More Like this

1. “Mentoring is ethical, right?”: Women graduate students & faculty in science & engineering speak out.

   Gelles, Laura; Villanueva, Idalis; Di Stefano, M. (January 2019, International journal of gender, science and technology)

   The relationship between graduate students and their research advisors within academia is pivotal to the development and success of the research enterprise. Graduate students rely on their faculty advisor to be a source of information, a departmental negotiator, and a role model to guide their professional and ethical behavior. However, if an advisor does not fully recognize a student’s best interest or they are unaware of how to be an “ethical mentor”, they may overlook the unique social capital of the graduate student (e.g., background, culture) and jeopardize the research relationship. This work aims to explore how women graduate students and faculties in science and engineering understand ethical mentoring within research relationships. Particularly, we are interested in understanding the six ethical mentoring principles suggested by Johnson (2016)—beneficence, nonmaleficence, autonomy, fidelity, fairness, and privacy—all of which require an in-depth understanding for a productive research relationship. Qualitative analysis revealed that participants emphasized the principles of beneficence and fidelity, while principles of privacy and fairness were mentioned the least. Three key themes emerged from this analysis: (a) communication; (b) relative power between mentor and mentee; and (c) awareness (or a lack thereof) around implicit expectations within the research culture. 

   more » « less
2. Hidden curriculum advocacy and resources for graduate students in engineering

   Gelles, Laura; Youmans, Kate; Villanueva, Idalis. (January 2019, CONECD Conference)

   The purpose of this Work In Progress (WIP) qualitative study was to explore how engineering graduate students respond to and value hidden curriculum that is revealed to them through video scenarios and six explicit statements. This WIP paper will focus on how awareness of resources, emotions, and confidence can spark an action for students to help themselves (i.e., self-advocacy) or help others (i.e., advocacy) specifically in regards to raising awareness and revealing hidden curriculum within engineering. The goals of this WIP paper are to: (a) explore how graduate students react to and value the hidden curriculum presented; and (b) determine what graduate students perceive is necessary to take action in regards to the issues presented in the video and hidden curriculum statements. 

   more » « less
3. Work in Progress: STEMtelling as a Method towards Ethical Awareness in Machine Learning

   Tilsen, J; Nickel, R; Thomas, S; Appelhans, S; Cheville, RA (June 2025, American Society for Engineering Education)

   The recent surge in artificial intelligence (AI) developments has been met with an increase in attention towards incorporating ethical engagement in machine learning discourse and development. This attention is noticeable within engineering education, where comprehensive ethics curricula are typically absent in engineering programs that train future engineers to develop AI technologies [1]. Artificial intelligence technologies operate as black boxes, presenting both developers and users with a certain level of obscurity concerning their decision-making processes and a diminished potential for negotiating with its outputs [2]. The implementation of collaborative and reflective learning has the potential to engage students with facets of ethical awareness that go along with algorithmic decision making – such as bias, security, transparency and other ethical and moral dilemmas. However, there are few studies that examine how students learn AI ethics in electrical and computer engineering courses. This paper explores the integration of STEMtelling, a pedagogical storytelling method/sensibility, into an undergraduate machine learning course. STEMtelling is a novel approach that invites participants (STEMtellers) to center their own interests and experiences through writing and sharing engineering stories (STEMtells) that are connected to course objectives. Employing a case study approach grounded in activity theory, we explore how students learn ethical awareness that is intrinsic to being an engineer. During the STEMtelling process, STEMtellers blur the boundaries between social and technical knowledge to place themselves at the center of knowledge production. In this WIP, we discuss algorithmic awareness, as one of the themes identified as a practice in developing ethical awareness of AI through STEMtelling. Findings from this study will be incorporated into the development of STEMtelling and address challenges of integrating ethics and the social perception of AI and machine learning courses. 

   more » « less
4. Work in Progress: Design and Preliminary Results of a Survey to Explore Relationships Between Faculty Mentoring, Engineering Doctoral Student Psychological Safety, and Work Outcomes

   https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--48345  

   Bobbett, Dorian; Sanders, Jeanne; Martini, Larkin; Huerta, Mark; Jensen, Karin (June 2024, ASEE Conferences)

   A psychologically safe environment is characterized by people who feel safe to voice ideas and concerns, willingly seek feedback, have positive intentions to one another, engage in constructive confrontation, and feel safe to take risks and experiment. Outside of academia, psychological safety has been shown to impact creativity, work performance, and work engagement. In academic research environments, faculty have a major leadership role in cultivating a psychologically safe environment amongst their academic research teams. Effective graduate student mentoring, which includes both career and psychosocial support, is critical to the development and retention of talented engineers in the US workforce. There is a need to better understand how engineering departments can cultivate more inclusive, psychologically safe environments in which graduate students feel safe to engage in interpersonal risk-taking, especially in research settings. Guided by the Conservation of Resources theory, this project aims to address the following research question: What are the relationships between faculty advisor mentoring, doctoral student psychological safety, and the subsequent positive and negative outcomes for doctoral students? This work in progress paper presents the first quantitative phase of an explanatory mixed methods research design within the overarching project. The quantitative phase will address the following research aims: 1) Identify relationships between mentorship, psychological safety, and engineering doctoral student mental health, 2) Identify mentoring competencies that are predictive of research group psychological safety, and 3) Identify how different demographics experience mentoring and psychological safety in their research groups. Researchers developed a survey consisting of five pre-existing scales, four open-ended questions, and demographics questions. The scales include dyadic and team psychological safety, mentoring competency, mental health and well-being, and job stress. The survey was reviewed by graduate students outside of the participant pool at multiple institutions as well as an external advisory board panel and revised to improve clarity and ensure the selection of appropriate subscales. The survey will be administered via Qualtrics. Graduate students who have been enrolled in their doctoral program for at least one year and currently have a doctoral research advisor will be recruited to participate in the survey at four public, research-intensive institutions. The planned target sample size is 200-300 graduate students. This paper will present the design of the survey and preliminary survey results. As the first part of a larger mixed-methods study, the survey responses provide insight into graduate level engineering education and how doctoral students can be better supported. 

   more » « less
5. Views on ethical issues in research labs: A university-wide survey

   https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2021.1910503  

   Laas, Kelly; Taylor, Stephanie; Miller, Christine Z.; Brey, Eric M.; Hildt, Elisabeth (April 2021, Accountability in Research)

   null (Ed.)

   In this article, we summarize the key findings of an exploratory study in which students and faculty completed a survey that sought to identify the most important ethical issues in STEM fields, how often these issues are discussed in research groups, and how often these ethical issues come up in the daily practice of research. Participants answered a series of open-ended and Likert-scale questions to provide a detailed look at the current ethical landscape at a private research university in the Midwest. The survey also looked at potential differences between faculty and undergraduate and graduate students’ perceptions in answering these questions. The results indicate that while all community members tended to view issues that can be classified as research misconduct as the most important activities to avoid in STEM-related research, the level of discussion and actual witnessing of these practices was relatively low. The study points to a consensus among students and faculty about the important ethical issues in STEM and the need for more discussion and attention to be paid to communication, collaboration, and interpersonal relationships in the research environment. 

   more » « less