This research paper focuses on the effect of recent national events on first-year engineering students’ attitudes about their political identity, social welfare, perspectives of diversity, and approaches to social situations.
Engineering classrooms and cultures often focus on mastery of content and technical expertise with little prioritization given to integrating social issues into engineering. This depoliticization (i.e., the removal of social issues) in engineering removes the importance of issues related to including diverse individuals in engineering, working in diverse teams, and developing cultural sensitivity.
This study resulted from the shift in the national discourse, during the 2016 presidential election, around diversity and identities in and out of the academy. We were collecting interview data as a part of a larger study on students attitudes about diversity in teams. Because these national events could affect students’ perceptions of our research topic, we changed a portion of our interviews to discuss national events in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) classrooms and how students viewed these events in relation to engineering.
We interviewed first-year undergraduate students (n = 12) who indicated large differences of attitudes towards diverse individuals, experiences with diverse team members, and/or residing at the intersection of multiple diversity markers. We asked participants during the Spring of 2017 to reflect on the personal impact of recent national events and how political discussions have or have not been integrated into their STEM classrooms. During interviews students were asked: 1) Have recent national events impacted you in any way? 2) Have national events been discussed in your STEM classes? 3) If so, what was discussed and how was it discussed? 4) Do these conversations have a place in STEM classes? 5) Are there events you wish were discussed that have not been?
Inductive coding was used to analyze interviews and develop themes that were audited for quality by the author team. Two preliminary themes emerged from analysis: political awareness and future-self impact. Students expressed awareness of current political events at the local, national and global levels. They recognized personal and social impacts that these events imposed on close friends, family members, and society. However, students were unsure of how to interpret political dialogue as it relates to policy in engineering disciplines and practices. This uncertainty led students to question their future-selves or careers in engineering. As participants continued to discuss their uncertainty, they expressed a desire to make explicit connections between politics and STEM and their eventual careers in STEM.
These findings suggest that depoliticization in the classroom results in engineering students having limited consciousness of how political issues are relevant to their field. This disconnect of political discourse in the classroom gives us a better understanding of how engineering students make sense of current national events in the face of depoliticization. By re-politicising STEM classrooms in a way relevant to students’ futures, educators can better utilize important dialogues to help students understand how their role as engineers influence society and how the experiences of society can influence their practice of engineering.
more »
« less
Social norms explain prioritization of climate policy
Most people in the United States recognize the reality of climate change and are concerned about its consequences, yet climate change is a low priority relative to other policy issues. Recognizing that belief in climate change does not necessarily translate to prioritizing climate policy, we examine psychological factors that may boost or inhibit prioritization. We hypothesized that perceived social norms from people’s own political party influence their climate policy prioritization beyond their personal belief in climate change. In Study 1, a large, diverse sample of Democratic and Republican participants (
- NSF-PAR ID:
- 10369475
- Publisher / Repository:
- Springer Science + Business Media
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Climatic Change
- Volume:
- 173
- Issue:
- 1-2
- ISSN:
- 0165-0009
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
more » « less
Abstract As urgency grows to address global warming, younger generations can play a strategic role in mobilizing communities that have generally been more opposed to climate action and policy, such as political and religious conservatives in the United States. American evangelical Protestants—and white evangelicals in particular—are the largest religious group in the U.S. and also the most skeptical of climate science. There is growing interest, however, around whether evangelicals are becoming ‘greener,’ and whether climate attitudes among younger generations are diverging from their elders. We analyze empirical evidence for such generational divides by comparing data from two Climate Change in the American Mind surveys (
n = 2332) with a national survey of Generation Z evangelicals (n = 1063). Our results show that young evangelicals are highly likely to say that global warming is happening (89%) and anthropogenic (75%), with approximately a third of young evangelicals doing so despite perceptions that their parents disagree. They are also consistently more likely than older evangelicals to express pro-climate positions on a range of belief and attitudinal measures. The results are more mixed when young evangelicals are compared more broadly with the general American public as well as with Generation Z Americans. Notably, however, young evangelicals are more supportive of climate policies, such as funding renewable energy research, than Americans overall, even though they are also more politically conservative and Republican. These results suggest that a generational ‘greening’ of American evangelicals may indeed be taking place, potentially along with some decoupling of climate attitudes from political identity. This may have major implications for the future of climate action and policy in the United States and beyond. -
more » « less
Two experiments examined the polarization of public support for COVID-19 policies due to people’s (lack of) trust in political leaders and nonpartisan experts. In diverse samples in the United States (Experiment 1; N = 1,802) and the United Kingdom (Experiment 2; N = 1,825), participants evaluated COVID-19 policies that were framed as proposed by ingroup political leaders, outgroup political leaders, nonpartisan experts, or, in the United States, a bipartisan group of political leaders. At the time of the study in April 2020, COVID-19 was an unfamiliar and shared threat. Therefore, there were theoretical reasons suggesting that attitudes toward COVID-19 policy may not have been politically polarized. Yet, our results demonstrated that even relatively early in the pandemic people supported policies from ingroup political leaders more than the same policies from outgroup leaders, extending prior research on how people align their policy stances to political elites from their own parties. People also trusted experts and ingroup political leaders more than they did outgroup political leaders. Partly because of this polarized trust, policies from experts and bipartisan groups were more widely supported than policies from ingroup political leaders. These results illustrate the potentially detrimental role political leaders may play and the potential for effective leadership by bipartisan groups and nonpartisan experts in shaping public policy attitudes during crises.
-
more » « less
The COVID‐19 disease pandemic is one of the most pressing global health issues of our time. Nevertheless, responses to the pandemic exhibit a stark ideological divide, with political conservatives (versus liberals/progressives) expressing less concern about the virus and less behavioral compliance with efforts to combat it. Drawing from decades of research on the psychological underpinnings of ideology, in four studies (total
N = 4441) we examine the factors that contribute to the ideological gap in pandemic response—across domains including personality (e.g., empathic concern), attitudes (e.g., trust in science), information (e.g., COVID‐19 knowledge), vulnerability (e.g., preexisting medical conditions), demographics (e.g., education, income) and environment (e.g., local COVID‐19 infection rates). This work provides insight into the most proximal drivers of this ideological divide and also helps fill a long‐standing theoretical and empirical gap regarding how these various ideological differences shape responses to complex real‐world sociopolitical events. Among our key findings are the central role of attitude‐ and belief‐related factors (e.g., trust in science and trust in Trump)—and the relatively weaker influence of several domain‐general personality factors (empathic concern, disgust sensitivity, conspiratorial ideation). We conclude by considering possible explanations for these findings and their broader implications for our understanding of political ideology.Highlights Stark ideological differences exist across a wide range of attitudinal and behavioral indices of pandemic response, with more conservative individuals reliably exhibiting less concern about the virus. These findings illustrate the extent to which the pandemic has become politicized.
A range of factors contribute to this ideological gap in pandemic response, but some are substantially more important than others.
Several factors that have received attention in public and academic discourse about the pandemic appear to contribute little, if at all, to the ideological divide. These include news following, scientific literacy, perceived social norms, and knowledge about the virus.
The most critical factors appear to be trust in scientists and trust in Trump, which further highlights the politicization of COVID‐19 and, importantly, the antagonistic nature of these two beliefs. Efforts to change and, especially, disentangle these two attitudes have the potential to be effective interventions.
-
more » « less
Abstract Early and middle adolescents' judgements and reasonings about peers who challenge exclusive and inclusive peer group norms were examined across three studies with varying intergroup contexts. Study 1 participants included (
N = 199) non‐Arab American participants responding to an Arab American/non‐Arab American intergroup context. Study 2 included (N = 123) non‐Asian and (N = 105) Asian American participants responding to an Asian/non‐Asian American intergroup context. Study 3 included (N = 275) Lebanese participants responding to an American/Lebanese intergroup context. Across all three studies participants responded to ingroup and outgroup deviant group members who challenged their peer groups to either include or exclude an outgroup peer with similar interests. Findings indicated that adolescents approved of peers who challenged exclusive peer norms and advocated for inclusion of an ethnic and cultural outgroup, and disapproved of peers who challenged inclusive group norms and advocated for exclusion. Non‐Arab and non‐Asian American adolescents displayed ingroup bias when evaluating a deviant advocating for exclusion. Additionally, age differences were found among Asian American adolescents. Findings will be discussed in the light of intergroup research on those who challenge injustices.
