Perception and experience of heterosexism by non-heterosexual students in a chemistry classroom: an interpretivist study

Abstract

There has been increasing awareness of equality, diversity, and inclusion in scientific disciplines over recent decades. The aim of this interpretivist study is to understand, from the perspectives of non-heterosexual students, the prevalence and nature of heterosexism in the chemistry classroom. In-depth interviews were conducted with ten students who self-identified as non-heterosexual and had attended chemistry classes at a Russell Group university in the UK. Participants reported both overt and subtle forms of heterosexism, including assumptions of heterosexuality in teaching practices, exclusionary peer interactions, and a lack of visible non-heterosexual representation in teaching content. These experiences negatively affected students’ sense of engagement and passion for chemistry learning. The study highlights the need for chemistry educators to reflect on classroom language, teaching materials, and implicit assumptions about student identities. Key recommendations include using inclusive language and examples in teaching, avoiding heteronormative assumptions in classroom discourse, establishing formal support mechanisms to enable students to report incidents of heterosexism, and providing staff training to challenge heterosexist microaggressions. With collaborative efforts from educators, regulatory bodies, students, and institutional leadership, chemistry classrooms can become more inclusive, supportive, and conducive to learning for non-heterosexual students.

---

Introduction

Heterosexism is defined as the attitude and ideology which assume heterosexuality (as well as its related power and privilege) to be normal and ideal, thereby privileging heterosexuality relative to homosexuality (Chesir-Teran, 2003; Chesir-Teran and Hughes, 2009). It is an ideological system which stigmatizes, denigrates, and denies any form of identity, relationship, behaviour, or community other than the heterosexual ones (Walls, 2008). Such a system is known to lead to the invisibility of the rights and voices of non-heterosexual individuals, resulting in explicit expressions of discrimination or victimization towards non-heterosexual individuals (Lipkin, 1999; Chesir-Teran, 2003; Cooper and Brownell, 2016). This situation could be reinforced in institutions and societies in which non-discrimination policies and inclusive programs are absent (Chesir-Teran, 2003).

In the UK, Equality Act 2010 is in place to protect people from discrimination based on sexual orientation and from harassment or victimisation (Government of the United Kingdom, 2024). Even though the availability of related written policies can help fight against explicit homophobic behaviours and attitudes, implicit heterosexist ideologies still exist. This has been evidenced by the result of a recent ethnographic study of two state-funded schools in the North East of England (Atkinson, 2021), which found homophobia to be central to peer group culture in both schools, influencing not only the development of friendships among students but also the structure of generational and peer group hierarchies. This problem of homophobia appeared to stem from prejudices in the past, partly evidenced by an earlier report titled Profiles of Prejudice, published by the organization Citizenship 21 (2003), in which around 17% of respondents reported feeling less positive towards homosexual people, as well as by a later study in which homosexuality was viewed by some respondents as “cultural threats to traditional English values and ways of life” (Valentine and McDonald, 2004). Such kind of heterosexist attitudes and ideologies held in the UK not only undermines equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI) in the society, but also potentially imposes challenges to teaching and learning in various disciplines, particularly those that are susceptible to gender stereotypes (Linley et al., 2018; Hughes and Kothari, 2023). One good example of these is scientific disciplines, in which stereotypes have been found to be visible in different aspects of education, ranging from the use of gender-biased language to teaching methods and teachers’ attitudes (Kerkhoven et al., 2016). The occurrence of heterosexism is not unique to the UK and indeed a global issue. It has been reported in countries ranging from developed countries (e.g., the United States (Szymanski and Henrichs-Beck, 2014; Salim et al., 2020)) to developing countries (e.g., People's Republic of China (Chow and Cheng, 2010), Lebanon (Michli and Jamil, 2022) and India (Vanita, 2000)).

EDI in scientific disciplines has been gaining attention over the years. While efforts have been put in the literature to devise different ways to enhance students’ motivation (Tan and Barton, 2010; Lisberg and Woods, 2018) and learning experience (Burke and Dunn, 2002; Pearl and Christensen, 2017; Han et al., 2018; Owens and Weigel, 2018), comparatively less attention has been paid to exploring the individual accounts of students in a classroom setting. This situation has been improved in recent years, in which a growing body of literature has been published on students’ experiences, including those of non-heterosexual students in scientific disciplines (Friedensen et al., 2021; Miller et al., 2022; Hughes and Kothari, 2023; Fitzgerald-Russell and Kowalske, 2024; Marosi et al., 2025); however, understanding of individuals' lived experiences in scientific disciplines and their perceptions of the inclusiveness of their immediate environment is still limited. Addressing this limitation is pivotal to make the scientific community inclusive. The legitimacy of this need is further corroborated by the fact that non-heterosexual individuals working on science disciplines have been found to experience workplace inequalities (Cech and Pham, 2017; Cech and Waidzunas, 2021). Comparing with majors in nonscience disciplines, science majors have been reported to be more prevalently regarded by queer students to be “less appropriate” for them (Forbes, 2022; Sondag et al., 2022). This greatly influences the motivation of non-heterosexual students to major in science disciplines (Hughes, 2018; Linley et al., 2018) and accounts for the fact that non-heterosexual students persist in science majors at a lower rate than their heterosexual peers (Hughes and Kothari, 2023). As chemistry is one major discipline in science, this study aims at investigating the situations non-heterosexual university students face in the chemistry classroom. By understanding their lived experience and by exploring struggles they may encounter, we can identify factors to enhance the success of non-heterosexual students during their study in chemistry. Findings of this study can also assist educators in chemical sciences in implementing decisions that foster a more respectful and inclusive learning environment for non-heterosexual students (Chan and Stewart, 2022).

Research paradigm and the philosophical stances thereof

This study adopted an interpretivist paradigm, with the design and conception developed by the first author. The term “paradigm” is defined as a set of principles and assumptions made (regarding the essence of reality, the strategy to attain knowledge of the reality, and the nature of values) that govern the design of a study (Scotland, 2012). One important element constituting the research paradigm is axiology, which refers to the values and beliefs guiding the process of decision-making undertaken by a researcher (Morgan, 2017). It plays a particularly important role in the design of this study because, from an interpretivist perspective, when a social phenomenon is studied, it is the researcher's beliefs and values that serve as a lens through which the interpretation of the meaning of data (and hence the construction of the social reality) is achieved (Saunders et al., 2016). Because of this, it is not possible for the values, beliefs and conventions of a researcher as a human being to be totally excluded from a research environment. In other words, the interpretation and construction of the social reality can only be subjective and value-laden (Fellows and Liu, 2015). The main purpose of this study is, therefore, not to determine objective facts regarding heterosexism as numerous quantitative studies have done. Instead, with the curiosity to understand the social situation as it is (Burrell and Morgan, 2016), it is the objective of this study to comprehend students’ perception and experience of heterosexism, in the context of chemistry education, within the realm of subjectivity and individual consciousness.

Ontology has been defined as the nature of reality and being (Kelly, 2017). It concerns mainly the essence of existence of a phenomenon. Under the lens of interpretivism [which, as stated by Williams (2000) (p. 210), aims at interpreting “the meanings and actions of actors according to their own subjective frame of reference”], social phenomena involving human subjects are distinct from physical phenomena in a way that they are neither static nor universal (Juan et al., 2023). They are subjective and are dynamic constructs of not only context-related variables but also of researchers’ social (and experiential) meanings and understandings. This is owing to the presence of consciousness in individuals in a social situation. Individuals are different from coerced puppets which will react to social forces or phenomena in exactly the same way whenever those forces and phenomena appear (Bhattacherjee, 2012). Instead, each of the individuals will react, experience and understand the same social situation differently and possess distinctive reasons for their own actions (Alharahsheh and Pius, 2020). Because of this, existence of multiple socially-constructed realities is possible, with no singular social reality being able to be free from subjectivity of the observer (Babones, 2016). From an interpretivist perspective, the prevalence, perceptions, and experiences related to heterosexism cannot be fully understood through quantitative research alone. While quantitative studies can provide meaningful insights by identifying patterns and trends, they may not capture the nuanced, context-dependent nature of heterosexism in educational settings. To gain a deeper understanding of how heterosexism manifests in a chemistry classroom, it is crucial to consider distinctions in culture, situational factors, and context, as these elements shape multiple social realities. The objective of this study is, therefore, to understand, rather than to predict or to generalize, the experience and perception of chemistry students. Findings of this study will be relative in nature and are bound by context-related variables ranging from time and culture to value.

Regarding the interpretivist epistemological stance (which refer to the set of beliefs and assumptions regarding the origin and acquisition of knowledge (Kelly, 2017)) adopted in this study, it is believed that knowledge of a phenomenon can be attained only when the motivations, beliefs, values, contexts and reasoning of individuals in a social situation are understood. In order to comprehend the “reality” of an individual, understanding participants’ experience is needed. As different individuals have different experiences due to variations in their sociocultural backgrounds, each of the individuals could have one reality. It is this rationale that underpins the selection of interviews as the means of data collection in this study. Through individual conversations with the research subjects, a deeper understanding of the phenomenon experienced by each individual is expected to be attained.

In addition, while the possible existence of an external reality is not ruled out, the presence of an independently knowable reality is questionable. Due to the impossibility of conducting a study without involving a researcher, research findings are inevitably influenced and shaped by the researcher's worldviews. On the other hand, the foundation of interpretivism is the idea that reality is socially constructed. The phenomenon of heterosexism in a chemistry classroom is, therefore, not a naturally occurring one but instead, a socially constructed entity which varies from context to context. As the meaning of data is open to interpretation by the researcher, the social reality attained in this study will be co-constructed by the first author and the participants. In other words, the essential structure of the description of the participants’ lived experience attained by data analysis will be validated by the participants so as to ensure that the constructed reality reflects the social reality to be studied.

Methods

Research design

This interpretivist qualitative study of non-heterosexual students’ experience of heterosexism in chemistry class in the UK was designed based on the idea that human beings can be understood through their subjective experiences (Todres and Holloway, 2006). Its objectives were to study a phenomenon as it was experienced by the research participants and to describe the phenomenon directly without taking its causal history or psychological genesis into consideration (Husserl, 1962, 1970).

Data collection

Student participants, who had attended chemistry classes and self-identified as non-heterosexual, were recruited through purposive sampling from a Russell Group university in the UK. These participants were selected from various departments across the university and were asked to reflect on their experiences in chemistry classrooms, focusing on the prevalence and forms of heterosexism they encountered in the courses they had enrolled in. When reflecting on a variety of chemistry courses, their experiences were shaped by interactions with different instructors across all the chemistry courses they enrolled in. The study, therefore, focused on the prevalence and forms of heterosexism as a broad phenomenon within chemistry classrooms, examining how it manifested across various classroom settings, rather than focusing on specific instances or courses with individual instructors. To achieve credible and direct reflections on participants’ views, a qualitative descriptive design was adopted. One-on-one semi-structured interviews were conducted by the first author who had no pre-existing relationship with any of the participants. The central research question guiding this study was: “How do non-heterosexual students perceive and experience heterosexism in a chemistry classroom?” To explore this question, the interviews were structured around three interrelated sub-questions:

• Have any incidents of heterosexism been encountered in your chemistry class?

• How does your non-heterosexual identity influence your engagement and study in chemistry?

• What could be done by your chemistry class to make it less heterosexist?

The interviews were performed either in a seminar room on the university campus or at a time and place mutually arranged by the participant and the first author. The point of departure for each interview was formed by the participants’ lived experience. The duration of the interviews was 30–60 min. All interviews were conducted in English, following the interview protocol (Table 1), and were audiotaped. The data collected were transcribed. Analysis of the collected data was conducted iteratively by the first author throughout the process of data collection. Participants were recruited and interviewed continuously until data saturation was reached and no new themes and concepts were found to emerge.

Table 1 Semi-structured interview protocol used to explore students' perception and experience of heterosexism in chemistry education

Question type	Question
Opening	Could you briefly introduce yourself, including where you’re from and your current programme of study?
	What is your experience in attending class in chemistry and chemistry-related subjects?
	How would you describe your experience as a chemistry student so far?
Introduction	How do you understand about the term “heterosexism”?
Transition	Can you think of any examples—whether from personal experience or observation—where heterosexism might be present in a classroom setting?
Key questions	Have any incidents of heterosexism been encountered in your chemistry class?
	(a) Can you describe a specific incident that stands out to you?
	(b) How did you feel in that moment?
	(c) How did you respond to the incident, if at all?
	(d) How did others (e.g., peers, instructors) react?
	(e) What impact, if any, did this experience have on your participation or comfort in class?
	(f) Did you feel like you could talk to someone about this experience? Why or why not?
	How does your non-heterosexual identity influence your engagement and study in chemistry?
	(a) Can you describe a time when your identity felt particularly relevant (or irrelevant) in your chemistry education?
	(b) Have you ever felt included or excluded because of your identity in chemistry settings?
	(c) Do you think your identity affects how instructors or peers perceive your abilities or contributions?
	(d) Have you ever adjusted your behaviour, speech, or expression in class because of your identity?
	(e) Do you see chemistry as a field that is generally inclusive or exclusive to non-heterosexual individuals? Why?
	(f) Has your identity played a role in your career aspirations or confidence in pursuing studies in chemistry?
	What could be done by your chemistry class to make it less heterosexist?
	(a) How would the changes make you feel more comfortable or supported in the classroom?
	(b) Are there specific policies, teaching practices, or forms of representation that could help?
	(c) Have you seen any positive examples of inclusivity in other courses or institutions that could be applied to chemistry education?
	(d) If you could design an ideal chemistry learning environment in terms of inclusivity, what would it look like?
Ending	Is there anything I didn’t ask that you think is important for me to understand?
Additional unplanned/floating prompts	Can you tell me more about that?
	Would you mind explaining that in more detail?
	Can you give me an example?

---

Data analysis

Analysis of the data was performed based on the seven-step approach proposed by Colaizzi (1978). In brief, an interview transcript was first carefully read by the first author so that a deep understanding of the description was attained. Taking the context/objectives of the study into account, the interview transcript was reread during which phrases that were related to the phenomenon under study were extracted. Formulated meanings of each of the extracted phrases were then created and aggregated into clusters of themes. This process was repeated to analyse other interview transcripts. No new themes and concepts were found after analysis of the first seven interview transcripts; however, to better capture the depth and meaning of the experiences to be studied, additional participants were recruited and interviewed. In total ten interviews were conducted. Themes and codes identified during data analysis were presented in Table 2. After the process of thematization and the development of an exhaustive description, the essential structure of the description of the participants’ lived experience was attained.

Table 2 Themes and codes identified through analysis of transcripts

Domain frameworks	Themes	Codes
Learning and engagement	Reason for choosing the subject	Strength
		Interaction
		Teacher
	Factors influencing perception	Interaction
		Quality
	Impact of heterosexism	Undermining passion
	Source of heterosexism	Peer
		Teacher
Experience and signs of heterosexism	Forms of heterosexism	Verbal cue
		Nonverbal cue
	Heterosexism in teaching practices	Heteronormative practices
	Heterosexism in teaching content	Physical phenomena
		Lock-and-key models
		Representation of scientists
	Heterosexism in causal talks	Causal talks
Needs and expectations	Increase awareness of heterosexism	Awareness building
	Avoid assumptions	Sexual orientation
		Gender
	Pay attention to tone	Tone sensitivity
	Recognize contributions of non-heterosexual scientists	Recognition of non-heterosexual scientists

---

Ethical considerations

Before interviews were conducted, participants were provided with a consent form and an information sheet. They were informed of their rights to withdraw from the study. A code was assigned to each participant to represent their identity to protect their anonymity. Ethical approval was sought from the Human Ethics Committee at the participating university prior to data collection.

Reflexivity and trustworthiness

To enhance credibility, interview questions were set by the first author in a way that descriptive data reflecting real experiences were collected. Reflexivity was maintained throughout the research process, with the first author keeping a journal to document personal reflections, assumptions, and potential biases that could influence data collection and analysis. Meanwhile, dependability of the study was achieved by audit trails performed throughout the process of data collection, thematization and analysis. The essential structure of the description of the participants’ lived experience attained by data analysis was further validated by the participants through member checking. This allowed participants to review preliminary interpretations and provide clarifications or corrections to ensure accurate representation of their experiences.

Finally, investigator triangulation was employed. The second author, who had a laboratory-based chemistry background with no prior involvement in educational research on heterosexism and was not involved in data collection, participated in the validation process during data analysis. This author independently reviewed the coding framework, assessed the consistency of identified themes, and provided critical feedback on the interpretations. Discrepancies were discussed and resolved through iterative discussions, ensuring that the themes accurately reflected participants’ experiences. The involvement of this author as an independent reviewer helped minimize potential researcher bias and strengthened the rigor of the analysis.

Results

Study design and demographic information of participants

This study was an interpretivist study, in which data analysis was performed based on the way outlined by Colaizzi (1978). The approach of data analysis aimed at understanding the context and complexity of meaning in the experience of the participants. This allows contextually grounded inferences to be drawn from the participants’ accounts. This allowed gathering of new insights, knowledge, and new understanding of the “facts” in the study and could serve as a practical guide to look for actions.

In this study, ten interviews were conducted. While a single 30–60-min interview per participant might not be able to capture the entirety of their lived experiences, all interviews were designed for participants to reflect on and articulate their perspectives in meaningful ways. The semi-structured interview format also enabled flexibility, allowing participants to elaborate on their experiences, perceptions, and emotions related to heterosexism in chemistry education. Probing techniques were used to encourage participants to provide rich, detailed narratives. All these ensured a deeper understanding of their realities within the study's scope. Among all participants involved in this study, five of them were males and another five were females. In terms of their ethnicity, five of the participants were Asians, among which three were East Asians and two were South Asians. All East Asian participants were from People's Republic of China. Among the South Asian participants, one was from Pakistan and the other one was from India. Four participants self-declared to be Caucasians. Among them, three were from the UK and one was from the US. One participant self-declared as Black African and was from South Africa. Demographic details of each of the participants were summarized in Table 3. All these participants were living in the UK at the time of the study as either undergraduate or postgraduate students.

Table 3 Demographic information of the participants

Subject code	Gender	Ethnicity	Place of birth	Status
R1	Male	Caucasian	US	Undergraduate student
R2	Female	Asian	Pakistan	Postgraduate student
R3	Male	Caucasian	UK	Undergraduate student
R4	Female	Caucasian	UK	Undergraduate student
R5	Female	Asian	India	Postgraduate student
R6	Female	Caucasian	UK	Undergraduate student
R7	Male	Asian	China	Postgraduate student
R8	Male	Asian	China	Postgraduate student
R9	Male	Black African	South Africa	Postgraduate student
R10	Female	Asian	China	Postgraduate student

---

Learning and engagement in a chemistry classroom

Six participants indicated that their selection of chemistry disciplines was largely due to personal strength. This was shown by the response of one participant, “I'm good at science and math. I think that really pushed me towards my current study in a chemistry-related discipline. If I'm good at it, then I might take advantage of that fact if I study it (R1)”. Another participant (R5) also mentioned that “I like to continue to study chemistry just because, compared to my performance in other subjects, my performance is chemistry is much better”. Apart from personal strength, four participants mentioned that chances to interact with others in practical sessions, rather than sitting in a classroom all the time, was one important factor causing them to engage in chemistry. This was partially evidenced by the response of one participant (R10), who indicated that “chemistry is quite a challenging subject but I enjoy learning it. I feel good when I work with others in a laboratory and solve problems together”.

In addition to the factors mentioned above, students’ perception of the teacher in a chemistry classroom appeared to be an important factor determining the engagement of participants in chemistry. Seven participants stated that the quality of interactions with their chemistry teachers influenced their perception and learning experience in a chemistry classroom. This was partly shown by the response of one participant (R1), who stated that “it all depends on the teachers. Some teachers are more engaging, make their class more engaging than that of other teachers. Also, some teachers are more interesting than others, even I think that most of the chemistry teachers I encounter are a bit boring. I feel like they're not really interested in their own subject”. A similar response was given by another participant (R2), who stated that “I really enjoy chemistry classes because I like the teacher, who is engaging and can make the subject interesting”. This demonstrated the important role played by a teacher in determining the interest and motivation of students in studying chemistry.

Despite the diversity of factors driving a student to study chemistry, heterosexism appeared to play a significant role in undermining the passion and engagement of non-heterosexual students in a chemistry class. Eight participants indicated that experiences of heterosexism were disengaging in nature. This was explicitly shown by the response of one participant, who stated that “heteronormativity definitely affects my engagement in chemistry…I feel that I am living in an environment that is not very open…I already know that my teacher is not very open either… I feel I am excluded from my class (R2)”. One of the major sources of heterosexist incidents experienced by students in a chemistry class appeared to come from their fellow classmates. This was revealed by one participant, who mentioned that “my classmates in my chemistry class like to say homophobic slurs…they treat heterosexuality to be the norm and I dare not say otherwise (R3)”. Another participant also shared that “there were definitely certain classmates who made jokes about homosexuality and stuff during the class (R5)”. This problem appeared to be compounded by the fact that teachers in a chemistry class did not take the problem seriously, offering acquiescence to the situation without giving proactive intervention. This was revealed by one participant who shared the marginalized experience of one classmate: “One of my classmates is believed by others to be gay and everyone mocked him as being feminine because of that. He faced a lot of discrimination by other classmates in the chemistry class as well as other classes…teachers however have not intervened proactively (R4)”.

Experience and signs of heterosexism in chemistry education

Heterosexism was suggested by participants' narratives as being implicitly present in the practices and teaching content of a chemistry classroom. One area of the curricula that our participants identified as having a high prevalence of heterosexism was the part related to physical phenomena that involved positive and negative entities. An example of such phenomena was ionic interactions, in which cations and anions formed ionic bonds. Eight out of the ten participants indicated the occurrence of heterosexism when such concepts were taught by their chemistry teachers. One participant (R7) mentioned that “in a physical chemistry class, at that time we learnt about cations and anions. Because like charges repel each other while opposite charges attract, the teacher would use opposite-sex relationships and same-sex relationships to explain it. And no one in the class has questioned about it”. Another participant (R6) also stated that “if the teachers were trying to explain an example, they would use a married couple of a man and a woman rather than same-sex couples. If they spoke about anything to do with marriage, they would refer to a man and a woman…This happens when they tried to make explanation of some concepts like ion attraction more interesting to us”. One participant (R3) conveyed his perception of heterosexism in how his teachers selected romantic relationships as an analogy in the chemistry classroom. He also shared his observation regarding the dual standards adopted by his teachers in selecting the type of relationships to explain concepts. He said in the interview that “the teachers always like to use a romantic relationship between a male and a female to talk about how oppositely charged ions are attracted to each other. They try to use heterosexual relationships as an analogy to talk about attractions of opposite charges in a chemistry classroom…however, when they explain concepts like 'like dissolves like', they never use romantic relationships between the same sex as an analogy. The whole teaching approach is very heterosexist”. Apart from ionic interactions, other concepts such as lock-and-key models (relating the interactions between enzymes and substrates) and protein docking were susceptible to heterosexist teaching practices in a chemistry classroom. The latter was demonstrated by the response of one participant (R8), who mentioned that “when protein docking was discussed, complementarity of personalities between two people in love was used as an analogy. The two people involved are assumed to be a male and a female. I think it is the norm in my class to equate human relationships to be the opposite-sex ones”.

Half of the participants also shared that heterosexism was experienced when teachers talked about discoveries made by scientists. This was demonstrated by the response of one participant (R1), who stated that “when teachers explain the history of chemistry and discoveries of theories and stuff like that, they often avoid saying anything about the discoverer if the person who discovered it is homosexual or if it has anything to do with that…the teachers avoid saying that just because it is a controversial subject in their mind”. The participant also mentioned that this phenomenon occurred not only in chemistry lessons in high school in the US but also in the university in the UK. While some chemistry teachers avoided mentioning non-heterosexual relationships in a classroom, others used non-heterosexual relationships as something deviating from the “norm” as a way to attract students’ attention. This was revealed by one participant (R4), who shared that “my teacher introduced prominent scientists to us in a chemistry class…at that time, he told us that a specific scientist was thought to be gay in order to attract the attention from the class. He tried to attract our attention by telling us the suspected sexual orientation of a scientist if that scientist was regarded not to be a heterosexual…he just assumes being a heterosexual is normal and being non-heterosexual deviates from the norm”.

Apart from the occurrence of heterosexism in formal teaching, three participants reported that heterosexism occurred during teachers’ casual conservations. This was exemplified by the response of one participant (R2), who stated that “at the end of an academic year….my chemistry teacher wished us success and she made comments like….'I want all my students to grow up and be successful and get married and meet'. And I knew what the teacher meant was to want all her female students to marry men and vice versa. This is the kind of stereotypes. I mean, I guess it is because our teacher has a religious belief. Her comments, therefore, tend to be heteronormative”. Another participant (R9) also shared a similar experience in a practical session: “I remember…in a practical session when we were asked to do an experiment, the teacher asked us to be careful in handling the chemicals. He said, in a cheesy manner, to female students that if they got hurt, they could not find boyfriends. He also said to male students that if they got injured, they could hardly find girlfriends later.”

Not only did heterosexism manifest verbally in a chemistry classroom, but it was also found to happen in a nonverbal manner. Illustrations used in textbooks appeared to be a major source of heterosexist nonverbal cues in chemistry. This was revealed by the response of one participant (R2), “In our textbooks and handouts used for practical sessions in a chemistry class, when there are illustrations, some of them would just be depicting heterosexual couples…like having a man to match with a woman…implying that heterosexuality is the norm…there are basically no figures or illustrations in a textbook that matches a man with a man or a woman with a woman”. A similar problem was stated by another participant (R7), “Illustrations in some chemistry books may depict a 'family' as having one man, one woman and a child. They will not draw a 'family' as having two men and a child or having two women and a child. No one however has questioned this representation of 'family'. This is very heterosexist”. In addition to textbooks, heteronormative visual cues were found in teaching materials made by the teacher. This was evidenced by the response of one participant (R9), who shared that “when the Maillard reaction was taught…in that PowerPoint slide, an illustration was put to depict how a family cooks together in a kitchen. In that illustration, a man, a woman and a child were drawn, offering the impression that a family is supposed to be established by two opposite-sex people”. Apart from illustrations found in teaching materials, occurrence of heterosexism in a chemistry classroom was manifested via teachers’ and students’ nonverbal cues. This was revealed by one participant (R7), who noted that “when some scientists were introduced in a chemistry class, sometimes some classmates would make a joke by saying that these two male scientists may actually be a couple. Even it was a joke, by looking at their facial expressions and how they react, it is not difficult to see that they are teasing non-heterosexual romance”.

Regarding the underlying cause of heterosexism in a chemistry class, eight participants attributed it to the lack of awareness of heteronormativity among teachers and stakeholders. One participant (R9) stated that “they just take heterosexuality for granted and assume it to be the norm without criticizing”. Another participant (R7) also mentioned that “no one has questioned about it or see it to be a problem in a classroom. When they think it is the only right way of establishing a family and having two people to be together, they will not question about it”. Two participants also attributed the prevalence of heterosexism in a chemistry class to the intention of the chemistry teacher to make the lesson more “acceptable” to students with diverse backgrounds. This was revealed by the response of one participant (R1), who stated that “the range of students in a chemistry class can be very wide. So some students may be conservative and some may be liberal. I think in the eye of the chemistry teacher, it is easier to please everyone by just sticking to that heteronormative agenda. It is like, if they don’t get involved in controversies, they can spare from receiving complaints from conservative students and their lessons can be more acceptable to everyone”.

Needs and expectations in a chemistry classroom

Regarding ways to establish a more inclusive non-heterosexist chemistry classroom, seven participants mentioned the need of classmates and teachers to be aware of the problem of heterosexism. One participant (R9) even reckoned this as a precondition of establishing an inclusive chemistry classroom for non-heterosexual students: “Enhancing the ability of both students and teachers to reckon problems in heteronormativity is the key. If they do not possess this capacity to combat the bigotry, nothing else can be done effectively”. Furthermore, three participants pointed out the importance of teachers not to make assumptions on people's sexual orientation in a heterosexist manner. This idea was exemplified by the response of one participant (R2), who shared that “one thing I think that can help is to engage everyone without excluding non-heterosexual people by heteronormative concepts in a classroom…another thing is to stop assuming people's sexual orientation…it is very important for the teacher not to impose heterosexism on people in a chemistry class in school”. One participant (R1) also stated the need of the teacher to respect pronouns, and not to make assumptions on gender simply based on physical appearance of a student. As mentioned by the participant, “I think that most of the time when you are at university and even in high school, respect to students’ pronouns is ignored. I think the teacher should ask about my pronoun…I think this is fundamental”.

In addition, three participants stated the need of halting the use of opposite-sex relationships as an analogy to explain physical phenomena that involved complementary entities. One participant (R6) called for the use of same-sex relationships as an analogy if opposite-sex relationships were used: “If a concept has to be explained, it would be good if the teacher does not always frame it in a heteronormative way. Therefore, speak about both opposite-sex and same-sex couples, rather than just keeping the heteronormative view when discussing topics”. The importance of explicitly recognizing the contributions made by non-heterosexual scientists to advancement of chemistry in a classroom was also raised by one participant (R1), who urged the need to “acknowledge people from the LGBTQ+ community on discoveries and stuff like that in a chemistry lesson”. However, the tone adopted when same-sex relationships were highlighted was the key because one participant (R4) shared how same-sex relationships were used by her chemistry teacher as something “special” to attract students’ attention to the teaching contents, making her felt excluded from the class when the teacher insinuated that “being non-heterosexual deviates from the norm”.

Discussion

This study adopted the interpretivist paradigm in study design to understand students’ perception and experience of heterosexism in a chemistry classroom. In-depth interviews were used as the means of gathering data regarding the lived experience of ten participants, who had experiences in attending a chemistry classroom and were able to provide insider knowledge and insights regarding the prevalence of heterosexism during studies in chemistry. Based on analysis of the collected data, heterosexism has been perceived by students not only via verbal cues received in a chemistry classroom, but also via nonverbal cues. The latter exists in forms of perceptions or senses (e.g., visual aids used in teaching materials), vocal features (e.g., teachers’ intonation and stress) and body movement (e.g., classmates’ facial expression, gesture, and interpersonal distance). While verbal cues of heterosexism have gained more attention in the literature because they are more easily observable and to capture in a study, nonverbal cues of heterosexism should not be ignored. The role of nonverbal cues in the process of message conveyance is particularly important in situations in which emotions, identities, and status roles significantly influence communication (DePaulo and Friedman, 1998). As supported by an earlier study (Röndahl et al., 2006), heteronormative assumptions conveyed by non-verbal cues could create stress and feelings of exclusion for non-heterosexual individuals. The findings of our study corroborated this and revealed the possible role played by nonverbal cues in conveying heterosexism in a chemistry classroom. This implies that in future research on the nature and prevalence of heterosexism, not only verbal cues but also nonverbal ones should be taken into account.

In this study, classmates were found to be one possible source of heteronormative discourse, either verbal or nonverbal, in a chemistry classroom. This was exemplified by the response of one participant who perceived heterosexism by observing the facial expressions of his classmates in reacting to jokes on non-heterosexual romance. Our findings are consistent with the observation made by Atkinson (2021), who discovered that peers play a role in reinforcing the dominance of heterosexism, influencing both friendship dynamics and social hierarchies. Another important source of heterosexism, as revealed in this study, is the teaching practice and teaching contents adopted in a chemistry classroom. This can range from the use of heterosexual relationships as an analogy to explain chemistry concepts to the depiction of heterosexual relationships in illustrations used in course materials. Such high prevalence of heterosexism in a chemistry classroom could actually be a combined effect of the problems of the school management team and students’ parents who advocate heterosexuality as the norm in the children's growing environment (including families and schools). The latter was evidenced by the fact that dozens of librarians in schools in the UK have recently been asked by the parents to remove LGBTQ+ books from school libraries (Guardian News, 2024). The situation is compounded by the fact that such requests from heteronormative parents have been endorsed by the management teams of a number of schools in the UK (Guardian News, 2024). Such endorsement partly evidences the acceptance of heterosexism by teaching and administrative staff in the educational setting, but more importantly, it highlights the broader societal and educational context in which heterosexism is perpetuated, which, as revealed in this study, extends beyond K-12 environments and into higher education. This, along with our findings, underscores that heterosexism is a systemic issue within the UK education system.

In fact, growth in a heterosexist environment may render the student likely to be heterosexist in their adulthood (Fish, 2006; Hong and Garbarino, 2012; Valentine, 2016), causing heterosexism to be passed from one generation to another. According to Vygotsky's sociocultural theory (Edwards, 2003), development is a process at both interpersonal and intrapersonal levels. It is a result of social interaction contextualized by the cultural setting to which the children are exposed. In other words, social interaction is a major factor driving the process of child development and learning (Howe and Mercer, 2012). Behaviour of a person is the result of learning through interaction and observation (Bandura, 1977). In other words, the thoughts and behaviour of all people are shaped by their previous social interactions (Guerrero and Floyd, 2006). Instead of being inherent in nature, heterosexism is acquired through social consensus (Duhigg et al., 2010; Davis-Delano and Morgan, 2016). From a sociocultural perspective, heterosexism is learned rather than innate and is shaped by socially prescribed interpretations that individuals experience or observe over time (Guerrero and Floyd, 2006). Although societal consensus influences how individuals interpret heterosexism, this impact often operates unconsciously (Philippot et al., 1999; Hetzel, 2011). For this, the most important factor influencing the experience of heterosexism is something beyond individual consciousness (Hetzel, 2011; Valentine, 2016). It is, therefore, hard for individuals to be aware of the problem of heterosexism as motivations underlying it are not what they are conscious of or consciously involving. This also makes halting heterosexism in a classroom technically challenging. To rectify the situation, future collaboration between the government and regulatory bodies should focus on combating heteronormativity in schools and beyond, ensuring that children are protected from heterosexist ideologies instilled by their parents, teachers, and loved ones. Special attention should also be provided to non-heterosexual students to prevent them from becoming victims of heteronormativity as this will discourage their participation in school (Hughes and Kothari, 2023) and will deprive their opportunities to learn as effectively as their heterosexual counterparts do (Friedensen et al., 2021; Marosi et al., 2025). Combating heterosexism is, therefore, crucial not only for fostering inclusivity in educational settings but also for challenging the broader societal structures that sustain discrimination.

Implications for practice

Chemistry education tends to emphasize objectivity, technical rigor, and content-focused instruction (Sjöström, 2007; Schummer, 2010). While these characteristics are central to scientific training, they can unintentionally marginalize discussions of identity, inclusion, and social context. In classrooms where neutrality and technical content dominate, the personal dimensions of learning are often overlooked or treated as irrelevant (Holbrook, 2005). This can foster a culture of silence around issues such as sexuality, allowing heteronormative assumptions to go unchallenged. For non-heterosexual students, the absence of inclusive language and the persistence of heterosexist practices in classroom settings can lead to feelings of invisibility and discomfort. Even in the absence of overt discrimination, a lack of recognition and support can lead individuals to feel psychologically unsafe or alienated in their environments (Jones, 2021). While the examples in this study arose from participants’ experiences at UK institutions, these broader dynamics—such as the erasure of non-heterosexual identities and the limited integration of equity-focused pedagogy—are likely present across many higher education chemistry settings. By drawing attention to these systemic issues, the study encourages chemistry educators and departments across institutional contexts to explore how their teaching practices, materials, and classroom cultures might better support non-heterosexual students.

Findings of this study suggest several ways in which chemistry classrooms could become more inclusive for non-heterosexual students. Participants' experiences indicate that heterosexism can manifest in both overt and subtle ways, influencing the experience and engagement of non-heterosexual students in the classroom. To address this problem, chemistry educators and institutions should implement targeted strategies that mitigate heterosexist biases. One strategy is to adopt inclusive language in chemistry education. Educators should actively avoid making heteronormative assumptions when discussing examples and concepts in the chemistry classroom, particularly when teaching physical phenomena involving positive and negative entities (e.g., cations and anions). Teaching materials should reflect diverse identities, ensuring that non-heterosexual individuals see themselves represented within the discipline. Prior research has demonstrated that representation plays a key role in fostering a sense of belonging and engagement among marginalized students (Carter et al., 2023; Paul, 2023). Apart from avoiding heterosexist explanations of concepts, by acknowledging the contributions of non-heterosexual chemists, educators can foster a more welcoming learning environment in chemistry education.

In addition to inclusive teaching practices, formal support mechanisms shall be established to provide students with clear pathways for reporting and addressing incidents of heterosexism. Institutions should ensure that students are aware of the resources available to them and that reporting processes are confidential and accessible. Training should also be provided to teaching staff to equip them with the knowledge and skills needed to recognize and challenge heterosexist microaggressions in the classroom setting. As indicated by a previous study (Anabel and Rafael, 2017), faculty members who participated in a training program on inclusive education and disability reported feeling more motivated toward EDI in education and better equipped to create inclusive learning environments. Beyond individual classroom practices, institutional commitment is pivotal when combating heterosexism in the classroom setting (Kuhlemeier et al., 2021). This could be manifested through the integration of initiatives to address heterosexism into broader EDI efforts, ensuring that these initiatives extend beyond isolated courses or departments in chemistry. Embedding such initiatives within institutional policies would signal a long-term commitment to addressing heterosexism and fostering an educational culture that supports all students regardless of sexual orientation.

Concluding remarks

Heterosexism is a sociopolitical construct undermining the equal opportunities of individuals in a society and, in the context of chemistry education, has made non-heterosexual students feel excluded, thereby potentially jeopardizing engagement in learning activities among these students. To explore the prevalence and occurrence of heterosexism as perceived and experienced by non-heterosexual students in a chemistry classroom, ten in-depth interviews were conducted. The influence of heterosexism on non-heterosexual students’ learning and engagement in a chemistry classroom was examined, with the sources and signs of heterosexism also being explored. Insights were gained into the needs and expectations of non-heterosexual students in the context of chemistry education. Despite this, one of the limitations of this study is that the points of view of teachers have not been included. This is justifiable in a way that the focus of this research is only to explore the perception and experience of heterosexism through the eyes of students. Yet, both students and teachers are pivotal to make teaching and learning in a classroom setting possible. The awareness and perspectives of teachers regarding heterosexism in a chemistry classroom remain to be further studied.

Furthermore, interviews were conducted in this study until data saturation was observed. The accuracy of the data collected could, however, still be affected if false or vague memories occurred when participants recalled their past experiences. It is also worth mentioning that, as with all interpretivist research, we acknowledge the influence of our positionalities on the research process. Efforts were made to minimise this influence through reflexive practices, member checking, and investigator triangulation. Nonetheless, complete neutrality is neither possible nor desirable in qualitative inquiry (Skovlund et al., 2023). Finally, motivations, beliefs, values, contexts, cultures, and reasoning of each participant are unique. These factors shape each participant's perception and experience of heterosexism and contribute to the social reality observed. Findings of this study can, therefore, only be interpreted within the context of the participants and their characteristics. Their generalizability is highly limited. Despite this, findings of this study offer transferable insights into the ways heterosexism may be experienced by non-heterosexual students in chemistry classrooms. The themes identified—such as the sources and forms of heterosexism—may resonate with students in other chemistry programs or STEM disciplines with similar cultures. These findings invite educators to reflect on the normative assumptions embedded in their teaching practices and consider how inclusive practices can be fostered more broadly.

In fact, culture has a significant influence on both verbal and nonverbal encoding and decoding processes in a classroom and hence teacher-student interactions (Matsumoto, 2001; Matsumoto and Yoo, 2005). For the former, cultures exert substantial influence on our verbal language, from the syntax and diction to the pragmatics of a language. For the latter, cultures can affect our nonverbal behaviour, such as our facial expressions, gestures, distances, gazes, and postures. Though some sorts of nonverbal behaviour (such as greeting behaviour) could be highly similar across cultures, some (such as touching behaviour) could differ greatly. In future research, the perceptions and experiences of participants from diverse cultural and background characteristics could be examined to explore how cultural variation shapes students’ experiences of heterosexism—along with its prevalence and manifestation in teaching practices and curriculum development—in chemistry classrooms. The ways in which these dynamics play out across different institutional, cultural, and national contexts are particularly worth further investigation.

Data availability

The interview transcripts are not publicly available as releasing the data publicly could potentially compromise the privacy of the research participants.

Conflicts of interest

The authors have no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.

Acknowledgements

This study was funded by the Inclusion and Diversity Fund (218607233) of Royal Society of Chemistry in the UK.

References

1. Alharahsheh H. H. and Pius A., (2020), A review of key paradigms: positivism vs. interpretivism, Glob. Acad. J. Humanit. Soc. Sci., 2(3), 39–43.
2. Anabel M. and Rafael C., (2017), The impact of a faculty training program on inclusive education and disability, Eval. Program Plann., 65, 77–83.
3. Atkinson C., (2021), ‘They don’t really talk about it ‘cos they don’t think it's right’: heteronormativity and institutional silence in UK primary education, Gend. Educ., 33(4), 451–467.
4. Babones S., (2016), Interpretive quantitative methods for the social sciences, Sociology, 50(3), 453–469.
5. Bandura A., (1977), Social learning theory, Prentice-Hall.
6. Bhattacherjee A., (2012), Social science research: Principles, methods, and practices, University of South Florida.
7. Burke K., and Dunn R., (2002), Learning style-based teaching to raise minority student test scores: there's no debate!, Clearing House, 76(2), 103–106.
8. Burrell G. and Morgan G., (2016), Sociological Paradigms and Organisational Analysis, Routledge.
9. Carter B. M., Sumpter D. F. and Thruston W., (2023), Overcoming marginalization by creating a sense of belonging, Creat. Nurs., 29(4), 320–327.
10. Cech E. A. and Pham M. V., (2017), Queer in STEM organizations: workplace disadvantages for LGBT employees in STEM related federal agencies, Soc. Sci., 6(1), 12.
11. Cech E. A. and Waidzunas T. J., (2021), Systemic inequalities for LGBTQ professionals in STEM, Sci. Adv., 7(3), eabe0933.
12. Chan B., and Stewart J. J., (2022), Listening to nonbinary chemistry students: nonacademic roadblocks to success, J. Chem. Educ., 99(1), 409–416.
13. Chesir-Teran D. N., (2003), Conceptualizing and assessing hetero sexism in high schools: a setting-level approach, Am. J. Community Psychol., 31, 267–280.
14. Chesir-Teran D. and Hughes D., (2009), Heterosexism in high school and victimization among lesbian, gay, bisexual, and questioning students, J. Youth Adolescence, 38, 963–975.
15. Chow P. K. Y., and Cheng S. T., (2010), Shame, internalized heterosexism, lesbian identity, and coming out to others: a comparative study of lesbians in mainland China and Hong Kong, J. Couns. Psychol., 57(1), 92.
16. Citizenship 21, (2003), Profiles of prejudice, Stonewall, Retrieved Mar 20, 2025 from https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/citizenship-21-briefing-notes-profiles-prejudice.
17. Colaizzi P. F., (1978), Psychological research as the phenomenologist views, in Valle R. and King M. (ed.), Existential-Phenomenological Alternatives for Psychology, Oxford University Press, pp. 48–71.
18. Cooper K. M. and Brownell S. E., (2016), Coming out in class: challenges and benefits of active learning in a biology classroom for LGBTQIA students, CBE Life Sci. Educ., 15(3), 1–19.
19. Davis-Delano L. R. and Morgan E. M., (2016), Heterosexual Identity Management: How Social Context Affects Heterosexual Marking Practices, Identity, 16(4), 299–318.
20. DePaulo B. M. and Friedman H. S., (1998), Nonverbal communication, in Gilbert D. T., Fiske S. T. and Lindzey G. (ed.), The Handbook of Social Psychology, 4th edn, McGraw-Hill, vol. 1, pp. 591–632.
21. Duhigg J. M., Rostosky S. S., Gray B. E. and Wimsatt M. K., (2010), Development of heterosexuals into sexual-minority allies: a qualitative exploration, Sex Res. Social Policy, 7, 2–14.
22. Edwards S., (2003), New directions: charting the paths for the role of sociocultural theory in early childhood education and curriculum, Contemp. Issues Early Child., 4(3), 251–266.
23. Fellows R. and Liu A., (2015), Research Methods for Construction, John Wiley & Sons.
24. Fish J., (2006), What is heterosexism? Heterosexism in Health and Social Care, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 3–27.
25. Fitzgerald-Russell M. L. and Kowalske M. G., (2024), LGBTQ+ science students' experiences, perceptions, and feelings of discrimination in their science departments, J. Homosex., 71(11), 2638–2663.
26. Forbes T. D., (2022), Queer-free majors? LGBTQ + college students’ accounts of chilly and warm academic disciplines, J. LGBT Youth, 19(3), 330–349.
27. Friedensen R. E., Kimball E., Vaccaro A., Miller R. A. and Forester R., (2021), Queer science: temporality and futurity for queer students in STEM, Time Soc., 30(3), 332–354.
28. Government of the United Kingdom, (2024), Equality Act 2010. Retrieved Jul 4, 2024 from https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/contents.
29. Guardian News, (2024), Dozens of UK school librarians asked to remove LGBTQ+ books, survey finds. Retrieved Oct 17, 2024 from https://www.theguardian.com/books/article/2024/aug/19/uk-school-librarians-asked-remove-lgbtq-books-index-on-censorship#:~:text=to%20remove%20books.-,In%20more%20than%20half%<?pdb_no 20of?>20of<?pdb END?>%20those%20cases%20books%20were%20taken,remove%20books%20came%20from%20parents.
30. Guerrero L. K. and Floyd K., (2006), Nonverbal Communication in Close Relationships, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
31. Han S., Dean M. and Okoroji C., (2018), Minority student experiences in a living and learning community on a predominantly white college campus, J. Ethnogr. Qual. Res., 13(2), 107–121.
32. Hetzel C. J., (2011), Exploring the relationship between public opinion and personal attitudes and behavior toward lesbians and gay men: social conformity revisited, J. Homosex., 58(10), 1421–1441.
33. Holbrook, J., (2005), Making chemistry teaching relevant. Chem. Educ. Int., 6(1), 1–12.
34. Hong J. S. and Garbarino J., (2012), Risk and protective factors for homophobic bullying in schools: an application of the social–ecological framework, Educ. Psychol. Rev., 24(2), 271–285.
35. Howe C. and Mercer N., (2012), Children's social development, peer interaction and classroom learning, The Cambridge Primary Review Research Surveys, Routledge, pp. 170–194.
36. Hughes B. E., (2018), Coming out in STEM: factors affecting retention of sexual minority STEM students, Sci. Adv., 4(3), eaao6373.
37. Hughes B. E., and Kothari S., (2023), Don't be too political: depoliticization, sexual orientation, and undergraduate STEM major persistence, J. Homosex., 70(4), 632–659.
38. Husserl E., (1962), Ideas: General Introduction to Pure Phenomenology, Macmillan.
39. Husserl E., (1970), The Crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology: An Introduction to Phenomenological Philosophy, Northwestern University Press.
40. Jones C. S., (2021) An investigation into barriers to student engagement in higher education: evidence supporting “the psychosocial and academic trust alienation theory”, Adv. Educ. Res. Eval., 2(2), 153–165.
41. Juan I. S., Jaime B., Carmen P.-A. and Celia Zárraga O., (2023), Combining interpretivism and positivism in international business research: the example of the expatriate role, J. World Bus., 58(2), 101419.
42. Kelly M., (2017), Teachers' Ontological and epistemological beliefs: their impact on approaches to teaching, in Ling L. and Ling P. (ed.), Methods and Paradigms in Education Research, IGI Global, pp. 144–166.
43. Kerkhoven A. H., Russo P., Land-Zandstra A. M., Saxena A. and Rodenburg F. J., (2016), Gender stereotypes in science education resources: a visual content analysis, PLoS One, 11(11), e0165037.
44. Kuhlemeier A., Goodkind J. R. and Willging C. E., (2021), Production and maintenance of the institutional in/visibility of sexual and gender minority students in schools, Am. J. Orthopsychiatry, 91(4), 558–568.
45. Linley J. L., Renn K. A. and Woodford M. R., (2018), Examining the ecological systems of LGBTQ STEM majors, J. Women Minor. Sci. Eng., 24(1), 1–16.
46. Lipkin A., (1999), Understanding Homosexuality, Changing Schools, Westview Press.
47. Lisberg A. and Woods B., (2018), Mentorship, mindset and learning strategies: an integrative approach to increasing underrepresented minority student retention in a STEM undergraduate program, J. STEM Educ., 19(3), 14–20.
48. Marosi N. K. M., Avraamidou L. and López López M., (2025), Queer individuals’ experiences in STEM learning and working environments, Stud. Sci. Educ., 61(1), 1–39.
49. Matsumoto D., (2001), Culture and emotion, The Handbook of Culture And Psychology, Oxford University Press, pp. 171–194.
50. Matsumoto D. and Yoo S. H., (2005), Culture and applied nonverbal communication, Applications of Nonverbal Communication, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, pp. 255–277.
51. Michli S. and Jamil F. E., (2022), Internalized homonegativity and the challenges of having same-sex desires in the Lebanese context: a study examining risk and protective factors, J. Homosex., 69(1), 75–100.
52. Miller R. A., Wynn R. D., Stare B., Williamson J. and Guo L., (2022), Mental health and resilience among LGBTQ+ college students with disabilities, Currents, 2(1), 60–80.
53. Morgan D. L., (2017), Integrating Qualitative and Quantitative Methods: A Pragmatic Approach, SAGE Publications.
54. Owens J. D. and Weigel D., (2018), Addressing minority student achievement through service learning in a culturally relevant context, J. Serv. Learn. High. Educ., 7(1), 2–24.
55. Paul J. K., (2023), The right to belong in school: a critical, transdisciplinary conceptualization of school belonging, AERA Open, 9(1), 1–12.
56. Pearl A. J. and Christensen R. K., (2017), First-year student motivations for service-learning: an exploratory investigation of minority student perceptions, J. High. Educ. Outreach Engagem., 21(4), 117–137.
57. Philippot P., Feldman R. S. and Coats E. J. E., (1999), The Social Context of Nonverbal Behavior, Editions de la Maison des Sciences de l'Homme.
58. Röndahl G., Innala S. and Carlsson M., (2006), Heterosexual assumptions in verbal and non-verbal communication in nursing, J. Adv. Nurs., 56(4), 373–381.
59. Salim S. R., McConnell A. A. and Messman-Moore T. L., (2020), Bisexual women's experiences of stigma and verbal sexual coercion: the roles of internalized heterosexism and outness, Psychol. Women Q., 44(3), 362–376.
60. Saunders M., Lewis P. and Thornhill A., (2016), Research Methods for Business Students, Pearson.
61. Schummer J., (2010), Philosophy of chemistry, in Allhoff F. (ed.), Philosophies of the Sciences, Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 163–183.
62. Scotland J., (2012), Exploring the philosophical underpinnings of research: relating ontology and epistemology to the methodology and methods of the scientific, interpretive, and critical research paradigms, Eng. Lang. Teach., 5(9), 9–16.
63. Sjöström J., (2007), The discourse of chemistry (and beyond), HYLE, 13(2), 83–97.
64. Skovlund H., Lerche Mørck L. and Celosse-Andersen M., (2023), The art of not being neutral in qualitative research, Qual. Res. Psychol., 20(3), 363–381.
65. Sondag K. A., Johnson A. G. and Parrish M. E., (2022), School sex education: Teachers' and young adults' perceptions of relevance for LGBT students, J. LGBT Youth, 19(3), 247–267.
66. Szymanski D. M. and Henrichs-Beck C., (2014), Exploring sexual minority women's experiences of external and internalized heterosexism and sexism and their links to coping and distress, Sex Roles, 70(1), 28–42.
67. Tan E. and Barton A. C., (2010), Transforming science learning and student participation in sixth grade science: a case study of a low-income, urban, racial minority classroom, Equity Excell. Educ., 43(1), 38–55.
68. Todres L. and Holloway I., (2006), Phenomenological research, in Gerrish K. and Lacey A. (ed.), The Research Process in Nursing, Blackwell, pp. 177–187.
69. Valentine G., (2016), ‘(Hetero) sexing space: lesbian perceptions and experiences of everyday spaces', Space, Gender, Knowledge: Feminist Readings, Routledge, pp. 284–299.
70. Valentine G. and McDonald I., (2004), Understanding Prejudice: Attitudes towards Minorities, Stonewall.
71. Vanita R., (2000), The straight path to postcolonial salvation: heterosexism and the teaching of english in India today, in Spurlin W. J. (ed.), Lesbian and Gay Studies and the Teaching of English: Positions, Pedagogies, and Cultural Politics, National Council of Teachers of English, pp. 272–287.
72. Walls N. E., (2008), Toward a multidimensional understanding of heterosexism: the changing nature of prejudice, J. Homosex., 55(1), 20–70.
73. Williams M., (2000), Interpretivism and generalisation, Sociology, 34(2), 209–224.

---