An official website of the United States government
The purpose of this critical literature review was to generate awareness of the LGBTQIA+ engineering student experience and research on this community, while also highlighting areas that are lacking or receiving insufficient attention. This work is part of a larger project that aims to review engineering education research with respect to LGBTQIA+ students, higher education faculty and staff, and industry professionals. This literature review was conducted in two phases. First, works from non-engineering disciplines were reviewed to identify popular threads and major areas of research on the LGBTQIA+ student experience. This phase was not an exhaustive review; rather, it was meant to establish specific themes of importance derived from the larger body of literature on the LGBTQIA+ student experience. Second, a literature review identified how engineering-specific research on the LGBTQIA+ student experience aligned with these themes. We identified several themes in the first phase of the literature review: (1) Climate, (2) LGB Monolith, (3) Intersectionality, and (4) Identity Development. Engineering and engineering education literature demonstrated similar themes, although this body of work was unique in the exploration of LGBTQIA+ coping strategies and the use of the technical/social dualism framework. Overall, the engineering education literature on LGBTQIA+ student experiences seemed relatively underdeveloped.
more »
« less
Queering Engineering Through a Student Driven LGBTQIA+ Reading Group (Experience)
In this paper, we describe a queer engineering reading group comprised of undergraduate and graduate students and faculty members. Studies over the last decade have shown that LGBTQIA+ engineering students have continuously felt excluded and devalued in STEM spaces. A key factor in this chilly climate is the social-technical dualism that is often strictly enforced in engineering curriculum. Professors and students alike see discussing politics and social issues as irrelevant to the highly technical curriculum. As a result, queer identities are erased from engineering and students are never able to formally connect engineering with their queer (or other) identity in any meaningful way. In an effort to combat this, we have implemented a LGBTQIA+ reading group that challenges the depoliticizing culture of engineering and allows students to further connect to their engineering and queer identities. This reading group centers weekly discussions of relevant education and sociology literature about queer and/or STEM issues. Each week a different student summarizes the paper’s key concepts then facilitates group discussion where participants voice their personal connections to the themes of the paper. A wide variety of literature has been discussed, with a focus on the intersection of queer identity with other identities marginalized in STEM. Here we present the development and structure of the reading group and lessons learned over the course of the reading group offering in Fall 2020. Furthermore, we will explore the ways this group has helped augment queer engineering spaces and has served as a catalyst for student activism. Importantly, we have included student reflections of their experiences in the group and how the readings connect with their experiences as a queer engineering student.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 2051502
- PAR ID:
- 10329790
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- ASEE annual conference exposition
- ISSN:
- 2153-5965
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
The purpose of this research paper is to test to see if science and engineering identity differ between students along the basis of minoritized sexual and gender identities. LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer or questioning) students are more likely to leave engineering and other STEM majors before the end of their fourth year of college, much of which is due to the hetero- and cisnormative climate they experience in STEM departments. The climate may undermine students' identification with science and engineering, affecting their motivation, belonging, and persistence in these fields. The data for this study was collected from student surveys at four research universities nationally, with 548 students forming the analytic sample. About 56% of the sample are LGBQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, or queer), 16% TGNC (transgender, gender nonconforming, or nonbinary), and 65% are in a STEM major. Students completed a two-part survey which encompassed data about their social networks and their college experiences. The data for this analysis were drawn from the section on students' college experiences, which included an adaptation of Godwin's engineering identity measures to assess students' interest in their chosen field of study, students' assessment of their competence and performance in their courses, and students' perceptions of being recognized as a science person and as an engineering person. Demographic data on sexual identity, gender identity, and major were used to test comparisons. ANOVA and regression modeling were used to test group differences. For the most part, few differences were observed between groups regarding measures of science and engineering identity. Interest in their field of study only differed marginally by LGBQ status, with LGBQ students scoring slightly higher than heterosexual students. Perceptions of competence and performance in their field of study differed only by STEM major, with STEM students scoring slightly lower, suggesting some potential degree of insecurity among STEM students regarding their academic performance. Recognition as a science person only differed by STEM major as STEM students reported much higher recognition than their non-STEM peers. Recognition as an engineering person also differed by STEM major similar to recognition as a science person, but to a somewhat lesser degree; however, LGBQ students also reported being less likely to be recognized as an engineering person as well. Taken together, if engineering and other STEM fields look to broaden participation among people from groups historically excluded from full, authentic participation, one factor is the extent to which LGBTQ people see themselves as part of these fields. The data presented here suggest to some extent that LGBTQ people score similarly to their peers on indicators of science and engineering identity, but that attention to their experiences is still warranted. As LGBTQ issues become politicized across the nation, LGBTQ individuals need safe environments in STEM fields to nurture their intrinsic motivation and pursue fulfilling careers.more » « less
-
Engineering as a field is dominated by toxic masculinity, heteronormativity, whiteness, and cisnormativity, as well as the promotion of objectiveness and depoliticization of identity. There is a dearth of knowledge surrounding transgender and gender nonconforming (TGNC) student experiences in engineering, and much of the [limited] available research on TGNC STEM student lives assumes a universalized trans experience, not taking into account intersecting marginal identities that can affect a student’s performance and sense of belonging in engineering or STEM environments. STEM-related research into marginalized populations’ experiences is often done without the use of feminist, queer, trans, and anti-racist research methodologies that take into consideration power imbalances between the researcher and participant and the implications of conducting research on and with subordinated population groups. This study addresses these research gaps. We used critical collaborative ethnographic site visits to center TGNC positionality and community-centered research ethics. Critical ethnographic methods put critical theories into action by rooting the participant’s experiences and study observations in larger global justice frameworks at the intersections of race, gender, sexuality, class, culture, and disability. This framing places the researcher with the subjects to co-create results from the fieldwork, allowing students to retain power in the relationship with the researcher and exert some control over their portrayal in the research products. Further, marginalized population group research is best conducted by members of that population group so as to upset inherent power imbalances between the researcher and the participant. So, as a critical part of our methodology, our research team consists of transgender, gender nonconforming, and cisgender interdisciplinary researchers in engineering and women, gender, and sexuality studies (WGSS), with a transgender and queer WGSS researcher as the only point of contact with the TGNC research participants. This paper details the results from a 4-day critical collaborative ethnographic site visit involving two mechanical engineering students at a prestigious private university in the Northeastern United States. The activities of the visit included formal semi-structured interviews as well as less formal interactions with each participant, such as attending classes, visiting important campus and community spaces, or hanging out with the participant’s friend/peer groups. The visiting researcher also explored the college campus and the broader community on his own, noting the location's unique specificity. As predicted by previous literature and theoretical grounding and significant findings from previous phases of this research, the results pointed to the uniqueness of each student’s identity, location, political worldview, and support system. The two TGNC student participants, both with multiple intersecting marginal identities, had incredibly different experiences in the same mechanical engineering program, leading to one participant experiencing resounding success and the other leaving STEM altogether. The findings from this critical collaborative ethnographic site visit suggest that barriers to success or finding belonging for TGNC students in engineering must be considered through the use of intersectionality theory.more » « less
-
The social/technical dualism in the engineering curriculum leaves students ill-prepared to tackle real-world technical problems in their social, economic, and political contexts (Cech, 2013; Faulkner, 2007; Trevelan, 2010, 2014). Increasingly, students have expressed the desire for their technical courses to show the interplay between social and technical considerations (Leydens & Lucena, 2017), but they have few opportunities to develop these sociotechnical ways of thinking (i.e., values, attitudes, and skills that integrate the social and technical). Instead, students are left to infer engineering as technically neutral through the instructional decisions that make up an engineering curriculum (Cech, 2013; Trevelan, 2014). In this study, we focus on how students understand the role of sociotechnical thinking in engineering. Particularly, this study centers seven minoritized students in an introductory engineering computation class who are pursuing an engineering degree. The study takes place at a medium private university in New England. These seven students are from a group of roughly seventy students split between two of the five sections for the course. These two sections were recently revised to include more sociotechnical readings, discussions, and homework facilitated with learning assistants. We are interested in understanding the self-described sense of belonging that these students feel as they relate it to learning about engineering as a sociotechnical field. While the dualism between engineering's technical and social dimensions has been studied in ASEE LEES papers, articles in Engineering Studies, broader engineering education research, and Science, Technology, and Science publications (e.g., Cech, 2013; Faulkner, 2007; Leydens & Lucena, 2017; Riley, 2017; Wisnioski, 2012), there is a need to connect this vast literature with the similarly extensive research on students' sense of belonging and engineering identity development, specifically for those students who have historically been excluded from engineering. Specifically, we draw on W.E.B. DuBois's notion of a 'double consciousness' from the Souls of Black Folks (1903) as a lens through which to understand how these seven students take on the political, economic, and social dimensions presented to them through a first-year engineering curricular redesign around engineering as sociotechnical. We note the small-n design of this study (Slaton & Pawley, 2018). The seven interviewed students are gender and racial minorities in engineering. However, we note that they do not represent all minoritized students in engineering, and to respect and elevate their experiences, we take a narrative approach. This study is intended to center the perspectives and experiences of these seven students as they navigate an engineering learning environment. We do not intend for the findings to be generalizable or exhaustive but informative as we think about scaling up the sociotechnical curricular redesign in engineering at this university and more broadly.more » « less
-
Grinnell, Frederick (Ed.)Queer identities are often ignored in diversity initiatives, yet there is a growing body of research that describes notable heterosexist and gender-normative expectations in STEM that lead to unsupportive and discriminatory environments and to the lower persistence of queer individuals. Research on the experiences of queer-spectrum individuals is limited by current demographic practices. In surveys that are queer-inclusive there is no consensus on best practices, and individuals with queer genders and queer sexual, romantic, and related orientations are often lumped together in a general category (e.g. LGBTQ+). We developed two queer-inclusive demographics questions and administered them as part of a larger study in undergraduate engineering and computer science classes (n = 3698), to determine which of three survey types for gender (conventional, queered, open-ended) provided the most robust data and compared responses to national data to determine if students with queer genders and/or queer sexual, romantic, and related orientations were underrepresented in engineering and computer science programs. The gender survey with queer-identity options provided the most robust data, as measured by higher response rates and relatively high rates of disclosing queer identities. The conventional survey (male, female, other) had significantly fewer students disclose queer identities, and the open-ended survey had a significantly higher non-response rate. Allowing for multiple responses on the survey was important: 78% of those with queer gender identities and 9% of those with queer sexual, romantic and related orientations selected multiple identities within the same survey question. Queer students in our study were underrepresented relative to national data. Students who disclosed queer gender identities were 7/100ths of the expected number, and those with queer orientations were under-represented by one-quarter. Further work developing a research-based queered demographics instrument is needed for larger-scale changes in demographics practices, which will help others identify and address barriers that queer-spectrum individuals face in STEM.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Conference Paper:
- The DOI is not currently available.
