Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Transgender and nonbinary (TNB) individuals experience significant marginalization, including in the workplace and higher education. Although the number of TNB scholars and educators is growing, little attention has been given to the supervision of TNB individuals in research contexts. This lack of attention is particularly pronounced for TNB people working on trans-related research projects. Using intersectionality and queer theory, the present study examines the lived experiences of TNB individuals working on cisgender-led research projects, with the goal of enhancing awareness among cisgender researchers on strategies to support the growth of emerging TNB scholars. The importance of these findings is relevant for cisgender educators, researchers, and practitioners who work with TNB individuals and/or lead trans-related projects.

Keywords

transgender research nonbinary research research power dynamics transgender higher education

Exploring the Experiences of Transgender & Nonbinary Individuals Working on Cisgender-Led Research Projects

Transgender and nonbinary (TNB) individuals experience significant marginalization in the United States. These experiences of marginalization are well documented in both the workplace (James et al., 2016) and in higher education settings (Goldberg & Kuvalanka, 2019). However, no empirical work thus far has examined the experiences of TNB individuals working on research projects within higher education, specifically trans-related research projects led by cisgender Principal Investigators (PIs). The present study seeks to explore and begin addressing this gap to better understand the experiences of TNB people working on such projects, especially given the increasing numbers of TNB scholars and educators that have been documented in a number of academic disciplines (Jourian et al., 2015; Nicolazzo & Jourian, 2020).

Before proceeding, we define the key concepts and terminology we use in this paper. We use cisgender (cis) in this study to represent those whose gender matches the sex they were assigned at birth. We use the phrase transgender and nonbinary (TNB) to encompass those whose gender differs from the social expectations related to the sex they were assigned at birth. This term includes those who may transition from one binary gender to another, such as transgender women; those who may not socially and/or medically transition; and those who do not fall within the gender binary, such as nonbinary, genderqueer, and agender individuals. Lastly, trans-related research is defined as a research study that has a primary data collection sample of TNB individuals and worked on is defined as any contribution an individual made to a research study, including voluntary or unpaid contributions.

Background

Theoretical Framework

The following study uses intersectionality and queer theory to better understand the experiences of TNB people working on cis-led research projects. These experiences are impacted by systemic social forces, such as dominant social structures and privilege/marginalization.

Intersectionality

Because the present study engages the significant social dynamics of power, gender, race, sexuality, and disability, intersectionality is a powerful lens through which to view it. Rooted in Black feminism and critical race theory, the term intersectionality was formally introduced in academic literature by Kimberlé Crenshaw (1989) to address the marginalization of Black women. Originally, the theory examined how the identities of being Black and a woman intersect and simultaneously influence one's movement as well as how one is perceived in the world (Carbado et al., 2013). As a critical theory, intersectionality conceptualizes knowledge as situated and reflective of political and economic power. In social work and social sciences, an intersection refers to the crossing or meeting point of two or more social axes, or systems of oppression (Dhamoon, 2011). The primary tenets of intersectionality theory include (1) recognizing within-group differences, (2) seeing stratifying institutions as inseparable, (3) explicitly referencing power, (4) acknowledging complexity and, (5) committing to social justice (Hughes & Dubrow, 2018).

Recognizing within-group differences calls for specific attention to the diversity of experiences within a marginalized group. Seeing stratifying institutions as inseparable means we acknowledge the interconnectedness of identity and recognize that gender, class, race, etc. cannot be understood in isolation. When we explicitly reference power, we analyze the multiple levels of interconnectedness and how individuals, organizations, and systems contribute to the social hierarchies experienced in society (privileged identities vs. oppressed identities compared to privileged and oppressed identities existing simultaneously). By acknowledging complexity, we acknowledge the nuance of identity and how this is contingent across contexts and time. Lastly, intersectionality has been tied to Black feminist and social justice movements since its inception. Understanding the tenets of intersectionality allows us to critically think about power, privilege, and oppression in our relationships, communities, and the systems we navigate. For these reasons, intersectionality guided this inquiry.

Queer Theory

Given the systemic forces of transphobia and TNB people existing in cisnormative and heteronormative spaces [academic and non-academic workplaces], queer theory informed the present study. Queer theory emerged in the late twentieth century (Ryan, 2004). Although many practitioners, educators, and researchers have resisted defining queer theory, Stein and Plummer (1994) describe four components of queer theory. The first component is that queer theorists view sexuality as generated and reinforced through boundaries and binaries. This implies that sexuality historically has been created and reinforced through binaries rather than viewing sexuality fluidly. Secondly, queer theorists problematize these boundaries and binaries. Third, queer theorists reject fighting for inclusion in existing social structures and systems and instead seek to imagine a transformed society. Finally, queer theorists interrogate questions that may not appear to have anything to do with sexuality. Queer theory deconstructs existing labels and categories in an attempt to center the experiences of queer and TNB people.

Two key concepts to understanding queer theory are heteronormativity and cisnormativity. Heteronormativity views heterosexuality as normal and natural, implicating non-heterosexual identities as abnormalities (Yep, 2003). Cisnormativity describes how cis gender identities are normalized through the assumption that all people are cis, similarly relegating non-cis identities to a lower social status (Bauer et al., 2009). Both concepts have been argued to be forms of violence, as perceived cis, heterosexual people “just are,” while queer and TNB people are “social issues” (Yep, 2002; Yep, 2003). Yep (2003) also argues that the violence of heteronormativity and cisnormativity compound the violence of other systemic forces, such as racism, sexism, and classism, making those who hold multiple marginalized identities even more vulnerable to systemic violence. As such, queer theory undergirded this study to account for the systemic forces of transphobia, homophobia, racism, sexism, and ableism.

Cisgenderism and Dominant Culture

The social construction of a gender binary maintains conformity and limits society's understanding of gender identity by insisting on two mutually exclusive gender options. Known as cisgenderism––the cultural and systemic ideology that denies or pathologizes gender identities that do not align with gender assigned at birth (Lennon & Mistler, 2014) ––these gender structures are macro patterns found across institutions that are socially embodied and influenced by colonial processes over the past 500 years (Connell, 2012). Cisgenderism is prejudicial in nature and “others” people who are transgender (Ansara & Hegarty, 2012). Cisgenderism can show up in social interactions and in the establishment of organizations and institutions (Bauer et al., 2009). Identifying as cis means a person falls into the dominant or majority group in society and, as such, experiences and holds privilege, or advantages that are granted to a person based on an identity and are exercised for the benefit of the person or group of which they are a part and to the exclusion or detriment of others (Black & Stone, 2005).

Dominant culture, fueled by white supremacy, privileges identities perceived as being the norm, including being white, cisgender, heterosexual, non-disabled, English-speaking, and being in a middle or upper socioeconomic class. Holding one of these identities means a person experiences privilege even if the person holds other marginalized identities. This is known as the intersectionality paradox, meaning that holding privileged identities does not compensate for holding marginalized identities (Vu et al., 2019). For example, if a person is white and nonbinary, they experience white privilege but are marginalized due to their gender identity. Structures in the dominant culture work for and with their whiteness, but against their transness. Therefore, the aforementioned concept of intersectionality (Crenshaw, 1989) is necessary to consider.

TNB Experiences in Higher Education

Few studies have explicitly examined the experiences of TNB people working in higher education settings. One study found that 86% of TNB students and staff from colleges and universities in Scotland encountered barriers related to their learning or work that were directly attributed to being TNB (Lawrence & Mckendry, 2019). However, there are studies that have examined the experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) faculty and staff. One study of LGBTQ science and engineering faculty showed that they experienced hostility, feelings of invisibility, and an overt pressure to hide their LGBTQ identity (Bilimoria & Stewart, 2009). Rankin and colleagues (2010) documented persistent negative climates for LGBTQ employees working in higher education across the U.S. While there are additional studies examining the experiences of LGBTQ faculty and staff (see Blumenfeld et al., 2016; Lange et al., 2019; Vaccaro, 2012), it is problematic to view the LGBTQ community as a monolithic group, as different subgroups within the community, such as TNB people, have vastly different experiences.

Although few studies exist examining the explicit experiences of TNB people working in higher education settings, there are studies highlighting the experiences of TNB students in higher education. The U.S. Transgender Survey (USTS), a survey of nearly 28,000 TNB adults, found that 24% of respondents who were openly TNB or perceived as TNB in college reported being verbally, physically, or sexually harassed (James et al., 2016). The National Transgender Discrimination Survey (NTDS), which had a sample of over 7,000 TNB people, found that 35% of TNB people attending undergraduate, graduate, professional, or technical programs reported negative treatment by students, educators, and staff, including harassment and bullying (Grant et al., 2011). TNB students in higher education reported greater exposure to harassment and discrimination than their cis peers (Garvey & Rankin, 2015). Additionally, TNB students were less likely to experience a sense of belonging on campus compared to cis students (Rankin & Beemyn, 2012). The present study seeks to understand whether TNB people working in similar settings experience treatment similar to that of the university students described above.

TNB Experiences in Non-Academic Fields

In addition to experiencing oppression in higher education environments, research clearly documents additional discrimination in the workplace. Since higher education can be a workplace for TNB people, it is important to highlight TNB people's experiences in the workplace. TNB people face mistreatment, harassment, and discrimination during the hiring process and in the workplace generally (Grant et al., 2011). In addition to being fired or not hired for jobs based on their perceived or declared gender identity, TNB people are often subject to verbal harassment, being forced to present as the wrong gender, and even physical assault at work (Pizer et al., 2012). These macroaggressions and microaggressions are commonplace, with 78% of TNB people experiencing some form of harassment or discrimination in their workplaces (Grant et al., 2011). In response to and to avoid these discriminatory experiences, most TNB people – 77% in one study (James et al., 2016) – actively take steps to avoid mistreatment in the workplace, such as hiding or delaying their gender transition or quitting their job. Further, from an intersectional lens, TNB people who are Black, Indigenous, People of Color (BIPOC) face even higher rates of discrimination in the workplace than their white colleagues (James et al., 2016); and TNB people who are HIV positive and those who have previously engaged in sex work are more likely to have lost a job in their lifetime (James et al., 2016).

Additionally, multiple surveys and qualitative studies have reported that TNB job applicants face discrimination when applying and interviewing for jobs (James et al. 2016; McNeil et al., 2013). A government-sponsored study on TNB hiring discrimination found that 48% of employers discriminated against a more qualified TNB applicant in favor of a less qualified cis applicant (Rainy & Imse, 2015). In sum, TNB people not only experience discrimination and mistreatment in the workplace, but they experience it during all aspects of the employment process, from submitting their application to being fired based on their gender identity.

The well-documented oppression that TNB people face in both higher education and workplace settings may be particularly salient for TNB scholars working on cis-led research projects where educational and professional structures of power intersect. Due to these harmful experiences across different workplaces, the present study was designed to understand TNB people's experiences working on research projects, an under researched area.

Methods

Research Question

The overarching research question of the present study is: What are the experiences of TNB individuals who have worked on trans-related research projects led by cisgender principal investigators?

Our Positionality

Our team of authors is composed of three individuals with a diverse range of gender identities and sexual orientations. We all hold some form of legal citizenship, most of us hold class privilege, and some of us are disabled and/or neurodivergent. Additionally, some authors were participants in the present study. Once participants completed an interview with the PI, they could consent to being contacted for future writing and presentation opportunities resulting from the data. For the present paper, the PI offered authorship to all participants who consented to being contacted. Co-authors who were participants received authorship for sharing their stories (the interview) and agreeing to edit and review the manuscript. All authors are committed to social justice and anti-oppression work. Collectively, we unify ourselves as graduate students, researchers, and community members who all share the common goal of making a positive impact in TNB communities. We, as trans and nonbinary individuals, strive to do this research with and for TNB people.

Methodological Approach

Sampling, Recruitment, and Data Collection

Participants for the study were recruited through Facebook, Twitter, and the researcher's professional network via email. Social media posts included a script describing the study, a recruitment flyer, and a Qualtrics link to determine eligibility with a brief demographics survey. Additionally, announcements about the study stated that eligible participants would receive a $15 gift card for completing an interview. To participate in the study, participants had to be 18 or older, TNB, and worked on a cis-led research project within two years of the date of completing the brief survey. A total of 53 individuals completed the brief survey; however, 20 individuals either did not consent to being contacted for an interview or were not eligible to participate in the study, making the final sample size 33. At this point, simple random sampling was employed to invite participants for an interview to prevent researcher bias (Singleton & Straits, 2017). Once a participant was randomly selected, the phenomenological data collection method used involved creating an interview guide beginning with broad, open-ended questions to allow the participant to be open about their experience and build rapport with the interviewer (Padgett, 2017). Six participants were invited to complete an interview (20% of the brief survey sample), which is within phenomenological sample size recommendations (Padgett, 2017). This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board at the University of Denver.

Given the exploratory nature of the study, a semi-structured interview guide was used to ask participants about their experiences working on a cis-led research project. Semi-structured interviews are used for addressing specific dimensions of a research question while simultaneously leaving space for participants to offer new insights to the area of study (Galletta, 2013). Six participants engaged in 20- to 55-min-long interviews about their experiences working on trans-related projects led by cis PIs. The topics included positive and negative interactions working with cis PIs, how other marginalized identities impacted their experience on the project, and recommendations on ways cis PIs can make their projects more affirming for TNB people. Upon completing the interview, participants were asked if they would like to be contacted for future presentation and writing opportunities related to the project. Thus, some authors on this manuscript were participants in the study.

Participants held various gender identities, as three were trans men, two were nonbinary, and one was agender at the time of the study. All six participants had been employed on a cis-led, trans-related project within two years of the study. In terms of race, four participants were White and two were Asian. Participants ranged in age from 21 to 35 years old (M = 25.5).

Data Analysis

Following data collection, audio-video recordings were transcribed by the PI of the study. The transcripts were then analyzed using an iterative process in Dedoose by the PI and a doctoral student, both of whom are TNB. Each transcript underwent an initial round of in vivo coding (Padgett, 2008) where two researchers determined codes until saturation was reached, resulting in a preliminary codebook. Upon completion of the codebook, the PI and a doctoral student reviewed the codes to ensure trustworthiness in the analysis. Any coding discrepancies were resolved at this point. Next, a meaning-making process was completed to capture a deeper understanding of the codes (Padgett, 2008). Once this was completed, the PI, a doctoral student, and a faculty member determined themes based on the coding and analytical process. During the entire analytical process, the PI reflected on the process by writing memos—documenting surprising and uncomfortable reactions. The PI also engaged in self-reflection about how to conduct future qualitative research based on lessons learned during this study. Lastly, the study relied on peer debriefing. Peer debriefing involves meeting with mentors or colleagues to dialogue regarding research decisions (Padgett, 2008). All research decisions were discussed between the PI, the PI's faculty mentor, and the professor of the qualitative research methods course in which the PI was enrolled.

Findings

Four themes were identified from the interviews that are reflective of TNB individuals’ experiences on trans-related research projects led by cis PIs. The themes identified were the following: (1) identity-based harm; (2) showing up beyond research; (3) solidarity in community; and (4) recommendations for cis PIs on how to make research projects more TNB-affirming.

Identity-Based Harm: The Racism and Transphobia Persisted

The first theme identified in the data was identity-based harm, which was discussed by every participant. This finding may surprise some of the PIs discussed by participants, as these PIs likely believe that they and their research have positive impacts on the TNB community. Most likely, these PIs view their research and presence as a solution to issues impacting TNB people. Participants who noted identity-based harm explicitly named being harmed by a PI on their research project based on one or more marginalized identities, including gender, race and/or ethnicity, and disability status. Three participants explicitly named racism, transphobia, and ableism. Participant #6 (Note: We use #'s in this article to uphold the confidentiality of participants) specifically named the harm they experienced as the only person of color working on the project:

They’re racist. I think this one moment sticks out to me from two or three months ago. We had a patient come in who met a lot of our – well, his personal characteristics are not well represented in our data. So, I remember one of my PIs messaged me and was like, “Make sure you recruit this person because they meet x, y, and z. And DIVERSITY!!!!” They literally sent me a message on Skype that said “diversity” in all caps with 8,000 exclamation points. I was like, ‘Do you realize how racist this comes off to your only person of color employee?’

Participant #5 highlighted several examples of when their PI said or did something they perceived as racist or experienced as transphobic. The participant first brought concerns regarding transphobia, specifically about being misgendered, to their PI in January 2019 and sent 10 + follow-up emails about the issue between then and November 2019. In lat|e November 2019, this participant confronted the PI on behalf of a Black nonbinary person, who also worked on the project, to re-visit the conversation around transphobia, as well as to discuss the racism experienced by their colleague. Even with this direct conversation, the participant felt that the PI never responded appropriately or supported TNB staff.

After telling my PI about mine and my co-worker's experiences, she was frustrated and said she would fix it, but we never heard back from her. The racism and transphobia persisted until we were forced to go virtual in March 2020. Even being on Zoom for staff meetings and gatherings, [co-worker's name] got misgendered by staff with the PI present.

The same participant, along with two other participants, mentioned tokenization based on their identities. Each of these participants provided examples of instances when they felt tokenized by their PIs based on their identity. For participant #6, who was the only TNB person and person of color on their research project, tokenization occurred to benefit the PIs: “I’m put on projects because I think it makes the team look good in some ways.” This participant was put in a unique position based on their marginalized identities and often felt like they were only on the team to help legitimize the research.

I think one of the things that really sticks out to me when I think about this question is I had a meeting with one of my PIs and we were talking about a paper we had submitted, and we had gotten some feedback on this paper arguing that there were no trans people on the project. She was really mad because she was like, “but you're there.” And the way she said it made it feel like I was somehow legitimizing the research, which obviously did not make me feel very good.

This participant felt tokenized because they felt that they were chosen to be a part of the research team primarily for their gender identity and to give compositional credibility, not for their skillset and invaluable lived experience. Participant #4 voiced a similar concern about a cis PI who hired them for their access to the TNB community without explicitly naming that:

I had one cis PI who I've worked with on other non-trans related projects, and she told me she was thinking of having me in a certain role on this project and then she basically had me help with recruitment for [trans] participants that she couldn't access and then never really got me involved in other stages of the project. I think she eventually invited me to be on the manuscript, so it wasn't that she was totally shutting me out, but I didn't like that. She used my access for recruitment.

Lastly, Participant #6 shared an example of when their cis PIs were ableist. Ableism is the act prejudice and/or discrimination against disabled people and the devaluing of a person's worth based on their disability (Hehir, 2002). According to the participant,

I had a neurological disorder that I didn’t know about. It basically got to the point that I had to seek help, and I discovered this thing, and I was very candid with my PIs. I actually do regret that; I regret telling them anything because that's when their attitude toward me really shifted and they stopped listening to me at all. Intersectionally, they were like, ‘Yeah, well, this person knows nothing anymore.’ My decisions were questioned.

Based on the way their PIs treated them due to their neurological disorder, this participant questioned their value on the research project and began second-guessing what they should share with their PIs. This participant's experience displays the interconnectedness of transphobia, racism, and ableism and how these isms work together to further oppress marginalized individuals.

Showing Up Beyond Research: Our PI Wants us Here

Next, some participants shared positive experiences they had with cis PIs. Of the six participants, three participants highlighted at least one positive interaction or experience with their cis PIs. Participants spoke highly of cis PIs who hired multiple TNB people on their projects and PIs who were actively involved in advocacy or activism work. In terms of advocacy and activism, two participants discussed the ways in which their PIs advocated for the TNB community in ways that went beyond professional expectations—professionally and personally. This advocacy included policy advocacy, sharing crowdfunding needs, and offering support to the TNB individuals on their research projects. Participant #4 spoke about their PI's policy advocacy efforts:

A thing that she did that I thought was great was she wanted to do a team bonding activity, and what she had us do was go and phone bank for a ballot question related to trans and nonbinary people that was going on in our state. It was a way of signaling that this isn't just what she's doing for her career. It's actually a topic and community that she's really invested in.

Additionally, participant #2 shared examples of their PIs advocacy for TNB communities:

My PI has me run our social media accounts. She has actually encouraged me to share crowdfunding needs [within the TNB community] on the account's Instagram story. The biggest thing, though, is she always checks in on me. If some anti-trans thing is happening, she comes to me, asks what I need, and delivers.

All three participants that highlighted having a positive experience with their PIs referenced the fact that the PI had hired multiple TNB people on their research projects. This reduced the amount of tokenization each of these individuals felt, and it proved that the PI was prioritizing hiring TNB people to work on their trans-related research project. Participant #1 highlighted the importance of hiring multiple TNB individuals:

I think having a trans person on every study about trans health is important and optimally more than one person. One, so that person doesn’t feel tokenized or isn’t forced to tokenize themself, but two, it also gives you at least more diversity of thought and experience. I also think the more trans folks, the better because that means if someone is stealth, they can still give their insight as they feel comfortable, but it's not forcing them to be out.

Solidarity in Community: A Cluster of Trans Rage

One theme across all interviews was the importance of the TNB community and support within the community. For those who had negative experiences, receiving support from other TNB people was often mentioned as a coping strategy. Some participants sought support from their TNB friends, while others found TNB researchers who were in similar positions. Participant #6 found the latter:

In terms of coping with all of the nonsense, I don’t know what I would do if I didn’t have my trans colleagues who all just sit and scream together. It's like a cluster of trans rage, and it's wonderful.

Participants who worked on research projects with other TNB people often felt the most supported and least harmed based on their identities. One participant noted, “Having multiple trans people on our project makes me feel supported and less like a token.” Participant #5, who experienced harm from their cis PI, expressed how important it was to have two other TNB people on their research project:

The trans people on the team make this project bearable for me. Without them, I don’t think I would’ve stayed on this project for more than a few months. They have my back, and I have theirs. When there were three other trans people here, I felt the most comfortable and safe being here. Now there's only one other trans person here, which is great, but I don’t feel as empowered as I did when I was surrounded by community.

Building on this, participant #3 voiced how important the TNB community was to them: “I find solidarity in community. I go to them about everything.” Participant #4 additionally expressed that in the future they would feel more comfortable joining a cis-led project that already has TNB people on it. This participant expressed that this was due to the support they have felt being in community with other TNB individuals.

If I were considering working with a cis faculty member in the future, I would feel a lot more comfortable if I knew that they had a TNB person on the project or equal collaborators who are trans and nonbinary. That would feel important to me knowing what it feels like to be in [the TNB] community.

Recommendations for Cis PIs: Hire More Trans People or Even Better, Hire a Trans PI

Lastly, another theme from the interviews was recommendations for cis PIs on how to make their research projects more TNB-affirming. All participants offered recommendations for cis PIs, and all participants recommended hiring more than one TNB person on the research team, which could reduce identity-based harm, including the feelings of tokenization. Additionally, most participants recommended involving the TNB community during all aspects of the research project, from the hiring process to research design to data dissemination. Participant #6 highlighted this:

I think there's so many trans-specific little nuances that can just be solved by talking to actual trans people and getting their perspectives and involving them in your work at all stages. Don’t just say, “Oh, we talked to a trans person about this question.” Like, no. Are you piloting your questions with trans people? Are you actually discussing what you’re doing with them? Are you in the process of negotiating with the community? At all steps, are they involved in your data collection, your analysis, and any research dissemination?

Participant #1 expressed a similar sentiment in that cis PIs should give credit to TNB people who work on their research projects rather than simply having a TNB person to check a box:

There's only so much power, and then some folks don’t get authorship status. PIs can then just check off like, “Yeah, we had a trans person,” but then that trans person doesn’t in any way benefit on their CV because they are like, “Yes, I was in the acknowledgements section because I helped create the survey,” but then they don’t get authorship or get to write anything.

Four participants recommended that cis PIs engage in advocacy work that is specific to the TNB community. Participants suggested that PIs engage in both general activism (e.g., voting, phone banking, signing petitions) and high-risk activism (e.g., protesting, challenging institutional structures) (Corning & Myers, 2013; McAdam, 1986). One participant also recommended that more PIs need to connect with the TNB community in ways that go beyond academic structures. This participant suggested that PIs visit TNB-specific community organizations and use their privilege to center the community's voices: “Don’t sit in the ivory tower and watch from afar. Get out there, get involved, and actually get to know and invest in the community.”

Another recommendation from multiple participants was for cis PIs to hire a TNB co-PI to work on their research project. None of the participants had worked on a project that was led or co-led by a TNB individual. Participant #5 especially recommended this since the department they work in has a TNB individual on faculty.

We literally have a trans person in the department. The two original PIs are cis and recently they brought someone else on who is also cis. Our project manager is also cis. So, I recommend bringing on a trans person as a PI. I think that's one of the biggest flaws of our project. There are no trans people in positions of power, which puts the burden on trans staff to explain to you when you’re messing up.

It is important to note that some academic departments may not have a TNB person on staff or if they do, that person may not want to lead or co-lead a trans-related research project. Not all TNB faculty are interested in leading trans-related research.

An additional recommendation by all participants was to ensure research project staff receive education and training about working with and supporting TNB staff and participants. Participants felt that this was the PI's responsibility, and participant #5 discussed the importance of providing education to staff to prepare the staff for working with TNB individuals:

It's a lot about preparing the space before [TNB] people come on, because I think that was a main problem with our project was that [cis] people were not prepared. She [the PI] didn't think people needed to be prepared because she had this misconception that since the existing office staff were good people that they were also trans-competent. That obviously wasn’t the case, as I repeatedly had to educate staff and listen, I am happy to educate the office staff for one hour each year, but that is my education limit.

This participant, along with two other participants, also highly recommended that all project staff, including the PIs, receive education specifically about pronouns. Participants expressed that they are often forced into educator roles on their research projects, even though they are in research-specific roles, not educator roles. Additionally, these three participants expressed that there was no accountability when they, or their other TNB colleagues, got misgendered and that cis office staff lacked an overall understanding of what pronouns were and how to use them. All three participants recommended an accountability process where PIs implement policies to protect TNB staff if they are harmed. Participant #5 expressed, “We need a formal handbook that outlines our policies around misgendering, being deadnamed, or any other transphobic microaggression. It's the least a PI can do to protect us.”

Finally, one participant pointed out the importance of cultural humility in engaging with trans-related research. This participant spoke to the importance of cis PIs being able to recognize that they do not know what it means to be a TNB person and to listen and lean into TNB individuals’ knowledge and lived experience. Participant #6 expressed:

[Cultural humility] is definitely something I endorse. I think one of the biggest things that leads people to treat marginalized groups incorrectly is just that they think that they know everything because they take something in cultural competency and think you somehow learned everything about a culture. Culture is, by definition, fluid. Culture is different for every single person. You can’t assume you know what's important to a person based on their identities. It's not going to work. The humility approach is everything. It makes such a difference. That makes everything a more welcoming environment.

Discussion

This study explored the experiences of TNB individuals working on trans-related research projects led by cis PIs. The interviews with six participants uncovered four themes related to their experiences including identity-based harm, PIs showing up beyond research, solidarity in community, and recommendations for cis PIs. Among the participants, more than half described experiences of identity-based harm related to their gender identity, race and/or ethnicity, or disability status. For those who experienced harm due to their gender identity, tokenization was cited as the primary reason. Tokenization from individuals in power toward TNB individuals mirrors findings from previous studies that examined TNB individuals’ experiences on college campuses and with residential housing (Case et al., 2009; McKinney, 2004; Pryor et al., 2016). Practitioners, educators, and researchers can avoid such tokenization by hiring and collaborating with TNB individuals based on their expertise, experience, and skills first rather than based on their gender identity for the sake of diversity.

Additionally, while some PIs were supportive and created spaces that embodied the recommendations provided by participants, the finding that some PIs caused gender-based harm is troublesome considering that all PIs discussed in the study likely believed they were being strong allies to the TNB community due to conducting trans-related research. This finding aligns with Yep's (2003) work on queer theory, suggesting that TNB people may be viewed as social issues by some cis people, and cisnormativity elevates the violence of other systemic forces, such as the racism and ableism experienced by some participants in the study. This also directly ties into intersectionality, as these participants experienced marginalization at multiple intersections. This finding supports existing research on the strong correlation between gender differences and transphobia (Nagoshi et al., 2008). While these cis PIs may see themselves as allies who are trying to do good for the community, they may unintentionally be causing harm. The impact of this harm reinforces that higher education spaces, as previously documented, may not be supportive spaces for TNB people (Budge et al., 2020; Craig et al., 2015; Goldberg & Kuvalanka, 2019). However, it is important to note that half of our sample expressed that the research projects they worked on were affirming and supportive spaces. These supportive spaces embody the recommendations that all participants provided.

There are some additional positive findings to note, one being the theme of showing up beyond research. This theme represents affirming experiences TNB people had while working on a cis-led research project. These experiences included PIs who hired multiple TNB people and offered support to TNB staff, and some PIs went beyond what was expected of them to show up for their TNB staff. This included a PI engaging in political advocacy for TNB people and encouraging the entire staff to do the same, and a PI encouraging their staff to share crowdfunding needs of TNB people on social media platforms. The participants who had PIs who went beyond the research were the participants who expressed an interest in being involved in research long-term.

Another highlight from the study was how all participants felt in solidarity with other TNB people. Social support is a well-documented protective factor, including among TNB people (Harner, 2021). This intracommunity support was experienced by all participants in the study, as participants sought support from their TNB friends, network, or colleagues regardless of the type of experience they were having on their research project. This finding from the study, along with the recommendation from participants, should be a motivator for cis PIs to prioritize hiring multiple TNB individuals for trans-related research projects.

Finally, one commonality among all participants was the list of recommendations for cis PIs, regardless of whether respondents had primarily negative or positive experiences. The recommendations included hiring multiple TNB people, adding a TNB PI to the project, providing ongoing education and training for all staff, and implementing policies to protect TNB people if they are misgendered, deadnamed, or a victim of transphobic microaggressions. This aligns with previous research, as research has found that people feel more comfortable when there are multiple team members with the same identity or a mentor/supervisor with the same identity (Frierson et al., 1994). Researchers and educators can implement these recommendations to make research studies, classroom spaces, and interactions with TNB individuals more affirming and safer. Even if a space is already deemed as safe for TNB people, these recommendations can still guide future decisions and interactions with TNB people.

Limitations

This study contributes important insight to the experiences of TNB people working on cis-led projects. It is, however, important to note a few limitations. One limitation was the sample size, as only six participants were interviewed. Although a small sample may limit the depth of data to understand the experiences of TNB people on cis-led research projects, it is important to note that even six people can provide important nuance to a topic (Padgett, 2017). Future studies may want to interview more participants to explore this topic further. Our findings exclusively highlighted the experiences of those working on research projects in higher education rather than projects at community organizations or government agencies. Thus, findings should not be generalized to all TNB people who work on trans-related research projects led by cis PIs. Next, the sample did not include transgender women. While this may be a systemic issue of transgender women not being welcomed onto research projects, it could also be because of the recruitment method, which centered the PI's network primarily composed of trans men and nonbinary individuals. Future studies could target larger samples of TNB researchers to prioritize a more diverse sample.

Conclusion

This phenomenological study relied on semi-structured interviews with six TNB researchers in the United States to explore their experiences working on trans-related research projects led by cisgender principal investigators. By better understanding the experiences of TNB researchers on these projects, cis researchers, educators, and practitioners can improve their current practices when employing or collaborating with TNB individuals to facilitate more affirming experiences. Through implementing the recommendations provided by TNB researchers, ideally TNB people will feel safe and supported being a part of these research projects, as they not only belong on these projects, but deserve to thrive in these settings.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Brendon T. Holloway

Keanan Gabriel Gottlieb

Author Biographies

Brendon T. Holloway is a doctoral student in the Graduate School of Social Work at the University of Denver. His research centers trans and nonbinary communities and focuses on healthcare access, mutual aid, and re-imagining a world where trans people are centered and actively engaged in decision-making processes.

Keanan Gabriel Gottlieb is currently a research analyst with the Vanderbilt Program for LGBTQ Health. His current work includes improving trans health research; he also provides LGBTQ health education and training, consulting services, and institutional leadership with an emphasis on trans health. In January 2023, he will be starting a Master of Nursing program where he will continue to work towards increasing access to and improving the quality of healthcare for trans people.

August R. Cason is a Master's student in Social Work. They are looking towards a career in trauma therapy with queer and trans individuals.

References

Ansara

Y. G.

Hegarty

(2012). Cisgenderism in psychology: Pathologizing and misgendering children from 1999 to 2008. Psychology & Sexuality, 3(2), 137–160. https://doi.org/10.1080/19419899.2011.576696

Bauer

Hammond

Travers

Kaay

Hohenadel

Boyce

(2009). “I don’t think this is theoretical; this is our lives”: How erasure impacts health care for transgender people. Journal of the Association of Nurses in AIDS Care, 20(5), 348–361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jana.2009.07.004

Bilimoria

Stewart

A. J.

(2009). “Don’t ask, don’t tell”: The academic climate for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender faculty in science and engineering. NWSA Journal, 21(2), 85–99. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20628175

Black

L. L.

Stone

(2005). Expanding the definition of privilege: The concept of social privilege. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 33(4), 243–255. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-1912.2005.tb00020.x

Blumenfeld

W. J.

Weber

G. N.

Rankin

(2016). In our own voice: Campus climate as a mediating factor in the persistence of LGBT people in higher education. Queering classrooms: Personal narratives and educational practices to support LGBTQ youth in schools (pp. 1–20).

Budge

S. L.

Domínguez

Jr. Goldberg

A. E.

(2020). Minority stress in nonbinary students in higher education: The role of campus climate and belongingness. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 7(2), 222–229. https://doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000360

Carbado

D. W.

Crenshaw

K. W.

Mays

V. M.

Tomlinson

(2013). INTERSECTIONALITY: Mapping the movements of a theory1. Du Bois Review: Social Science Research on Race, 10(2), 303–312. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742058X13000349

Case

K. A.

Stewart

Tittsworth

(2009). Transgender across the curriculum: A psychology for inclusion. Teaching of Psychology, 36(2), 117–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/00986280902739446

Connell

(2012). Gender, health and theory: Conceptualizing the issue, in local and world perspective. Social Science & Medicine, 74(11), 1675–1683. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.06.006

10.

Corning

A. F.

Myers

D. J.

(2013). Activism Orientation Scale (AOS). Measurement Instrument Database for the Social Sciences, www.midss.ie

11.

Craig

S. L.

McInroy

L. B.

Dentato

M. P.

Austin

Messinger

(2015). Social work students speak out! The experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer students in social work programs: A study report from the CSWE Council on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and Expression. Toronto, Canada: Author.

12.

Crenshaw

(1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine (pp. 139–167).

13.

Dhamoon

R. K.

(2011). Considerations on mainstreaming intersectionality. Political Research Quarterly, 64(1), 230–243. https://doi.org/10.1177/106591291037922

14.

Frierson

H. T.

Hargrove

B. K.

Lewis

N. R.

(1994). Black summer research students’ perceptions related to research mentors’ race and gender. Journal of College Student Development, 35(6), 475–480.

15.

Galletta

(2013). Mastering the semi-structured interview and beyond: From research design to analysis and publication (Vol. 18). NYU press.

16.

Garvey

J. C.

Rankin

S. R.

(2015). The influence of campus experiences on the level of outness among trans-spectrum and queer-spectrum students. Journal of Homosexuality, 62(3), 374–393. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2014.977113

17.

Goldberg

A. E.

Kuvalanka

(2019). Transgender graduate students’ experiences in higher education: A mixed-methods exploratory study. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 12(1), 38–51. https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000074

18.

Grant

J. M.

Mottet

L. A.

Tanis

Harrison

Herman

J. L.

Keisling

. (2011). Injustice at Every Turn: A Report of the National Transgender Discrimination Survey. DC: National Center for Transgender Equality & National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.

19.

Harner

(2021). Trans intracommunity support & knowledge sharing in the United States & Canada: A scoping literature review. Health & Social Care in the Community, 29(6), 1715–1728. https://doi.org/10.1111/hsc.13276

20.

Hehir

(2002). Eliminating ableism in education. Harvard Educational Review, 72(1), 1–33. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.72.1.03866528702g2105

21.

Hughes

M. M.

Dubrow

J. K.

(2018). Intersectionality and women’s political empowerment worldwide. Measuring Women’s Political Empowerment Across the Globe, Gender, and Politics (pp. 77–96). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64006-8_4

22.

James

S. E.

Herman

J. L.

Rankin

Keisling

Mottet

Anafi

(2016). The Report the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey. National Center for Transgender Equality. https://transequality.org/sites/default/files/docs/usts/USTS-Full-ReportDec17.pdf

23.

Jourian

T. J.

Simmons

S. L.

Devaney

K. C.

(2015). “We are not expected”: Trans* educators (re)claiming space and voice in higher education and student affairs. TSQ: Transgender Studies Quarterly, 2(3), 431–446. https://doi.org/10.1215/23289252-2926410

24.

Lange

A. C.

Duran

Jackson

(2019). The state of LGBT and queer research in higher education revisited: Current academic houses and future possibilities. Journal of College Student Development, 60(5), 511–526. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2019.0047

25.

Lawrence

Mckendry

(2019). Supporting transgender and non-binary students and staff in further and higher education: Practical advice for colleges and universities. Jessica Kingsley.

26.

Lennon

Mistler

(2014). Cisgenderism. Transgender Studies, 1(1-2), 63–64. https://doi.org/10.1215/23289252-2399623

27.

McAdam

(1986). Recruitment to high-risk activism: The case of freedom summer. American Journal of Sociology, 92(1), 64–90. https://doi.org/10.1086/228463

28.

McKinney

J. S.

(2004). On the margins: A study of the experiences of transgender college students. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Issues in Education, 3(1), 63–76. https://doi.org/10.1300/J367v03n01_07

29.

McNeil

Bailey

Ellis

Regan

(2013). Speaking from the margins: Trans mental health and wellbeing in Ireland. Transgender Equality Network.

30.

Nagoshi

J. L.

Adams

K. A.

Terrell

H. K.

Hill

E. D.

Brzuzy

Nagoshi

C. T.

(2008). Gender differences in correlates of homophobia and transphobia. Sex Roles, 59(7), 521–531. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-008-9458-7

31.

Nicolazzo

Jourian

T. J.

(2020). “I’m looking for people who want to do disruption work”: Trans* academics and power discourses in academic conferences. Gender & Education, 32(1), 56–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2019.1633461

32.

Padgett

D. K.

(2008). Qualitative methods in social work research (2nd ed.). Sage.

33.

Padgett

D. K.

(2017). Qualitative methods in social work research (3rd ed.). Sage.

34.

Pizer

J. C.

Sears

Mallory

Hunter

(2012). Evidence of persistent and pervasive workplace discrimination against LGBT people: The need for federal legislation prohibiting discrimination and providing for equal employment benefits. Loy. LAL Rev, 45(3), 715–780.

35.

Pryor

J. T.

Hart

(2016). Searching for home: Transgender students and experiences with residential housing. College Student Affairs Journal, 34(2), 43–60. https://doi.org/10.1353/csj.2016.0011

36.

Rainy

Imse

E. E.

(2015). Qualified and Transgender: A Report on Results of Resume Testing for Employment Discrimination Based on Gender Identity. The District of Columbia Office of Human Rights.

37.

Rankin

Beemyn

(2012). Beyond a binary: The lives of gender nonconforming youth. About Campus: Enriching the Student Learning Experience, 17(4), 2–10. https://doi.org/10.1002/abc.21086

38.

Rankin

Weber

Blumenfeld

Frazer

(2010). The state of higher education for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. Campus Pride.

39.

Ryan

(2004). Queer Theory. In Ritzer

(Ed.), Encyclopedia of social theory. Sage publications.

40.

Singleton

R. A.

Straits

B. C.

(2017). Approaches to social research (6th ed.). Oxford University Press.

41.

Stein

Plummer

(1994). I can't even think straight"" queer" theory and the missing sexual revolution in sociology. Sociological Theory, 12(2), 178–187. https://doi.org/10.2307/201863

42.

Vaccaro

(2012). Campus microclimates for LGBT faculty, staff, and students: An exploration of the intersections of social identity and campus roles. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 49(4), 429–446. https://doi.org/10.1515/jsarp-2012-6473

43.

Haardörfer

Windle

Berg

C. J.

(2019). Mental health and substance use among women and men at the intersections of identities and experiences of discrimination: Insights from the intersectionality framework. BMC Public Health, 19(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-019-6430-0

44.

Yep

G. A.

(2002). From homophobia and heterosexism to heteronormativity: Toward the development of a model of queer interventions in the university classroom. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 6(3-4), 163–176. https://doi.org/10.1300/J155v06n03_14

45.

Yep

G. A.

(2003). The violence of heteronormativity in communication studies: Notes on injury, healing, and queer world-making. Journal of Homosexuality, 45(2-4), 11–59. https://doi.org/10.1300/J082v45n02_02