WORKPLACE CLIMATE FOR SEXUAL AND GENDER MINORITIES IN ATHLETIC TRAINING

Abstract

Context: Sexual and gender minorities (SGM) are individuals with sexual orientations, gender identities and/or expressions that differ from cultural norms. SGMs often face workplace discrimination and report decreased physical and emotional well-being from discrimination. Objective: To explore the workplace climate of SGM athletic trainers (AT). Design: Sequential mixed-methods study. Setting: Web-based survey and interviews. Patients or Other Participants: Criterion sampling of SGM ATs (117 survey participants and 12 interview participants). Data Collection and Analysis: We modified the LGBTQ Inclusion Assessment and the Organizational Self-Assessment for the survey and developed a semi-structured interview script (scale-level content validity index=0.94). We used means, standard deviations, frequencies and the consensual qualitative research tradition to characterize participant responses. Trustworthiness was established through reflexivity (researchers checking bias throughout the research process), member-checking, multi-analyst triangulation, internal and external auditing. Results: Participants indicated their workplace was inclusive (24, 20.5%), somewhat inclusive (29, 24.8%), not inclusive (14, 12.0%), or did not indicate at all (50, 42.7%). Respondents most often indicated they were unsure of the stage of change their organizations and organizational units were in addressing LGBTQPIA+ issues in the workplace as well as specific actions taken for inclusion. Two domains emerged from the interview data: safety and inclusion. The safety domain represents aspects of the workplace climate that make the participants feel safe including organizational initiatives (12/12), patient-centered policies (7/12), local and federal regulations (7/12), and signaling (12/12). The inclusion domain represents how the participants felt a sense of belonging to the organization through their own experience (12/12), through the experiences of their patients (9/12), and through an infrastructure designed for inclusion (12/12). Participants expressed both the affirmative and the negative feelings of safety and inclusion throughout their responses. Conclusions: Organizations must take both structural and cultural actions to address the issues of exclusion and lack of safety.