yurcaba, J., 2021, “A ‘troubling rise’ in business owners refusing gay couples, advocates say,” NBC News, April 21, https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-news/troubling-rise-business-owners-refusing-gay-couples-advocates-say-rcna735.
4. Rosenblatt, K., 2021, “LGBTQ students harassed in ‘horrific’ incident at Bucknell University, school says,” NBC News, https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/lgbtq-students-harassed-horrific-incident-bucknell-university-school-says-.
5. Jones, J.M., 2021, “LGBT identification rises to 5.6% in latest U.S. estimate,” Gallup, Feb. 24, https://news.gallup.com/poll/329708/lgbt-identification-rises-latest-estimate.aspx.
6. Howell, S., 2020, “Identifying and reaching the $1 trillion LGBTQ+ economy [webinar],” Queer Politics, https://www.queerpolitics.org/qp-webinar-2020.
7. “The Equality Act,” Human Rights Campaign, https://www.hrc.org/resources/the-equality-act.
8. Hasenbush, A., Flores, A.R., Kastanis, A., Sears, B. and Gates, G.J., “The LGBT divide,” Williams Institute, https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/lgbtdivide/#.
9. “Corporate Equality Index 2021,” Human Rights Campaign, https://reports.hrc.org/corporate-equality-index-2021.
10. Dalesio, E.P. and Drew, J., 2017, “AP Exclusive: ‘Bathroom bill’ to cost North Carolina $3.76B,” AP News, March 30, https://apnews.com/article/nc-state-wire-raleigh-north-carolina-business-ringo-starr-e6c7a15d2e16452c8dcbc2756fd67b44.
11. “Responding to negative reactions to LGBTQ inclusion,” Human Rights Campaign, https://www.thehrcfoundation.org/professional-resources/responding-to-negative-reactions-to-lgbtq-inclusion.
12. Ronan, W., 2021, “2021 Slated to Become Worst Year for LGBTQ State Legislative Attacks as Unprecedented Number of States Poised to Enact Record-Shattering Number of Anti-LGBTQ Measures Into Law,” Human Rights Campaign, April 22, https://www.hrc.org/press-releases/2021-slated-to-become-worst-year-for-lgbtq-state-legislative-attacks.
13. Ip, E., Leibbrandt, A. and Vecci, J., 2020, “How do gender quotas affect workplace relationships? Complementary evidence from a representative survey and labor market experiments,” Management Science, Vol. 66, No. 2, pp. 805-822.
14. Cahlíková, J., Cingl, L. and Levely, I., 2020, “How stress affects performance and competitiveness across gender,” Management Science, Vol. 66, No. 8, pp. 3295-3310.
15. Cui, R., Li, J. and Zhang, D.J., 2020, “Reducing discrimination with reviews in the sharing economy: Evidence from field experiments on Airbnb,” Management Science, Vol. 66, No. 3, pp. 1071-1094.
16. Younkin, P. and Kuppuswamy, V., 2018 “The colorblind crowd? Founder race and performance in crowdfunding,” Management Science, Vol. 64, No. 7, pp. 3269-3287.
17. Acquisti, A. and Fong, C., 2020, “An experiment in hiring discrimination via online social networks,” Management Science, Vol. 66, No. 3, pp. 1005-1024.
18. Narayanan, S. and Terris, E., 2020, “Inclusive manufacturing: The impact of disability diversity on productivity in a work integration social enterprise,” Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, Vol. 22, No. 6, pp. 1112-1130.
19. Mejia, J. and Parker, C., 2021, “When transparency fails: Bias and financial incentives in ridesharing platforms,” Management Science, Vol. 67, No. 1, pp. 166-184.
20. Coffman, K.B., Coffman, L.C. and Ericson, K.M.M., 2017, “The size of the LGBT population and the magnitude of antigay sentiment are substantially underestimated,” Management Science, Vol. 63, No. 10, pp. 3168-3186.
21. Kidd, K.M., Sequeira, G.M. and Douglas, C., 2021, “Prevalence of gender-diverse youth in an urban school district,” Pediatrics, Vol. 147, No. 6, Art. no. e2020049823.
22. Chuang, Y.T., Church, R. and Ophir, R., 2011, “Taking sides: The interactive influences of institutional mechanisms on the adoption of same-sex partner health benefits by Fortune 500 corporations, 1990-2003,” Organization Science, Vol. 22, No. 1, pp. 190-209.
23. Li, F. and Nagar, V., 2013, “Diversity and performance,” Management Science, Vol. 59, No. 3, pp. 529-544.
24. Dinno, A., 2017, “Homicide rates of transgender individuals in the United States: 2010-2014,” American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 107, No. 9, pp. 1441-1447.
25. Hudson, B.A. and Okhuysen, G.A., 2009, “Not with a ten-foot pole: Core stigma, stigma transfer, and improbable persistence of men’s bathhouses,” Organization Science, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 134-153.