To understand the experiences of a whole student, when possible, we need to consider student identity beyond a single demographic. This can be an incredibly daunting task! But taking even small steps to integrate other information about student experiences can help to form a clearer picture of complex situations. In 2023, 38,619 (22%) of the first-year and senior students in the U.S. who responded to NSSE have a disability or condition that impacts their learning, working, or living activities.

The context of the disability or condition, however, can impact students in vastly diverse ways. Additionally, nearly three out of four (74%) of these students have multiple disabilities or conditions that affect their experiences, further complicating matters. Looking at students with disabilities in the aggregate will likely hide important differences in experience. Expansive disaggregation would be ideal, but looking within general subcategories, such as sensory or physical disabilities, can be a good start. 

Focusing on one of our relationship-building aspects of engagement, Sense of Belonging, students with sensory disabilities, physical disabilities, and disabilities or conditions such as chronic medical conditions or learning disabilities feel disproportionately greater sense of belonging (ꭓ2 (8; 37,964) = 234.3, p < .001) but students with mental health or developmental disabilities or multiple disabilities or conditions across these broad categories feel disproportionately lower sense of belonging. These findings could signal that institutions are more equipped or motivated to create inclusive spaces for students with sensory or physical disabilities and chronic medical conditions. It could also indicate inclusion efforts focus on more obvious disabilities as opposed to disabilities that may be less apparent such as developmental disabilities and those related to mental health.  

We previously found that students who identified as Black + Latine, White + another, Indigenous + Latine + White, or Black + another feel disproportionately less belonging at their institution and that students with mental health or developmental disabilities feel similarly. Combining these aspects of identity, we see that students with these select racial/ethnic identifications and mental health or developmental disabilities feel even less belonging than their peers (Figure 1). 

These are certainly not the only ways to explore data through disaggregation or intersecting identity lenses, but they are a simple way to start. Understanding engagement experiences through identity can be complex and intimidating, but small steps are better than none. We can often learn more about unique student experiences when we question the norms of our data practices, whether that involves the ways we aggregate or disaggregate data or how we often ask questions of our data using one demographic at a time. 

Participation with faculty in undergraduate research (UGR) is invaluable for academic development, fostering critical thinking, and providing mentorship opportunities. However, for LGBTQ+ students, these collaborations can be both empowering and challenging due to the social dynamics and inherent biases present in academic environments.  

For example, Woodford and Kulick (2015) observed that the perceptions and experiences of students identifying as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender affected their academic and social integration within the campus. However, Kilgo et al. (2019) found that among all high-impact practices, only undergraduate research positively predicted LGBTQ+ students’ academic development. They further concluded that it was students’ relationships with the instructors that mediated the difference.

A few years ago, NSSE found that—percentagewise—many more LGBTQ+ seniors (about a third) participated in UGR, compared to a quarter of their straight peers. Similarly, around a third of seniors who did not identify with the man/woman gender binary participated in UGR, compared to around a quarter of seniors identifying as men or women (Kinzie & BrckaLorenz, 2021). 

Now in 2023, with NSSE’s recently expanded and more inclusive gender identity and sexual orientation options, a detailed revisiting of these results is possible, and the same overall patterns emerge. For example, a third of seniors who identified as “genderqueer, non-binary, or gender nonconforming” and “trans/transgender” participated in UGR, compared to a quarter of those who identified as “woman” or “man” (Figure 2). Participation by sexual orientation reveals even larger gaps. Fully 37% of “queer” seniors participated in research with faculty, and “demisexual,” “bisexual,” and others were also substantially more likely to participate than their “straight or heterosexual” peers (23%) (Figure 3). 

On the face of it, these results are encouraging for students who often find campus environments to be challenging (Woodford & Kulick, 2015). Viewed alongside the findings of Kilgo et al. (2019), they offer support to NSSE’s assertion that the quality of high-impact practices depends on how well they are designed and facilitated. Yet, questions remain as to the reasons for these positive results. Do LGBTQ+ students find more welcoming spaces with faculty? Are they shut out of opportunities in other areas, leading them to pursue majors that offer more research experiences? Are students who identify as genderqueer, trans, etc. more likely to be “research-oriented” with the inquisitiveness, scholarly approach, and inclination to study unanswered questions?  

Despite these ongoing questions, engaging in UGR can nevertheless provide opportunities for empowerment, advocacy, and academic development through more sustained and engaging student-instructor relationships, whereas, according to Kilgo et al. (2019), other high-impact practices may not. For instance, supportive and inclusive mentors can serve as allies, creating a better climate for these students to express their identities and contribute meaningfully to research projects. More work should be done to explore how other high-impact practices are implemented and their potential to support LGBTQ+ populations. ♦

Back to Top