Assessing inclusivity from behind the screen: sexual and gender minority surgery residents’ experiences during virtual interviews
This qualitative study of 14 LGBTQ+ general surgery residents reveals that virtual interviews significantly hinder their ability to assess program inclusivity, highlighting unique challenges regarding disclosure, community evaluation, and the need for programs to more clearly demonstrate their commitment to diversity and equity.
Original paper licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This is an AI-generated explanation of the paper below. It is not written or endorsed by the authors. For technical accuracy, refer to the original paper. Read full disclaimer
Imagine you are trying to pick the perfect house to live in for the next few years. You want a place where you feel safe, welcome, and like you can be your true self without hiding. Now, imagine you can't actually walk through the house, touch the walls, or chat with the neighbors in the kitchen. Instead, you have to judge the whole neighborhood and the vibe of the home just by looking at a video call on your computer screen. This is exactly the kind of puzzle facing young doctors who want to specialize in surgery. They are looking for a "residency" program, which is like a high-stakes training camp where they learn their craft. For a long time, these future surgeons could visit programs, see the operating rooms, and get a gut feeling about the culture. But recently, the process shifted to "virtual interviews," where everything happens behind a screen. This is especially tricky for doctors who identify as LGBTQ+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or queer), because they often face extra challenges and need to be extra careful to find a team where they won't be mistreated. The big question is: How do you tell if a place is truly friendly and inclusive when you can only see a digital avatar of it?
This paper dives into that exact mystery by listening to the stories of 14 general surgery residents who identify as LGBTQ+. The researchers sat down with them for one-on-one video chats (using Microsoft Teams) to ask how they tried to figure out if a program was a good fit during these screen-based interviews. Think of it like asking a group of travelers how they decided which campsite was safe when they could only see the campfire through a webcam. The study found that these residents had to become detectives, looking for clues that weren't always obvious. They identified five big themes that shaped their experience: worrying about the location and the local community, the scary decision of whether to "come out" or reveal their identity during the interview, the frustrating limits of trying to judge a warm, human culture through a cold screen, the need to look for sneaky, informal hints to guess the real atmosphere, and the expectation that the programs should be the ones proving they care about diversity.
The researchers suggest that the current virtual setup makes it much harder for these applicants to feel confident about their choices. It's like trying to taste a delicious soup but only being allowed to look at a picture of the bowl; you might see the ingredients, but you can't really know the flavor. The study shows that while applicants are trying to juggle all these factors, the programs themselves need to do a better job of showing their true colors. The paper concludes that without more clear signals from the programs about their commitment to diversity and inclusion, LGBTQ+ applicants are left guessing in the dark, which makes the stressful process of choosing a training home even harder. The authors aren't saying the system is broken beyond repair, but they are pointing out that the "virtual window" is currently too foggy for everyone to see clearly, and programs need to turn on the lights so applicants can feel safe before they even sign up.
Drowning in papers in your field?
Get daily digests of the most novel papers matching your research keywords — with technical summaries, in your language.