LGBTIQ+ Inclusion Policies in Higher Education and Research: A Critical Scoping Review

Abstract Introduction Higher education and research organisations increasingly adopt equality and diversity measures, yet LGBTIQ+ inclusion remains uneven and frequently subsumed under broader EDI agendas. This scoping review maps how institutional policies and strategies address LGBTIQ+ inclusion and how intersectionality is (or not) incorporated. Methods We conducted a critical scoping review following Arksey and O’Malley and PRISMA-ScR. Searches across major databases and targeted sources (2000–2025; English, Spanish and Catalan) identified peer-reviewed and grey literature analysing institutional LGBTIQ+ policies/strategies in higher education and research. Data were charted using a multi-level framework (governance, campus climate, curriculum/pedagogy, services/support, and monitoring) with intersectionality as a cross-cutting lens. Results Fifty-seven publications (2008–2025) were included. Evidence clusters around governance instruments (equality plans, policies and leadership commitments), campus climate interventions, resource centres and support infrastructures, curriculum and staff training, and emerging monitoring practices. Studies report improved belonging and perceived safety where policies are explicit and resourced, but also recurrent implementation gaps and ‘non-performative’ dynamics. Intersectionality is often referenced but rarely operationalised in policy design or evaluation. Conclusions Institutional LGBTIQ+ inclusion is a multi-dimensional field of action, but current approaches remain fragmented, weakly resourced and insufficiently intersectional. Policy Implications Universities should explicitly name LGBTIQ+ communities in governance instruments, embed measures structurally (resources, accountability and quality assurance), and develop ethical, intersectional monitoring systems co-created with LGBTIQ+ stakeholders.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Sexuality Research and Social Policy
Published
2026-03-24
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-026-01322-9
Primary Topic
LGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

LGBTIQ+ Inclusion Policies in Higher Education and Research: A Critical Scoping Review

Javier Quirós Gómez, Rachel Palmén
Sexuality Research and Social Policy
LGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
article

LGBTIQ+ Inclusion Policies in Higher Education and Research: A Critical Scoping Review

Javier Quirós Gómez, Rachel Palmén
article en

Abstract

Abstract Introduction Higher education and research organisations increasingly adopt equality and diversity measures, yet LGBTIQ+ inclusion remains uneven and frequently subsumed under broader EDI agendas. This scoping review maps how institutional policies and strategies address LGBTIQ+ inclusion and how intersectionality is (or not) incorporated. Methods We conducted a critical scoping review following Arksey and O’Malley and PRISMA-ScR. Searches across major databases and targeted sources (2000–2025; English, Spanish and Catalan) identified peer-reviewed and grey literature analysing institutional LGBTIQ+ policies/strategies in higher education and research. Data were charted using a multi-level framework (governance, campus climate, curriculum/pedagogy, services/support, and monitoring) with intersectionality as a cross-cutting lens. Results Fifty-seven publications (2008–2025) were included. Evidence clusters around governance instruments (equality plans, policies and leadership commitments), campus climate interventions, resource centres and support infrastructures, curriculum and staff training, and emerging monitoring practices. Studies report improved belonging and perceived safety where policies are explicit and resourced, but also recurrent implementation gaps and ‘non-performative’ dynamics. Intersectionality is often referenced but rarely operationalised in policy design or evaluation. Conclusions Institutional LGBTIQ+ inclusion is a multi-dimensional field of action, but current approaches remain fragmented, weakly resourced and insufficiently intersectional. Policy Implications Universities should explicitly name LGBTIQ+ communities in governance instruments, embed measures structurally (resources, accountability and quality assurance), and develop ethical, intersectional monitoring systems co-created with LGBTIQ+ stakeholders.

Sexuality Research and Social Policy
Universitat Oberta de Catalunya (ES)
Climate action
Openalex Percentile: Top 17%
LGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.