Gender Nonconforming Individuals and Business Education: A Systematic Review of the Literature

Abstract

Our understanding of gender is evolving from a binary system to a continuum whereby gender is fluid, multifaceted, and individually defined or expressed. Businesses, through owners, employees, and customers, as well as company policies and practices, play a role in the acceptance and inclusion of gender nonconforming individuals. One group with a responsibility in relation to gender inclusion is the business education system—undergraduate and graduate business programs that deliver business curriculum, shape business practices, research business issues, and produce business leaders. The purpose of this study is to examine the peer-reviewed literature to identify if and how the interpretation of genders, one that includes gender nonconforming individuals, exists in business education research. While 17 articles were found that cover topics within this general area, an overall lack of academic literature examining business education and gender nonconformity may leave business educators ill-equipped to include gender nonconforming individuals and topics in their classrooms. This work may inform business educators regarding the status of business education in relation to the evolving understanding of gender and identify areas for future work to help ensure that business educators are equipped with the knowledge to enable full gender inclusion in the business classroom.

Keywords

business education gender nonconforming gender nonconformity heteronormative inclusion LGBTQ nonbinary gender

Introduction

Society’s understanding and recognition of genders is evolving from a binary system composed of males and females, to a continuum or spectrum whereby gender is fluid, multifaceted, and individually defined or expressed (Castleberry, 2019). In mainstream society, particularly in Western countries, gender nonconforming individuals are becoming more visible, accepted, included, and welcomed compared with how individuals and groups who identify in a gender nonconforming manner have been treated in the past. While some advances toward gender inclusion have been stymied at times, by specific policies enacted by socially conservative political administrations, the general march toward acceptance and inclusion continues (Roberts, 2019; Witeck, 2014). Inclusion more broadly is also being advanced by social movements such as Black Lives Matter, which regained international prominence after the killing of George Floyd in May 2020. This societal shift toward inclusion and acceptance is forcing individuals, organizations, and communities to reconsider the established normative behaviors, assumptions, language, and paradigms that rely on exclusionary practices, such as a binary and heteronormative understanding of genders (Roberts, 2017). For example, in academic spheres, the concept of a gender continuum is gaining scholarly acceptance and is fueling new streams of academic research, new organizational policies and practices, and new academic and educational realities, where all genders and gender expressions are recognized, valued, and included (Mahapatro, 2014).

A significant player in societal shifts regarding the inclusion of gender nonconforming individuals is the business community (Sheridan, 2019). Businesses play a major role in the acceptance and inclusion of gender nonconforming individuals through employment practices and policies (Everly & Schwarz, 2015; Milligan, 2017), targeted goods and services (Corrales & Pecheny, 2010), representation through marketing communications (Nolke, 2018), and the establishment of normative expectations (Reed, 2017). A specific subgroup of the broader business community with an important responsibility in relation to acceptance and inclusion of gender nonconforming individuals and topics is the business education system—undergraduate- and graduate-level business programs and faculty members that develop and deliver business curriculum, shape business practices, research business issues, and produce business leaders (Aspen Institute, 2018). The business community is a direct benefactor of the business education system: The actions of business educators and researchers are relevant to the preparedness of business students and businesses to adapt to changing societal acceptance and inclusion of gender nonconforming individuals and perspectives (LeClair, 2017).

The purpose of this study is to systematically examine the peer-reviewed literature to identify if and how a broader interpretation of genders, beyond binary gender, cisgender, and heteronormativity, is included in business education research. This systematic literature review included specific research databases using strategic search words to identify scholarly, peer-reviewed publications that examine business education in specific relation to gender nonconforming individuals and perspectives to determine the extent of scholarship in this area. Once the relevant literature was identified, the articles were reviewed to identify the themes covered, the journals that publish this research, and the timeliness of the work. This article can help inform readers, including business educators, business researchers, and business leaders, about the status of business education research in relation to the evolving understanding of genders. The study will also identify possible areas for future research to ensure that business educators, and by extension business students, are equipped to lead now and in the future. Business educators may be looking to scholarly research to inform decision making on how best to teach students about topics related to business and gender nonconforming individuals, and how to include individuals who may identify in a gender nonconfirming manner, such as students and faculty members, in business education programs. This article provides a convenient and informative resource for faculty members interested in scholarly literature about this increasingly relevant topic.

Background Literature

The focus of this study was to thoroughly review the peer-reviewed academic literature to identify and examine scholarly contributions to business education research in relation to gender nonconforming individuals and perspectives. The findings of the systematic literature review will form the basis of the Results section of this article. Prior to the systematic literature review, a review of foundational literature pertaining to the changing understanding of gender(s) was conducted to ensure that inclusive language was used in the systematic literature search for this study. Second, a review of “gender and business education” literature was conducted to see how the scholarly literature incorporates gender(s) in general, without a specific search focus on the inclusion of gender nonconforming individuals. Finally, the literature was reviewed for articles related to business (in general) and gender nonconforming individuals, and education (in general) and gender nonconforming individuals.

The Evolution of Gender(s)

The traditional understanding and acceptance of gender as being binary—male and female—is evolving. Much of Western society has begun to recognize and accept gender as nonbinary, fluid, and encompassing a myriad of possibilities limited only by human creativity and expression (Monro, 2005). While certainly not universally accepted, mainstream society in much of the Western world is increasingly willing to question and adjust their binary understanding of gender to be more inclusive of nonbinary or nonconforming expressions of genders. The recent past has brought about significant cultural shifts and attention to issues facing gender nonconforming individuals, and the once closeted issue has entered the public domain in many Western cultures (Kelso, 2015). Increasingly, gender nonconforming individuals and their perspectives are a part of conversations in politics, education, arts and culture, medicine, the law, and in business (Billard, 2016).

One way of framing the dialogue regarding gender nonconforming individuals is noting the clear distinction between gender and sex (Adjami, 2018; DeLoof, 2018). A common, and yet not universally accepted, distinction is that gender is a social/cultural construct whereby an individual expresses themselves through physical appearance, dress, behaviors, language, and other inward and outward manifestations that adhere to established societal expectations (Segal, 2017). In contrast, sex is understood (by some) as a binary biological determination based on the physical presence or absence of specific genitalia and/or the combination of sex-determinant chromosomes, xx or xy, although variations within this genetic or biological determination are not uncommon (Ainsworth, 2015). While this distinction offers a starting point, debate continues as some gender nonconforming individuals resist labels that attempt to define their experience and sense of self. Additionally, much of the “newer” language used in relation to gender identity continues to be binary—cisgender or transgender, heterosexual, or homosexual—which does not always align with how an individual identifies (Eckert, 2014). In short, this debate is not yet resolved and continued dialogue will inform and reshape our understanding of genders into the future.

One of the challenges surrounding the inclusion and acceptance of gender nonconforming individuals is the evolving lexicon that, at first, may be unfamiliar to many people who have not been exposed to the vernacular used to express genders today. The language around genders is changing rapidly, and what was appropriate (or at least, acceptable) language at one point may not be appropriate today or tomorrow (Alvanoudi, 2018; Dye et al., 2018; Senden et al., 2015). To complicate matters, some of the language used in the past to identify gender nonconforming individuals that was sexist, homophobic, or otherwise offensive, is being selectively reclaimed by members of the “disparaged” group in an affirmative manner. An example of this might be a lesbian choosing to refer to themselves as “dyke” in an affirmative, positive, and empowering manner. This reclaiming of once taboo or derogatory language is notable for its exclusive (acceptable) use by the affected group and is not to be appropriated by people outside of the affected group (Rand, 2014). To help ensure that the language used in this article is (a) consistent, (b) inclusive, and (c) reflective of appropriate and current usage, the glossaries provided by the websites genderspectrum.com and genderminorities.com were consulted and their definitions form the basis of the language used in this article.

We have elected to use the phrase gender nonconforming individual(s) in this article in an effort to encapsulate and include any person who identifies as noncisgender and nonheterosexual. Yet this terminology is imperfect. The phrase is problematic for individuals who prefer or choose not to have labels applied to their identity. The phrase is also problematic from the perspective that it defines people using gendered vernacular when some individuals prefer to identify and be recognized as genderless. Finally, the inclusion of the phrase nonconforming suggests the antithesis of a normative perspective, which could be viewed as perpetuating a sense of otherness. All of this being said, our intent is to use inclusive, respectful, and accepted language to express our ideas. We recognize that this may fall short for some individuals and that over time this language may no longer reflect our original intentions.

In addition to the broader discussion about gender nonconforming individuals in both the academic and mainstream environments, a scholarly mode of thinking, called Queer Theory, is increasingly being used to help frame (or reframe) our understanding of topics related to gender issues and beyond. Queer theory is a mode of intellectual and scholarly inquiry that builds on feminist theory to examine aspects of gender, sex, and other social constructs of individual identity (Sullivan, 2003). At its core, queer theory considers the historical, social, political, and cultural contexts of sexuality, individuality, and gender that have been discursively produced and reproduced, over time, to frame a particular world view (Sullivan, 2003). Led by pioneers Teresa de Lauretis, Judith Butler, and Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick in the 1990s, the literature about and using queer theory now spans fields related to education, law, medicine, philosophy, politics, and business (Francis & Paechter, 2015). This theoretical framework offers an opportunity to revisit established business-related research, including business education research. While queer theory in relation to business and/or business education research is not the focal point of this study, it is worthwhile to note that this mode of scholarly inquiry is offering new insights into established academic disciplines that may be worthy of future consideration.

Mapping the evolution of genders in a few paragraphs is impossible. The field is diverse, rich, and complex, so trying to succinctly summarize the key points will inevitably lead to gross omissions and oversimplifications. Thankfully, the scholarly work in this area is easily available for anyone wanting to immerse themselves more fully in this field. For the purposes of this article, foundational literature related to (a) the evolving understanding of genders, (b) the differences in gender and sex, (c) language in the field that is changing, and (d) current scholarship that is making important contributions to the dialogue, is sufficient to frame this article.

Gender and Business Education

A plethora of literature exists that examines gender in relation to business education, and includes gender composition in business programs (both students and faculty; Rosenberry, 2016), gender in business curriculum (Valcour, 2013), gendered decision-making and power within business schools (Johnson et al., 2015), and various metrics of success in business schools including enrolment (Trussel & Burke-Smalley, 2018), completion and retention (Cox et al., 2005), programs of study (Geyfman et al., 2015), grades and assessment (Griffith, 2014), and teaching practices (Boehmer & Wood, 2017). Yet a review of the research will demonstrate that the vast majority of literature that considers gender in relation to business education assumes a binary and heteronormative understanding of gender. Whether gender is a primary variable within the articles or a moderating and/or secondary variable, the often unstated but clearly understood interpretation of gender is that of male and female, with no commentary or consideration of alternatives to this dichotomy. The result is that an important part of the gender puzzle is glaringly missing from the scholarly discourse.

Business schools primarily assume and teach from cisgender and heteronormative perspectives throughout the curriculum and delivery of the program (Robinson & Bilimoria, 2018). The assignment of gender roles based on traditional gender expectations and norms is pervasive in business education, ranging from vernacular (chairman, businessman); representation (the overwhelming focus on male protagonists in business cases, to the near exclusion of women or complete exclusion of nongender conforming individuals in business education materials); or stereotypes (males as business leaders, females as support personnel; Sharen & McGowan, 2019, Symons & Ibarra, 2014). Critiques of this persistent imbalance are fueling change within the field, but the focus has largely been on greater representation of females rather than on the inclusion of gender nonconforming individuals.

The business case in favor of deliberately and specifically including gender nonconforming individuals in business education is strong. There is a growing expectation among consumers regarding corporate social responsibility, whereby consumers are demanding that the companies and the brands with which they do business represent the values of consumers themselves (Oberseder et al., 2013). Consider the enormous consumer support for the Black Lives Matter movement and the importance supporters of that movement place on brands, such as the NBA and Nike, which have aligned their brands with the Black Lives Matter movement. In addition to C2B (consumer to business) pressure for more inclusive and representative business practices, the B2B (business to business) environment is also engaging in socially driven demands for corporate responsibility. For example, the recent corporate boycott of advertising expenditures away from Facebook by global giants such as Coca Cola, Unilever, and Starbucks is being employed as a means of conveying dissatisfaction with social and/or political corporate positions. Insofar as business education shapes business practice, then the case can be made that a focus on matters related to social responsibility are important for business schools. In addition, it makes “business sense” to ensure that gender nonconforming individuals, including employees, employers, customers, and business partners, are recognized and valued for the contributions they make to an organization’s success (Smith, 2000; Valcour, 2013). These practices do not happen in a vacuum, but rather require deliberate and sustained effort. Businesses, business leaders, and business education programs need to keep up or risk being left behind.

Business and Education Topics Included in the Literature

The literature that directly addresses business education and gender nonconforming individuals is scarce. However, two areas that were reasonably well represented in the scholarly literature were business and gender nonconforming individuals and education and gender nonconforming individuals.

First, the literature covering business and gender nonconforming individuals spanned a variety of topics including workplace practices, consumer behavior, professional fields of practice, legal issues, and organizational diversity. Specific topics in relation to workplace practices included hiring, retaining, promotion, training, management, and compensation of gender nonconforming individuals (Kollen, 2016). The literature that examined business and gender nonconforming individuals also included a focus on consumer perspectives including targeting market segments comprised of gender nonconforming individuals (Grau & Zotos, 2016). Both human resource professionals and accounting professionals were represented in terms of issues relating to gender nonconforming individuals that were specific to those fields (Brooks & Edwards, 2009; Rumens, 2016b, 2017). Employment law was covered with respect to legal issues faced by the business community, such as fair employment practices and discrimination (Sears & Mallory, 2011). And finally, organizational diversity and inclusion covered topics related to gender diversity and inclusion beyond the cismale/cisfemale binary (Cunningham, 2011).

Second, scholarly work that focuses on education and gender nonconforming individuals was abundant in the literature review as well. Relevant research covered various schooling levels such as preschool, elementary, secondary, and higher education (Meyer & Leonardi, 2018; White et al., 2018), and some focused on specific subject matter within that academic level, such as high school literature classes (Helmer, 2016). Other articles examined specific educational programs, particularly related to professional programs such as medicine, dentistry, nursing, counselling, and education (Brondani & Paterson, 2011; Gedro, 2010; Kellett & Fitton, 2017; Logi et al., 2007; Sequeira et al., 2012). Topics related to curriculum, content, and materials relative to and representative of gender nonconforming individuals were found in the literature (McGarry, 2013), as were articles that considered the experiences of gender nonconforming educators at various levels (Smith et al., 2008). Finally, literature that looked at the experiences of gender nonconforming students rounded out the research (Kosciw et al., 2014).

The literature that helps frame this study is robust, diverse, and accessible. Articles related to the changing understanding of gender, business education and gender, and gender nonconforming individuals and general business and education help to identify a gap in existing research and to position this study amongst the existing scholarship. The aim of this study is to examine existing peer-reviewed journal articles that specifically examine aspects of business education and gender nonconforming individuals/perspectives such that any existing gap in knowledge is partially filled by collating in one place the relevant literature, and by identifying opportunities for future scholarly work related to this topic.

Method

The previous section of this article provided the contextual framework from which this research stems. The main study is itself a systematic literature review, whereby the status of existing scholarship is examined and described thorough an exhaustive search of academic peer-reviewed journal publications for articles that examine business education through a gender nonconforming lens. The purpose is to collect the existing scholarship on this topic, identify and examine areas related to the topic that are covered in the literature, and discover areas that need additional attention and investigation. The findings may inform members of the business education community, including faculty members, researchers, and curriculum and content developers, with respect to the inclusion of gender nonconforming individuals and perspectives in business education so that actions to further include gender nonconforming individuals and perspectives can continue.

The search started by identifying relevant databases available through the University of Prince Edward Island’s digital library. The list included general databases as well as topic-specific databases. While several of the databases claim to include searches of other databases, each database was reviewed individually to ensure no articles were missed. The final list of databases searched includes the following: One Search Full, Academic Search Complete, Business Source Complete, Google Scholar, ERIC, PsychInfo, PsychArticles, CBCA Complete, and Gage (both the gender and diversity databases). Searches were limited to English only, peer-reviewed journal articles, and were sorted by relevance.

Each database was searched using the same combinations of search strings. To be as inclusive as possible and in recognition of the various terminologies used in both business education literature and in gender studies, each database was searched using 48 distinct search-word combinations. Table 1 maps the various word combinations that comprised the searches used in this systematic literature review.

Table 1.

Search Word/Phrase Combinations.

Search thread Part 1	Search thread Part 2
Business programs	Cisgender
Business education	Transgender
Business school	LGBT
Management programs	Sexuality
Management education	Heteronorm^a
Management school	Nonbinary gender
	Nonconforming gender
	Queer^a

Note. LGBT = lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender.

Denotes the root of various words containing and relating to the root.

Each search yielded a wide range of “hits,” from 0 to 1000s. The titles and abstracts of each “hit” were assessed to determine if the article under review aligned with the topic of this study. The only exception to this was for articles listed on Google Scholar, where because of the enormous number of “hits” per search, only the first 100 articles per search, sorted by relevance, were reviewed. In order to be included in this study, the article had to focus on an aspect of business education, and explicitly consider gender nonconformity as a focal point of the article. When all the “hits” were reviewed for alignment with the study objectives, a preliminary list of relevant articles remained. The references or citations from each article on the preliminary list were also reviewed to identify any additional articles that may have been missed through the search of the databases. Finally, several authors emerged as being prolific in terms of writing about this area and so searches focusing on their scholarly contributions were conducted and cross-referenced to identify any missed articles. This process continued until no new and relevant articles were uncovered.

Finally, each relevant article was reread in its entirety to capture the major themes and findings in the articles. Articles were reviewed to identify the specific area of business education examined, and to discern how gender nonconformity was represented. Additional information gathered from the review of the articles included the year of publication, the journal of publication, and authorship.

This study deliberately focused on peer-reviewed articles that were published in academic journals. Peer-reviewed journal articles are considered to be comparatively more valid and reliable sources of academic research because of the process of having articles vetted through a scholarly peer-review process (Kelly et al., 2014). While imperfect, the peer-review process adds credibility to the research findings and thus academics generally consider these sources of research to be of good quality (with variations depending on the reputability of the specific journal). Excluded from this study were nonpeer-reviewed publications and books or book chapters. The reasons why these types of publications were excluded was that the focus of the research was on articles that were vetted through the academic practice of peer-review, although notably some books and book chapters are in fact peer-reviewed or undergo a rigorous vetting process to help ensure the validity and reliability of the research within.

The searches for articles focused on key words related to “business” and “management” in general to the exclusion of other business subdisciplines. For example, searches that focused on marketing or finance, while important parts of most business education programs, were not included. This was done in an effort to identify articles that examined business education generally, rather than at the subdiscipline level. Further review of the academic literature with a focus on these subdisciplines of business may yield additional findings. It is worthwhile noting that although the database searches for this study focused on the terms “business” or “management,” articles relating to accounting and to human resource management appeared in these searches and were therefore included in the study findings.

Finally, the database searches identified articles related to the broader topic of diversity in business education, including some articles that considered gender nonconformity (usually related to sexual orientation) among other forms of diversity, such as racial, cultural, or gender (binary). These articles were not included in these study findings because while gender nonconformity may have been a part of the article(s), it was not a primary focal point and often comprised only a minor aspect of the article. That being said, articles about business education and diversity (in whatever form) may offer insights that are useful for understanding the inclusion and acceptance of gender nonconforming individuals and perspectives in business education, even if the article does not focus on this specific topic.

The intention of this study was to identify an exhaustive list of peer-reviewed articles related to business education and gender nonconformity. In addition to the limitations previously described in this section, the findings are limited to the timeframe in which the study was conducted—up to and including August 2019. Any articles published after this point may not have been included in the study findings. Last, the study findings are limited by the availability of resources through the University of Prince Edward Island library. While every attempt was made to be as inclusive and exhaustive as possible in the search of the academic literature, including the use of interlibrary loans, the reality is that relevant articles may have been missed.

Results

Number of Relevant Articles

After careful and thorough review of numerous databases using a variety of inclusive search strings, critical appraisal of the short-listed relevant articles against the parameters set forth in the research purpose for this article, comprehensive review of the reference lists for each of these articles, and searches of prolific authors in this genre of scholarly work, 17 peer-reviewed articles remained. These articles represent the academic, peer-reviewed journal literature that examine business education and gender nonconformity as the focal point within the article. Table 2 provides a detailed listing of each article included in this study.

Table 2.

Relevant Articles.

Article number	Full article citation
1	Abbott, T. B. (2009). Teaching transgender literature at a business college. Race Gender & Class, 16(1/2), 152-169.
2	Chapman, D. D., & Gedro, J. (2009). Queering the HRD curriculum: Preparing students for success in the diverse workforce. Advancing in Developing Human Resources, 11(1), 95-108. https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422308329091
3	Cook, A., & Glass, C. (2008). The impact of LGBT policies on ethnic/racial and gender diversity among business school faculty. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 1(3), 193-199. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012987
4	Gedro, J. (2010). Understanding, designing, and teaching LGBT issues. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 12(3), 352-366. https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422310375029
5	Kirk, D. J., & Durant, R. (2010). Crossing the line: Framing appropriate responses in the diversity classroom. Journal of Management Education, 34(6), 823-847. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562909337587
6	McPherson, B., & O’Hara, L. (1999). What are the perceptions and attitudes of business communication students towards gays and lesbians in the workplace? Academy of Managerial Communications Journal, 3(2), 44-63.
7	McQuarrie, F. A. E. (1998). Expanding the concept of diversity: Discussing sexual orientation in the management classroom. Journal of Management Education, 22(2), 162-172. https://doi.org/10.1177/105256299802200204
8	Ozturk, M. B., & Rumens, N. (2014). Gay male academics in UK business and management schools: Negotiating heteronormativies. British Journal of Management, 25(2), 503-517. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12061
9	Robinson, M. J., & Bilimoria, D. (2018). Busting the gender binary: Activities for teaching transgender issues in management education. Management Teaching Review. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/2379298118819258
10	Robinson, M. J., Van Esch, C., & Bilimoria, D. (2017). Bringing transgender issues into management education: A call to action. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 16(2), 300-313. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2015.0355
11	Rudin, J., Yang, Y., Ruane, S., Ross, L., Farro, A., & Billing, T. (2016). Transforming attitudes about transgender employee rights. Journal of Management Education, 40(1), 30-46. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562915609959
12	Rumens, N. (2017). Queering lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender identities in human resource development and management education contexts. Management Learning, 48(2), 227-242. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507616672737
13	Rumens, N. (2016a). Sexualities and accounting: A queer theory perspective. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 35(March), 111-120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2015.05.003
14	Rumens, N. (2016b). Towards queering the business school: A research agenda for advancing lesbian, gay, bisexual, and trans perspectives and issues. Gender, Work & Organizations, 23(1), 36-51. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12077
15	Rumens, N., de Souzza, E. M., & Brewis, J. (2019). Queering queer theory in management and organization studies: Notes toward queering heterosexuality. Organization Studies, 40(4), 593-612. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840617748904
16	Sanchez, F. (2019). Trans Students rights to their own gender in professional communication courses: A textbook analysis of attire and voice standards in oral presentations. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 49(2), 183-212. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047281618817349
17	Yurtsever, G., & Erdogan, H. H. (2010). Sexual orientation topics in business education in Turkey. International Journal of Diversity in Organizations, Communities, and Nations: Annual Review, 10(2), 341-352. https://doi.org/10.18848/1447-9532/CGP/v10i02/39845

Topics Covered in Relevant Articles

While each of the listed articles specifically focuses on business education and gender nonconforming individuals or perspectives, the subtopics within each article varied. The aspects of business education that were covered within these articles spanned curriculum and content, business students, business schools in general, business faculty, business research, business education resources and materials, and specific business disciplines (human resource development and accounting) even though the search focused on general business or management education. With respect to how each article fit the study in relation to gender nonconforming individuals, articles explicitly focused on transgender issues, heteronormativity, sexuality or sexual orientation, LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer) issues, or queer issues.

A subset of the relevant literature looked at curriculum in business schools and the content covered in business courses. Topics ranged from covering business topics through a gender nonconforming lens, including Chapman and Gedro (2009) who wrote about queering (introducing LGBTQ+ issues) the curriculum for human resource development courses. Gedro (2010) followed this up with an article about teaching LGBTQ+ issues in the business classroom. In the earliest article uncovered in this study, McQuarrie (1998) challenged business schools to broaden their understanding of diversity by including sexual orientation as a subject matter covered in the management classroom and lays out a case for doing so by highlighting the persistent discrimination faced by gay or lesbian individuals in the workplace. Robinson and Bilimoria (2018) provided ideas for specific activities related to teaching transgender issues in management classes, which may enable other faculty members to use the activities to initiate discussions and reflections among students. Finally, Sanchez (2019) argued that in the absence of inclusion in mainstream business textbooks, transgender individuals need their own course material that recognizes the perspectives of transgender students and includes transgender experiences in the textbook content.

Students’ perceptions about issues related to gender nonconformity were explored in several of the articles found for this study. Yurtsever and Erdogan (2010) asked business students to rate the importance that their program placed on diversity topics in coursework, including diversity in relation to sexual orientation and noted that topics related to sexual orientation were the lowest priority for the business school but were rated the highest in terms of risks to students. That is, student respondents reported that identifying in a nonheterosexual manner posed the greatest risk among various other risk factors including race/ethnicity, gender, and ability/disability, in relation to “potential for school failure, drop out, substance abuse, destructive behaviours, targets for harassment/aggression, or suicide,” (Yurtsever & Erdogan, 2010, p. 345). Rudin et al. (2016) examined ways to transform students’ attitudes about transgender employee rights though exposure to case studies where transgender individuals faced discrimination. The authors observed a significant increase in transgender acceptance and inclusion when students were assigned readings relating to transgender rights, demonstrating that exposure to transgender information and content can improve acceptance and inclusion for transgender people. McPherson and O’Hara (1999) assessed the perceptions and attitudes of students regarding gays and lesbians in the workplace. The focus on gay and lesbian topics, to the exclusion of other nonheteronormative or nonbinary gender groups, is reflective of the timeframe in which this study was conducted, and the findings of the research may also be tied to the age of the article. The authors found that students expected that antigay and antilesbian attitudes were prevalent in workplaces, which many of the students themselves harbored homophobic views in relation to the sexual orientation of workers, and that homophobic ideas were relatively common amongst the student respondents. Dealing with inappropriate responses to topics related to diversity, and specifically to transgender issues, was covered in an article by Kirk and Durant (2010). Through the lens of a faculty member who needed to respond to an offensive submission from a student, the faculty member wrestled with the need to call out the inappropriate comments while also maintaining a classroom environment where students could provide their honest views. The article provides some guidance on how to handle and respond to such instances in the future.

Several articles looked at the experiences of faculty members in business programs. Cook and Glass (2008) examined the impact of LGBT-friendly policies on diversity amongst business school faculty and found that such policies help with recruitment and were more likely to result in a more diverse faculty membership. Ozturk and Rumens (2014) considered the experiences of gay male academics in U.K. business and management schools in relation to navigating heteronormative work environments.

Finally, Rumens (2016c, 2017; Rumens et al., 2019) explored queering management and organization studies through challenging heteronormative assumptions, queering identities associated with LGBT individuals, and using queer theory in scholarship to examine business topics. In this work, Rumens and colleagues attempt to reframe the foundational assumptions, in particular heteronormativity, on which much of the business and management education scholarship and practice is built. Other articles by Rumens (2016b) and Robinson et al. (2017) looked at accounting specifically or issued a call to action for business schools in addressing transgender issues. Table 3 illustrates the various topics covered in the relevant literature.

Table 3.

Topics Covered in Relevant Articles.

Topics	Relevant articles
Business schools	5, 8, 12, 15, 17
Business curriculum and content	1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 16, 17
Business faculty	2, 3, 5, 8, 14
Business school resources and materials	1, 15
Business students	1, 2, 5, 6, 10, 11
Business research	8, 10, 14
Business disciplines	2, 4, 12, 13, 14
Transgender	1, 10, 11, 12, 16
Sexuality/homosexuality/sexual orientation	7, 8, 13, 17
Queer	2, 9, 12, 15
LGBT	3, 4, 6, 12
Heteronormative/heteronormativity	8, 9, 13, 14, 15

Note. LGBT = lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender.

Year of Publication, Journal of Publication, Authorship, and Regionality

The oldest relevant article found in the systematic review of the literature was from 1998 and the newest was from 2019, with roughly half of the relevant articles—8 out of 17—being published since 2014. One striking observation from the articles written in 1998 and 1999 was the use of language that would be considered inappropriate, insensitive, offensive, or politically incorrect by today’s standards and the findings related to the views of students at that time which may not mirror the views of students today. The academic journals in which these articles were published typically were business-oriented journals, 12 of the 17, while the other articles were published in journals devoted to gender and/or diversity issues or other topics altogether. Three of the articles were published in the Journal of Management Education, whereas the remaining articles appeared in 14 different journals. Two scholars, Rumens and Gedro, authored or coauthored 7 of the 17 articles, which may suggest a fairly limited field of researchers in this area. Finally, two of the articles specifically look at business education and gender nonconforming individuals within a specific geographical location outside of the United States and Canada (the United Kingdom and Turkey). While findings from specific geographical locations may not be directly relevant to other locations given differences in cultural, societal, and political perspectives, cross-cultural examination of this topic may provide robust perspectives and help inform our understanding of this topic.

Discussion

The results of this study are based on the systematic review of the literature that examines business education related to gender nonconformity. The discussion will focus on conclusions drawn from the findings of the literature review and identifying gaps in the existing literature.

What Exists Is a Starting Point

The existing literature that examines business education and gender nonconforming individuals represents a launching point that is ripe for further development. To some extent, the lack of robust scholarly contributions on this topic may be attributed to the relative newness of the issue with respect to widespread acceptance and inclusion of gender nonconforming individuals in mainstream society (Krylova, 2016). However, based on the volume of articles regarding gender nonconforming individuals and (a) education in general; (b) other professional education programs (such as medicine, law, etc.); and (c) the broader business community, that were discovered during the search for articles for this study, it appears that the literature pertaining to business education and gender nonconformity is comparatively underdeveloped. While much of this other (nonbusiness education related) scholarship is recent—published mostly within the past 10 years—the diversity of perspectives and themes being represented in other (nonbusiness education related) academic literature is comparatively rich such that the argument of relative newness of the topic is rendered insufficient in explaining the general lack of literature with respect to business education.

Much of the (limited) existing literature related to gender nonconforming individuals and business education is published in business related journals—12 of the 17 articles. Yet other critical pieces fall outside these business-oriented publications. Therefore, key partners in advancing this topic, namely business faculty members, may not be exposed to these scholarly contributions without specifically seeking them out (Hoppenfeld & Smith, 2014). In order to fully integrate gender nonconforming individuals and perspectives into business education, in terms of students and faculty, curriculum and content, and inclusive outcomes, more work is needed to support all parties in moving forward and this research must be published in journals accessed by business educators.

Development of Curriculum, Finding/Developing Resources, and Training Faculty

Part of the challenge of incorporating gender nonconforming individuals in business education may be the lack of existing curriculum and resources available to support faculty members or business programs that want to embed these topics into their business courses. This study confirms a gap in the existing literature that would aid business educators in the development of curriculum, the identification and development of teaching/learning resources, and the training of faculty in the delivery and implementation of gender inclusive concepts and materials. Much of the existing business education materials lack equal or balanced representation of heterosexual cisgender women (Sharen & McGowan, 2019; Symons & Ibarra, 2014), and according to the articles found in this study, representation of nonheteronormative individuals and perspectives is limited (Sanchez, 2019). Two options for inclusion of gender nonconforming individuals are (a) to start including more gender nonconforming individuals and perspectives (including language) in business education materials such as textbooks, cases, readings, and so on (Harris et al., 2017) and (b) to explicitly include gender nonconforming topics in the content of business education courses (Gedro, 2010).

Scholarship that exists regarding business education materials and gender nonconforming individuals is in its infancy (Sanchez, 2019). There may be a growing recognition that representation of all genders, including gender nonconforming individuals, in business education textbooks, cases, and other readings is lacking. Harvard Business Review published an article that was critical of itself and other case publishers with respect to the authorship and inclusion of women in business cases, and vowed to “do better” (Symons & Ibarra, 2014). But the inclusion of more cisgender women in business materials is insufficient, and true all-gender(s) inclusion also embraces individuals whose gender identity is different from cismale and/or cisfemale. Additionally, the manner in which genders are represented matters as well. With respect to cisfemales in business education material, much of their inclusion is stereotypical and sexist, rendering their inclusion as adding insult to injury. Casting females in supporting roles (administrative support or the helping professions), in pink industries, or as exhibiting stereotypical female characteristics (risk-adverse, emotional, bitchy) is inadequate (Soule et al., 2019). Extending this to individuals who identify in a gender nonconforming manner often means being portrayed as tropes rather than in a professional and holistic manner. Rudin et al. (2016) demonstrated that deliberate inclusion of materials that featured gender nonconforming individuals and perspectives affected students’ acceptance, but more work needs to be done to develop inclusive materials and understand the impact of these materials on learning outcomes.

A second way that business education fails to include gender nonconforming individuals is through its curriculum. McQuarrie (1998) and Robinson and Bilimoria (2018) both highlight that business education routinely ignores issues related to gender nonconformity. Several reasons may help explain this. The existing courses in which gender(s) as an explicit topic would fit are not clear. Human resources classes (Chapman & Gedro, 2009; Gedro, 2010) and marketing classes (Crittenden, 2015) are possible choices. But the fit in other business classes is perhaps less clear or obvious. One option for addressing these obstacles include creating new and dedicated courses that look at diverse gender issues in business, organizations, and society, and the implications for business leaders. Developing relevant curriculum that could be shared and adopted by interested parties and incorporated into existing business classes may help address these challenges.

Finally, it remains unclear how interested, motivated, or comfortable faculty members are with respect to including topics related to gender nonconforming individuals in their course curricula. As the existing literature demonstrates, business faculties are comprised of primarily cismale members, supplemented with cisfemale members at an increasing, yet still underrepresented, rate. Yet substantial information regarding the representation of faculty members who identify as gender nonconforming is not available (Cook & Glass, 2008; Oztirk & Rumens, 2014). As such, many business faculty members may not be informed about or sensitive to issues facing gender nonconforming individuals and how to broach these topics in a classroom environment. Opportunities to engage with faculty members about this topic and offers of support in examining this topic and its connection to specific areas of expertise are critical if the full range of gender nonconforming related perspectives are to be included in the business curriculum.

Supporting Students and Faculty

One area that is particularly underdeveloped in the academic literature related to this study is scholarly investigations into the lived experiences of business students and faculty members who identify in a gender nonconforming manner. Given the heteronormative nature of business education, gender nonconforming students and faculty may not see themselves represented in the classroom, course material, or broader business school community (Vaccaro, 2012). Only two articles were found that related to gender nonconforming faculty members (Cook & Glass, 2008; Ozturk & Rumens, 2014). No literature was discovered pertaining to students who may identify in some way other than cisgender or heteronormative. This is a gap in the literature and an opportunity for future research that may have broad implications for business schools, including the recruitment and retention of diverse students.

Consequences of Inaction

The business world is changing with respect to recognizing and including gender nonconforming individuals in organizations and target audiences. Businesses that fail to address practices that isolate, exclude, or discriminate against gender nonconforming individuals may find themselves out of step with changing social norms and expectations (Valcour, 2013). Society is increasingly demanding that businesses align their practices to address the inclusion of gender nonconforming individuals. Business schools need to be leaders in preparing business students for working environments that will need to incorporate these new paradigms and realities. Failure to do so jeopardizes students’ ability to help their organizations compete in the marketplace or adhere to various employment laws relevant to their jurisdictions.

Limitations and Further Research

This work was deliberately limited to peer-review journal articles, considered to be the pinnacle of academic contributions to a field. Books and chapters within books were excluded from this review, even though some of these sources may indeed go through a peer-review or vetting process prior to publication. However, several notable and relevant nonjournal publications, in the form of books and/or book chapters, were found, including two chapters in Queer Business: Queering Organization Sexualities by Nick Rumens (2018). The chapters are titled “Queer Theory, Sexuality, Management, and Organization Studies” and “Queer Theory in Business and Management Schools.” Rumens also authored two chapters in other books. The first one is called “On the violence of heteronormativity with the management classroom,” which appears in Sexual orientation and transgender issues in organizations: Global perspectives on LGBT workforce diversity, published in 2016. The other, a chapter titled “Organisation Studies: Not Nearly ‘Queer Enough’” is published in Queer Presences and Absences: Gender and Sexualities in the Social Sciences (2013). These contributions are worthy of further consideration in terms of informing the discourse regarding business education and gender nonconforming individuals. Other relevant books or book chapters, or nonpeer-reviewed publications may exist that could inform this topic.

While a robust and inclusive list of gender variant vernacular was used to search for and identify scholarship related to the topic of this study, the rapidly changing nature of the field may mean that some relevant literature was unintentionally overlooked. Currency in this particular academic field is tenuous, thus continuous perusal of the literature is necessary to stay abreast of advances in perspectives and practices related to gender nonconforming individuals and business education. In addition to the timeliness of the vocabulary used to describe gender nonconforming individuals, this study is also limited to articles published prior to August 2019. Given the relevancy of this topic, further publications related to this field may emerge.

Future scholarship in this area needs to look at (a) integrating gender nonconforming individuals and related perspectives into the business curriculum, (b) understanding the experiences of gender nonconforming business students and faculty members, and (c) preparing business students for the types of diversity they are going to experience in the workplace on graduation. The current practice by business programs of ignoring the changing dynamic of genders in the business world will not suffice if students are to be fully prepared to lead their organizations in the future.

Specific research topics may include the intersectionality of gender nonconformity with other underrepresented groups within the business education literature. For example, some existing scholarship on management and diversity include topics where gender nonconforming individuals are considered alongside racial minorities, persons with disabilities, and (sometimes) women. Only articles identified in this study explicitly and solely look at gender nonconformity and business education, which leads to the question of whether gender nonconforming individuals merit a distinct body of research or can be adequately examined amid work related to equality, diversity, and inclusion that includes other marginalized or underrepresented groups? Comparative research may discover similarities or differences with respect to how gender nonconforming individuals, as a marginalized or underrepresented group, compare with other groups in relation to inclusion in business education. This study suggests that scholarly work related to gender nonconforming individuals and business education lags behind scholarly work pertaining to other marginalized or underrepresented groups. More work needs to be done to situate this particular stream of scholarship amidst other related research.

While the scope of this study looked specifically at business education and gender nonconforming individuals, this work could be extended to include other aspects of the business education experience, including team building, group work, case work, risk taking, decision making, engagement, peer interactions, recruitment, and retention. The full business education experience is not limited to the curriculum, content, and materials used. Rather, pedagogical approaches routinely used in business education (the case method or group work, e.g.) might offer interesting and relevant frames of inquiry that are particularly meaningful for the full inclusion of gender nonconforming individuals in business education.

This study looked at business and/or management education generally, yet subdisciplines within business, including human resources, organizational behavior, marketing, accounting, and finance, each have their own academic literature pertaining to education in those subdisciplines. The approach used to identify existing scholarship for this study, and described in the methods section of this article, captured some scholarly work pertaining to specific subdisciplines of business, namely accounting and human resources. But other subdisciplines, such as marketing and finance, are notably absent from this study. This should not be interpreted as meaning such scholarship does not exist. Rather, as part of this research we did not explicitly search for it. Subdiscipline specific research may be informative and instructive.

Finally, this study is oriented such that the acceptance of gender nonconforming individuals is given and that the work that remains is to make manifest the full inclusion of gender nonconforming individuals in business education. This assumption may not reflect the reality of specific individuals, organizations, and regions where concepts related to gender nonconformity remain controversial, disputed, or misunderstood. This distinction is not insignificant. Full inclusion of gender nonconforming individuals and perspectives in business education is not possible if people in positions of power, including faculty members, university administrators, or business leaders, fail to recognize, value, and commit to meaningful inclusion.

We have only scratched the surface of opportunity within the academy in relation to research needed to address the inclusion of gender nonconforming individuals and perspectives in business education. While we explicitly identified some possible research areas, the list is not intended to be exhaustive. It is sufficient to conclude that there is much room for work in relation to topics linked to business education and gender nonconforming individuals.

Conclusions

The inclusion of gender nonconforming individuals in business education is critical, and the absence of scholarly work in this area may be perpetuating the isolation and exclusion of individuals and perspectives related to gender nonconformity in business education and the broader business community. As societal understanding and acceptance of gender nonconforming individuals continues to evolve, this imperative grows. Business educators need to direct resources—both time and energy—into better understanding the relevance of this topic, finding ways to address the topic, and better preparing future business leaders for a changing environment.

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 iD

Susan C. Graham

References

Abbott

T. B.

(2009). Teaching transgender literature at a business college. Race Gender & Class, 16(1/2), 152-169. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41658865

Adjami

(2018, July-August). Sex and gender fluidity versus “born this way.” The Gay & Lesbian Review Worldwide. https://glreview.org/article/sex-and-gender-fluidity-versus-born-this-way/

Ainsworth

(2015). Sex redefined. Nature: International Weekly Journal of Science, 518(7539), 288-291. https://doi.org/10.1038/518288a

Alvanoudi

(2018). Gender, language, and lipstick: Creating cultural changes in a world of paradoxes. Humanities, 7(3), 87. https://doi.org/10.3390/h7030087

Aspen Institute. (2018). Charting a new course for next-generation business leaders: A toolkit for blending the humanities and business in undergraduate education. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED585400.pdf

Billard

T. J.

(2016). Writing in the margins: Mainstream news media representations of transgenderism. International Journal of Communication, 10, 4193-4218.

Boehmer

D. M.

Wood

W. C.

(2017). Student vs. faculty perspectives on quality instruction: Gender bias, “hotness,” and “easiness” in evaluating teaching. Journal of Education for Business, 92(4), 173-178. https://doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2017.1313189

Brondani

M. A.

Paterson

(2011). Teaching lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender issues in dental education: A multipurpose method. Journal of Dental Education, 75(1), 1354-1361. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.0022-0337.2011.75.10.tb05181.x

Brooks

A. K.

Edwards

(2009). Allies in the workplace: Including LGBT in HRD. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 11(1), 136-149. https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422308328500

10.

Castleberry

(2019). Addressing the gender continuum: A concept analysis. Journal of Transcultural Nursing, 30(4), 403-409. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043659618818722

11.

Chapman

D. D.

Gedro

(2009). Queering the HRD curriculum: Preparing students for success in the diverse workforce. Advancing in Developing Human Resources, 11(1), 95-108. https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422308329091

12.

Cook

Glass

(2008). The impact of LGBT policies on ethnic/racial and gender diversity among business school faculty. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 1(3), 193-199. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012987

13.

Corrales

Pecheny

(2010). Every jack to his trade? Power arrangements, policies of identity, and market segmentation within the homosexual movement. In The politics of sexuality in Latin America: A reader in lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender rights (pp. 421-427). University of Pittsburgh Press.

14.

Cox

P. L.

Schmitt

E. D.

Bobrowski

P. E.

Graham

(2005). Enhancing first-year experience for business schools: Student retention and academic success. Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management, 7(1), 40-68. https://doi.org/10.21818/001c.14572

15.

Crittenden

V. L.

(2015). Sexism and gendered marketing: Exploring critical issues in the marketing classroom. In Crittenden

V. L.

Esper

Karst

Slegers

(Eds.), Evolving entrepreneurial education: Innovation in the Babson classroom (pp. 411-424). Emerald.

16.

Cunningham

G. B.

(2011). The LGBT advantage: Examining the relationship among sexual orientation diversity, diversity strategy, and performance. Sport Management Review, 14(4), 453-461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2010.11.003

17.

DeLoof

(2018). Only two sex forms but multiple gender variants: How to explain? Communicative & Integrative Biology, 11(1), e1427399. https://doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2018.1427399

18.

Dye

Milin

Futrell

Ramscar

(2018). Alternative solutions to a language design problem: The role of adjectives and gender marketing in efficient communications. Topics in Cognitive Science, 10(1), 209-225. https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12316

19.

Eckert

(2014). The problem with binaries: Coding for gender and sexuality. Language & Linguistic Compass, 8(11), 529-535. https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12113

20.

Everly

B. A.

Schwarz

J. L.

(2015). Predictors of the adoption of LGBT-friendly HR policies. Human Resource Management, 54(2), 367-384. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21622

21.

Francis

Paechter

(2015). The problem of gender categorisation: Addressing dilemmas past and present in gender and education research. Gender and Education, 27(7), 776-790. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2015.1092503

22.

Gedro

(2010). Understanding, designing, and teaching LGBT issues. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 12(3), 352-366. https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422310375029

23.

Geyfman

Force

C. M.

Davis

L. M.

(2015). Women in business: Influences on the undergraduate major choices. Administrative Issues Journal: Education, Practice, and Research, 5(2), 51-63. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1089714.pdf

24.

Grau

S. L.

Zotos

Y. C.

(2016). Gender stereotypes in advertising: A review of current research. International Journal of Advertising, 35(5), 761-770. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2016.1203556

25.

Griffith

A. L.

(2014). Faculty gender in the college classroom: Does it matter for achievement and major choice? Southern Economic Journal, 81(1), 211-231. https://doi.org/10.4284/0038-4038-2012.100

26.

Harris

C. A.

Blencowe

Telem

D. A.

(2017). What is in a pronoun? Why gender-fair language matters. Annals of Surgery, 266(6), 932-933. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000002505

27.

Helmer

(2016). Reading queer counter-narratives in the high school literature classroom: Possibilities and challenges. Studies in Cultural Politics of Education, 37(6), 902-916. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2015.1120943

28.

Hoppenfeld

Smith

M. M.

(2014). Information-seeking behaviors of business faculty. Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, 19(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1080/08963568.2014.852906

29.

Johnson

K. A.

Warr

D. J.

Hegarty

Guillemin

(2015). Small wins: An initiative to promote gender equity in higher education. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 37(6), 689-701. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2015.1102820

30.

Kellett

Fitton

(2017). Supporting transvisibility and gender diversity in nursing practice and education: Embracing cultural safety. Nursing Inquiry, 24(1). https://doi.org/10.1111/nin.12146

31.

Kelly

Sadeghieh

Khosrow

(2014). Peer review in scientific publications: Benefits, critiques, and a survival guide. Journal of the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine, 25(3), 227-243.

32.

Kelso

(2015). Still trapped in the US media’s closet: Representation of gender-variant, pre-adolescent children. Journal of Homosexuality, 62(8), 1058-1094. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2015.1021634

33.

Kirk

D. J.

Durant

(2010). Crossing the line: Framing appropriate responses in the diversity classroom. Journal of Management Education, 34(6), 823-847. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562909337587

34.

Kollen

(2016). Sexual orientation and transgender issues in organizations: Global perspectives on LGBT workforce diversity. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29623-4

35.

Kosciw

J. G.

Palmer

N. A.

Kull

R. M.

(2014). Reflecting resiliency: Openness about sexual orientation and/or gender identity and its relationship to well-being and educational outcomes for LGBT students. American Journal of Community Psychology, 55(1-2), 167-178. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-014-9642-6

36.

Krylova

(2016). Gender binary and the limits of poststructuralist method. Gender & History, 28(2), 307-323. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0424.12209

37.

LeClair

(2017, May 24). A stronger connection between business education and practice. AACSB Blog. https://www.aacsb.edu/blog/2017/may/a-stronger-connection-between-business-education-and-practice

38.

Logi

Bridge

T. J.

Bridge

P. D.

(2007). Evaluating the phobias, attitudes, and cultural competence of master of social work students toward the LGBT populations. Journal of Homosexuality, 53(4), 201-221. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918360802103472

39.

Mahapatro

(2014). Mainstreaming gender: Shift from advocacy to policy. Vision, 18(4), 309-315. https://doi.org/10.1177/0972262914551663

40.

McGarry

(2013). Build a curriculum that includes everyone. Phi Delta Kappan, 94(5), 27-31. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172171309400506

41.

McPherson

O’Hara

(1999). What are the perceptions and attitudes of business communication students towards gays and lesbians in the workplace? Academy of Managerial Communications Journal, 3(2), 44-63.

42.

McQuarrie

F. A. E.

(1998). Expanding the concept of diversity: Discussing sexual orientation in the management classroom. Journal of Management Education, 22(2), 162-172. https://doi.org/10.1177/105256299802200204

43.

Meyer

E. J.

Leonardi

(2018). Teachers’ professional learning to affirm transgender, non-binary, and gender-creative youth: Experiences and recommendations from the field. Sex Education, 18(4), 449-463. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681811.2017.1411254

44.

Milligan

(2017, October 13). Corporate America has discovered that having LGBT-friendly policies helps the bottom line. US News & World Report. https://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/articles/2017-10-13/lgbt-friendly-policies-make-business-sense

45.

Monro

(2005). Beyond male and female: Poststructuralism and the spectrum of gender. International Journal of Transgenderism, 8(1), 3-22. https://doi.org/10.1300/J485v08n01_02

46.

Nolke

(2018). Viscosity of stigma: Media experiences, intersectionality, and the life course of LGBTQ+ consumers [Doctoral Dissertation, University of Edinburgh]. https://era.ed.ac.uk/handle/1842/31438

47.

Oberseder

Schlegelmilch

B. B.

Murphy

P. E.

(2013). CSR practices and consumer perceptions. Journal of Business Research, 66(10), 1839-1851. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.02.005

48.

Ozturk

M. B.

Rumens

(2014). Gay male academics in UK business and management schools: Negotiating heteronormativies. British Journal of Management, 25(2), 503-517. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12061

49.

Rand

E. J.

(2014). Reclaiming queer: Activist and academic rhetorics and resistance. University of Alabama Press.

50.

Reed

(2017). Corporations as agents of social change: A case study of diversity at Cummins Inc. Business History, 59(6), 821-843. https://doi.org/10.1080/00076791.2016.1255196

51.

Roberts

L. L.

(2019). Changing worldwide attitudes toward homosexuality: The influence of global and region specific cultures, 1981-2012. Social Science Research, 80(May), 114-131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2018.12.003

52.

Roberts

L. L. H.

(2017). The globalization of acceptance of homosexuality: Mass opinion and national policy [Doctoral Dissertation, Ohio State University]. https://etd.ohiolink.edu/!etd.send_file?accession=osu1494072688490484&disposition=attachment

53.

Robinson

M. J.

Bilimoria

(2018). Busting the gender binary: Activities for teaching transgender issues in management education. Management Teaching Review. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/2379298118819258

54.

Robinson

M. J.

Van Esch

Bilimoria

(2017). Bringing transgender issues into management education: A call to action. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 16(2), 300-313. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2015.0355

55.

Rosenberry

(2016). Mind the gap. Global Focus: The EFMD Business Magazine, 10(2), 20-23.

56.

Rudin

Yang

Ruane

Ross

Farro

Billing

(2016). Transforming attitudes about transgender employee rights. Journal of Management Education, 40(1), 30-46. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562915609959

57.

Rumens

(2013). Organization studies: Not nearly “queer enough.” In Taylor

Addison

(Eds.), Queer presences and absences: Gender and sexualities in the social sciences (pp. 241-259). Palgrave MacMillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137314352_13

58.

Rumens

(2016a). On the violence of heteronormativity within the management classroom. In Kollen (Ed.), Sexual orientation and transgender issues in organizations: Global perspective on LGBT workforce diversity (pp. 389-404). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29623-4_23

59.

Rumens

(2016b). Sexualities and accounting: A queer theory perspective. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 35(March), 111-120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2015.05.003

60.

Rumens

(2016c). Towards queering the business school: A research agenda for advancing lesbian, gay, bisexual, and trans perspectives and issues. Gender, Work & Organizations, 23(1), 36-51. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12077

61.

Rumens

(2017). Queering lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender identities in human resource development and management education contexts. Management Learning, 48(2), 227-242. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507616672737

62.

Rumens

(2018). Queer business: Queering organization sexualities. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315747781

63.

Rumens

de Souzza

E. M.

Brewis

(2019). Queering queer theory in management and organization studies: Notes toward queering heterosexuality. Organization Studies, 40(4), 593-612. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840617748904

64.

Sanchez

(2019). Trans student’s rights to their own gender in professional communication courses: A textbook analysis of attire and voice standards in oral presentations. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 49(2), 183-212. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047281618817349

65.

Sears

Mallory

(2011). Documented evidence of employment discrimination and its effects on LGBT people. UCLA: The Williams Institute. https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/employ-discrim-effect-lgbt-people/

66.

Segal

E. S.

(2017). Subverting the dominant paradigm: Cross-cultural approaches to understanding gender. V. Demos & M. T. Segal (Eds.), Gender panic, gender policy: Advances in gender research (Vol. 24, pp. 117-132). https://doi.org/10.1108/S1529-212620170000024008

67.

Senden

M. G.

Back

E. A.

Lindqvist

(2015). Introducing a gender-neutral pronoun in a natural gender language: The influence of time on attitudes and behavior. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, Article 893. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00893

68.

Sequeira

G. M.

Chakraborti

Panunti

B. A.

(2012). Integrating lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) content into undergraduate medical school curricula: A qualitative study. Ochsner Journal, 12(4), 379-382.

69.

Sharen

C. M.

McGowan

R. A.

(2019). Invisible or cliched: How are women represented in business cases? Journal of Management Education, 43(2), 129-173. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562918812154

70.

Sheridan

(2019). Implications for the business community. In Transgender in the workplace: The complete guide to the new authenticity for employers and gender-diverse professionals (pp. 1-6). Praeger.

71.

Smith

C. R.

(2000). Gender issues in the management curriculum: A survey of student experiences. Gender, Work & Organization, 7(3), 158-167. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0432.00104

72.

Smith

N. J.

Wright

Reilly

Esposito

(2008, March 24-28). A national study of LGBT educators’ perceptions of their workplace climate [Paper presentation]. Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, NY.

73.

Soule

S. A.

Drabkin

Mackenzie

(2019, June 24). The stereotypes in MBA case studies. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2019/06/the-stereotypes-in-mba-case-studies

74.

Sullivan

(2003). A critical introduction to queer theory. New York University Press.

75.

Symons

Ibarra

(2014, April 28). What the scarcity of women in business case studies really looks like. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2014/04/what-the-scarcity-of-women-in-business-case-studies-really-looks-like

76.

Trussel

J. M.

Burke-Smalley

(2018). Demography and student success: Early warning tools to drive intervention. Journal of Education for Business, 93(8), 363-372. https://doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2018.1496893

77.

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

78.

Valcour

(2013, September 24). An old-boy’s MBA is not a high-value management education. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2013/09/an-old-boys-mba-is-not-high-value-management-education

79.

White

A. E.

Moeller

Ivcevic

Brackett

M. A.

(2018). Gender identity and sexual identity labels used by U.S. high school students: A co-occurrence network analysis. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 5(2), 243-252. https://doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000266

80.

Witeck

(2014). Cultural change in acceptance of LGBT people: Lessons from social marketing. Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 84(1), 19-22. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0098945

81.

Yurtsever

Erdogan

H. H

(2010). Sexual orientation topics in business education in Turkey. International Journal of Diversity in Organizations, Communities, and Nations: Annual Review, 10(2), 341-352. https://doi.org/10.18848/1447-9532/CGP/v10i02/39845