More Like this

1. From "Leaky Pipelines" to "Diversity of Thought": What Does "Diversity" Mean in Engineering Education?

   Appelhans, S. ; De Pree, T. ; Thompson, J. ; Aviles, J. ; Cheville, A. ; Riley, D. ; Karlin, J. ; Fatehiboroujeni, S. ; Akera, A. ( January 2019 , ASEE annual conference & exposition)

   In this research paper, we analyze “diversity” discourses among faculty and administrators in engineering programs across the Unites States, and the initiatives deployed in the name of diversity. The recruitment and retention of women and “minorities” is a task of paramount importance in engineering programs, and higher education in general. However, despite continued efforts to diversify the student body, women and minorities have remained underrepresented in engineering departments. The rationale for increasing diversity in engineering education can vary, from industry arguments about “filling pipelines” for the labor force, to social justice arguments that everyone should have an equal opportunity for success, to cognitive diversity arguments that problems are solved more efficiently with diverse viewpoints. Furthermore, there is significant variation across institutions regarding who is prioritized under the “diversity” umbrella – some highlight women in general, others African American, Hispanic and Lantinx men and women, others target students of low socioeconomic status (SES). Finally, initiatives to address diversity also vary widely, from scholarship programs, to extracurricular activities, to integration of the needs and interests of excluded groups into coursework. This paper draws upon data collected as part of a multi-institutional research study entitled “The Distributed System of Governance in Engineering Education.”more »We use methods of discourse analysis to study how the term “diversity” is leveraged in different contexts to enact certain methods of recruitment and retention of particular populations.« less
2. From "Leaky Pipelines" to "Diversity of Thought": What Does "Diversity" Mean in Engineering Education?

   https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--32861  

   Appelhans, S. ; De Pree, T. ; Thompson, J. ; Aviles, J. ; Cheville, A. ; Riley, D. ; Karlin, J. ; Fatehiboroujeni, S. ; Akera, A. ( July 2019 , ASEE annual conference exposition)

   In this research paper, we analyze “diversity” discourses among faculty and administrators in engineering programs across the Unites States, and the initiatives deployed in the name of diversity. The recruitment and retention of women and “minorities” is a task of paramount importance in engineering programs, and higher education in general. However, despite continued efforts to diversify the student body, women and minorities have remained underrepresented in engineering departments. The rationale for increasing diversity in engineering education can vary, from industry arguments about “filling pipelines” for the labor force, to social justice arguments that everyone should have an equal opportunity for success, to cognitive diversity arguments that problems are solved more efficiently with diverse viewpoints. Furthermore, there is significant variation across institutions regarding who is prioritized under the “diversity” umbrella – some highlight women in general, others African American, Hispanic and Lantinx men and women, others target students of low socioeconomic status (SES). Finally, initiatives to address diversity also vary widely, from scholarship programs, to extracurricular activities, to integration of the needs and interests of excluded groups into coursework. This paper draws upon data collected as part of a multi-institutional research study entitled “The Distributed System of Governance in Engineering Education.”more »We use methods of discourse analysis to study how the term “diversity” is leveraged in different contexts to enact certain methods of recruitment and retention of particular populations.« less
3. Nascent Professional Identity Development in Freshman Architecture, Engineering, and Construction Women

   Ofori-Boadu, Andrea N. ; Ofori-Boadu, Victor ; Vanderpool, Jacob ; Deng, Dongyang ( June 2020 , ASEE annual conference exposition)

   Miller, Eva (Ed.)

   Nascent Professional Identity Development in Freshman Architecture, Engineering, and Construction (AEC) Women Increasing the persistence of talented women into male-dominated architecture, engineering, and construction (AEC) professions could reduce prevailing workforce shortages and improve gender diversity in AEC industry. Identity theorists advocate that professional identity development (PID) improves students’ persistence to become professionals. However, little empirical research exists to inform and guide AEC educators and professionals on AEC-PID in undergraduate AEC women. As the preliminary part of a larger nationwide and longitudinal research study investigating PID processes in undergraduate AEC women, the objective of this research is to examine the characteristics and nascent AEC-PID in 69 women enrolled in freshman AEC courses in five U.S. institutions. A purposive sampling approach ensures participants have a wide range of demographic characteristics. Data from a recruitment survey is analyzed using the NVivo qualitative data analysis software. Content and relational inductive open coding are conducted vertically for each participant and horizontally across different participants. Results indicate passion/interest, inherent abilities, significant others, benefits from industry, and desire to contribute to industry influence decisions to pursue AEC careers. With 52% of participants having science, technology, engineering, art, and math (STEAM) subject preferences, an in vivo code, Perfectmore »Middle Ground, demonstrated the quest to combine STEM and visual art preferences in AEC career decisions. A participant noted that ‘this major (civil engineering) is the perfect middle ground because I can be creative, but still use my strong gift which happens to be math’. Girls with STEAM strengths and passion, particularly in math and fine art, are most likely to develop nascent AEC-PID. Beyond STEM pre-college programs, AEC educators should consider recruiting from sports, as well as visual and performing arts events for pre-college students. Participants’ positive views focus on the importance and significant societal impact of the AEC industry; while, negative views focus on the lack of gender and racial diversity. A combination of participants’ AEC professional experiences and views reveal four increasing levels of nascent AEC-PID which are categorized as the 4Ps: Plain, Passive, Progressive, and Proactive. As a guide to AEC education and professional communities, recommendations are made to increase the AEC-PID of women in each category. With the highest nascent AEC-PID, women in the Proactive category should serve as leaders in AEC classrooms and student organizations. Considering their AEC professional experience and enthusiasm, they should serve as peer mentors to other students, particularly AEC women. Furthermore, they should be given the opportunity to step into more complex roles during internships and encouraged to pursue co-op opportunities. Insights can guide more targeted recruitment, mentoring, preparation, and retention interventions that strengthen the persistence of the next generation of AEC women professionals. In the long term, this could reduce AEC workforce shortages, improve gender diversity, and foster the innovation and development of more gender friendly AEC products and services.« less
4. "I'm looking at you, you're a perfectly good person …”: Describing non-apparent disability in engineering

   https://doi.org/https://strategy.asee.org/36059  

   Zongrone, C. ; McCall, C. ; Paretti, M. C. ; Shew, A. ; Simmons, D. R. ; McNair, L. D. ( January 2021 , Collaborative Network for Engineerign and Computing Diversity)

   In recent years, studies in engineering education have begun to intentionally integrate disability into discussions of diversity, inclusion, and equity. To broaden and advocate for the participation of this group in engineering, researchers have identified a variety of factors that have kept people with disabilities at the margins of the field. Such factors include the underrepresentation of disabled individuals within research and industry; systemic and personal barriers, and sociocultural expectations within and beyond engineering education-related contexts. These findings provide a foundational understanding of the external and environmental influences that can shape how students with disabilities experience higher education, develop a sense of belonging, and ultimately form professional identities as engineers. Prior work examining the intersections of disability identity and professional identity is limited, with little to no studies examining the ways in which students conceptualize, define, and interpret disability as a category of identity during their undergraduate engineering experience. This lack of research poses problems for recruitment, retention, and inclusion, particularly as existing studies have shown that the ways in which students perceive and define themselves in relation to their college major is crucial for the development of a professional engineering identity. Further, due to variation in defining ‘disability’ acrossmore »national agencies (e.g., the National Institutes of Health, and the Department of Justice) and disability communities (with different models of disability), the term “disability” is broad and often misunderstood, frequently referring to a group of individuals with a wide range of conditions and experiences. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to gain deeper insights into the ways students define disability and disability identity within their own contexts as they develop professional identities. Specifically, we ask the following research question: How do students describe and conceptualize non-apparent disabilities? To answer this research question, we draw from emergent findings from an on-going grounded theory exploration of professional identity formation of undergraduate civil engineering students with disabilities. In this paper, we focus our discussion on the grounded theory analyses of 4 semi-structured interviews with participants who have disclosed a non-apparent disability. Study participants consist of students currently enrolled in undergraduate civil engineering programs, students who were initially enrolled in undergraduate civil engineering programs and transferred to another major, and students who have recently graduated from a civil engineering program within the past year. Sensitizing concepts emerged as findings from the initial grounded theory analysis to guide and initiate our inquiry: 1) the medical model of disability, 2) the social model of disability, and 3) personal experience. First, medical models of disability position physical, cognitive, and developmental difference as a “sickness” or “condition” that must be “treated”. From this perspective, disability is perceived as an impairment that must be accommodated so that individuals can obtain a dominantly-accepted sense of normality. An example of medical models within the education context include accommodations procedures in which students must obtain an official diagnosis in order to access tools necessary for academic success. Second, social models of disability position disability as a dynamic and fluid identity that consists of a variety of physical, cognitive, or developmental differences. Dissenting from assumptions of normality and the focus on individual bodily conditions (hallmarks of the medical model), the social model focuses on the political and social structures that inherently create or construct disability. An example of a social model within the education context includes the universal design of materials and tools that are accessible to all students within a given course. In these instances, students are not required to request accommodations and may, consequently, bypass medical diagnoses. Lastly, participants referred to their own life experiences as a way to define, describe, and consider disability. Fernando considers his stutter to be a disability because he is often interrupted, spoken over, or silenced when engaging with others. In turn, he is perceived as unintelligent and unfit to be a civil engineer by his peers. In contrast, David, who identifies as autistic, does not consider himself to be disabled. These experiences highlight the complex intersections of medical and social models of disability and their contextual influences as participants navigate their lives. While these sensitizing concepts are not meant to scope the research, they provide a useful lens for initiating research and provides markers on which a deeper, emergent analysis is expanded. Findings from this work will be used to further explore the professional identity formation of undergraduate civil engineering students with disabilities. These findings will provide engineering education researchers and practitioners with insights regarding the ways individuals with disabilities interpret their in- and out-of-classroom experiences and navigate their disability identities. For higher education, broadly, this work aims to reinforce the complex and diverse nature of disability experience and identity, particularly as it relates to accommodations and accessibility within the classroom, and expand the inclusiveness of our programs and institutions.« less
5. Understanding the Professional Formation of Engineers through the Lens of Design Thinking: Unpacking theWicked Problem of Diversity and Inclusion

   Zoltowski, Carla B. ; Buzzanell, Patrice M. ; Brightman, Andrew O. ; Torres, David ; Eddington, Sean M. ( June 2017 , ASEE annual conference & exposition proceedings)

   Three broad issues have been identified in the professional formation of engineers: 1) the gap between what students learn in universities and what they practice upon graduation; 2) the limiting perception that engineering is solely technical, math, and theory oriented; and 3) the lack of diversity (representation of a wide range of people) and lack of inclusion (incorporation of different perspectives, values, and ways of thinking and being in engineering) in many engineering programs. These are not new challenges in engineering education, rather they are persistent and difficult to change. There have been countless calls to recruit and retain women and underrepresented minority group members into engineering careers and numerous strategies proposed to improve diversity, inclusion, and retention, as well as to calls to examine socio-technical integration in engineering cultures and education for professional formation. Despite the changes in some disciplinary profiles in engineering and the curricular reforms within engineering education, there still has not been the deep transformation needed to integrate inclusionary processes and thinking into professional formation. In part, the reason is that diversity and inclusion are still framed as simply “numbers problems” to be solved. What is needed instead is an approach that understands and explores diversitymore »and inclusion as interrelated with the epistemological (what do engineers need to know) and ontological (what does it mean to be an engineer) underpinnings of engineering. These issues are highly complex, interconnected, and not amenable to simple solutions, that is, they are “wicked” problems. They require design thinking. Thus our NSF-funded Research in the Formation of Engineers (RFE) study utilizes a design thinking approach and research activities to explore foundational understandings of formation and diversity and inclusion in engineering while addressing the three project objectives: 1) Better prepare engineers for today’s workforce; 2) Broaden understandings of engineering practice as both social and technical; and 3) Create and sustain more diverse and inclusionary engineering programs. The project is organized around the three phases of the design process (inspiration, ideation, and implementation), and embedded within the design process is a longitudinal, multiphase, mixed-methods study. Although the goal is to eventually study these objectives on a broader scale, we begin with a smaller context: the School of Electrical and Computer Engineering (ECE) and the Weldon School of Biomedical Engineering (BME) at Purdue University. These schools share similarities with some common coursework and faculty, but also provide contrasts as BME’s undergraduate population, on average for recent semesters, has been 44-46% female, where ECE has been 13-14% female. Although BME has slightly more underrepresented minority students (7-8% versus 5%), approximately 60% of BME students are white, versus 40% for ECE. It is important to note that Purdue’s School of ECE offers B.S. degrees in Electrical Engineering (EE) and Computer Engineering (CmpE), which reflect unique disciplinary cultures. Additionally, the schools differ significantly on undergraduate enrollment. The BME enrollment was 278, whereas ECE’s enrollment was 675 in EE and 541 in CmpE1. In this paper we describe the background literature and the research design, including the study contexts, target subject populations, and procedures for quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis. In addition, we present the data collected during the first phase of the research project. In our poster, we will present preliminary analysis of the first phase data.« less