Title: Work in Progress: An Investigation of the Influence of Academic Culture on Engineering Graduates’ Workforce Expectations and Subsequent Work Behaviors
The supply of civil engineering graduates has yet to meet the demand of civil engineering industries within the United States [1]. The Bureau of Labor Statistics predicted a 7 percent growth within the 2021-2031 decade with about 24,200 job openings available each year [2], but only an estimated 21,561 civil engineering degrees were awarded in the U.S. in 2020 [3]. Furthermore, the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in employees quitting their jobs at higher rates than ever historically recorded [4]; this has been further observed in the civil engineering industry [5]. A research survey conducted by the Future World Vision showed that employees with less work experience (5 years or less) were most likely to resign from their positions and the civil engineering profession entirely [6].
Previous studies have examined engineering graduates’ retention in their professions as subsets of individual values and circumstance. However, there is limited research analyzing the overarching
organizational culture of engineering colleges that may influence the expectations and outcomes of engineering graduates in industry. Organizational culture describes the customs and values
unique to an organization [7, pp. 565]. These aspects of organizations can encourage or inhibit organizational success. Schönborn found that “there [were] specific sets of attitudes, values, and
artifacts that differentiate[d] successful from unsuccessful companies” [8]. This work-in-progress expands on Schönborn’s findings in hypothesizing that there are specific cultural norms and values
adopted by students in engineering colleges that differ from those of engineering industries, and those differences may affect if and how early career engineers successfully transition to
engineering careers. more »« less
Barger, Marilyn
Gilbert(
, ASEE annual conference exposition proceedings)
Manufacturing Division Program Committee of ASEE
(Ed.)
The two-year (60 semester credit hour) Engineering Technology (ET) Associate of Science (AS) degree program is available to students in 23 of the 25 Florida State Colleges that offer technician preparation degrees. As of 2020 there were over 2,000 students enrolled in this course of study. The degree has a Core set of courses completed in the first year followed by a set of specialized courses in year 2. The program has a high percentage of students working in industry during their course of study and enjoys an over 90% industry employment placement of its graduates. Graduates can also seamlessly articulate into an B.S. program offered in the Florida State College System as well as pursue a B.S. Engineering Technology degree that also leads to a Professional Engineers License. To maintain this rewarding ET career path, the Florida Advanced Technological Education Center (FLATE) with support from the Florida Department of Education, the National Science Foundation, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST, supported Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) interacts directly with manufacturers, college technical faculty, and college upper administration to assure the ET degree program focus is manufacturing industry impact within each college service region.
Grajdura, Sarah Allison; Beddoes, Kacey(
, American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference)
That the school-to-work transition can be challenging for many recent engineering graduates is well known [1]–[7]. However, current students and faculty rarely get an opportunity to learn directly from the mistakes, regrets, and hindsight of recent graduates during their first few years in the workplace. In order to help make students’ transition to engineering practice easier, and, relatedly, to help faculty prepare them in salient ways, this paper addresses the following research questions: 1) What do newcomer civil engineers believe are the biggest mistakes they made in their first few years on the job? and 2) If they could go back to when they began their jobs, what would they have done differently? As part of a mixed-methods, longitudinal study that aims to explore organizational socialization in engineering practice, sixteen early career civil engineers who worked in different firms around the country were asked about their work experiences, including their biggest mistakes and what they would have done differently at work knowing what they know now. Participants said their biggest mistakes related to not asking enough questions, undervaluing/not advocating for oneself, and staying in a position they dislike. Less mentioned issues included specific personal habits, attitudes, and unrealistic expectations from university education. When asked what they would have done differently from the first day at work until now, most responses related to having more confidence, networking and socializing more, and other specific personal behaviors, such as better organization. Less mentioned themes included requesting a higher salary, asking more questions, learning more material, and advocating for their own interests. The results have important implications for successfully preparing civil engineering students to begin their careers. By identifying these gaps in preparation, the paper points to recommendations for the civil engineering community.
Rüde, L; Harris, A; Gilmartin, S; Sheppard, S.(
, IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), San Jose, CA, USA, 2018. IEEE)
This Research-to-Practice Full Paper investigates
engineering students’ career goals and intentions regarding
organizational settings, and how their goals and intentions relate
to their background, learning and contextual measures. Moreover,
despite vocational choice and turnover having been heavily studied
in the literature, few studies have examined how students’ career
goals relate to change in their organizational settings over time and
how these perceptions then influence their turnover intentions. To
fill in this research gap, this paper explores how organizational
setting and respondent aspiration to be in that setting relate to
turnover intentions.
The paper is based on the nationally-representative, longitudinal
Engineering Majors Survey and has a sample size of 350
respondents, characterized as employed and recently graduated
(<2y) from an undergraduate engineering program. Respondents
are categorized in three different alignment groups (Aligned,
Fluid, Unaligned) according to their career goal achievement.
Respondents who are currently employed in the type of
organization, they had imagined being employed at a year earlier
are called Aligned. Respondents who are actually employed in the
type of organization (e.g., small versus large firm) to which they
stated “Might or might not” be employed a year earlier are
classified as Fluid. Finally, respondents, who work in the
organizational setting, which they did not want to work in one year
prior, are called Unaligned. The paper also determines
respondents turnover intentions (Stay, Flexible, Go) related to
organizational settings, such as small companies or medium and
large companies. Alignment and turnover groups were then
compared with each other in relation to background, learning, and
contextual measures. Background measures are gender,
underrepresented minority status, and first generation to college
status. Learning measures are internship experience, and
contextual measures are job satisfaction and grade point average.
The findings suggest that most of these recent graduates are
Aligned and want to Stay in their organizational setting.
Employees in small companies are relatively less Aligned and are
more likely to Go and leave the organizational setting than are
employees in large companies. Respondents who have done an
internship are more often Aligned and less likely want to Go and
leave their organizational setting than those who have not done an
internship. These results suggest that many respondents decide
before graduation on an organizational setting and continue to
desire the same organizational setting after being employed for
some time. Future longitudinal research should compare organizational
settings-based turnover intentions with turnover intentions related
to specific companies, -as a complement to much of the in literature
on turnover intentions mostly refers to leaving specific
organizations.
Keywords: career decisions, labor turnover intentions,
organizational setting, engineering graduates, alignment
Rude, L.; Harris, A.; Gilmartin, S.; Sheppard, S.(
, Proceedings of the 48th Annual Frontiers in Education (FIE) Conference, October 3-6, 2018. San Jose, California.)
This Research-to-Practice Full Paper investigates engineering students’ career goals and intentions regarding organizational settings, and how their goals and intentions relate to their background, learning and contextual measures. Moreover, despite vocational choice and turnover having been heavily studied in the literature, few studies have examined how students’ career goals relate to change in their organizational settings over time and how these perceptions then influence their turnover intentions. To fill in this research gap, this paper explores how organizational setting and respondent aspiration to be in that setting relate to turnover intentions.
The paper is based on the nationally-representative, longitudinal Engineering Majors Survey and has a sample size of 350 respondents, characterized as employed and recently graduated (<2y) from an undergraduate engineering program. Respondents are categorized in three different alignment groups (Aligned, Fluid, Unaligned) according to their career goal achievement. Respondents who are currently employed in the type of organization, they had imagined being employed at a year earlier are called Aligned. Respondents who are actually employed in the type of organization (e.g., small versus large firm) to which they stated “Might or might not” be employed a year earlier are classified as Fluid. Finally, respondents, who work in the organizational setting, which they did not want to work in one year prior, are called Unaligned. The paper also determines respondents turnover intentions (Stay, Flexible, Go) related to organizational settings, such as small companies or medium and large companies. Alignment and turnover groups were then compared with each other in relation to background, learning, and contextual measures. Background measures are gender, underrepresented minority status, and first generation to college status. Learning measures are internship experience, and contextual measures are job satisfaction and grade point average.
The findings suggest that most of these recent graduates are Aligned and want to Stay in their organizational setting. Employees in small companies are relatively less Aligned and are more likely to Go and leave the organizational setting than are employees in large companies. Respondents who have done an internship are more often Aligned and less likely want to Go and leave their organizational setting than those who have not done an internship. These results suggest that many respondents decide before graduation on an organizational setting and continue to desire the same organizational setting after being employed for some time.
Future longitudinal research should compare organizational settings-based turnover intentions with turnover intentions related to specific companies, -as a complement to much of the in literature on turnover intentions mostly refers to leaving specific organizations.
Keywords: career decisions, labor turnover intentions, organizational setting, engineering graduates, alignment
Beddoes, Kacey(
, Journal of civil engineering education)
Early-career engineers leave the profession at high rates, and much remains unknown about why that is so. Consequently, there have been calls for more research to better understand newcomer engineers’ experiences and attrition. The purpose of this article is therefore to examine the experiences of newcomer engineers from different universities and engineering firms around the US. The research questions addressed are as follows: (1) How do newcomer engineers characterize engineering work? and (2) What insights can their characterizations provide about newcomer attrition from engineering careers? A longitudinal study was conducted with recent civil engineering graduates in the US. Three sets of semistructured interviews were conducted in 2019 and 2020. Open coding methods were used to answer the first research question. Based on those emergent findings, the data was then analyzed through the lens of expectancy-value theory to answer the second research question. Misalignments between subjective task values created and/or reinforced in school were a prevalent source of dissatisfaction. There was a need for participants to engage in occupational identity work to reconcile the meanings of engineering and align their identities as engineers with workplace realities. Implications for future research and the engineering education system are discussed.
Eshun, Philippa, and Beddoes, Kacey. Work in Progress: An Investigation of the Influence of Academic Culture on Engineering Graduates’ Workforce Expectations and Subsequent Work Behaviors. Retrieved from https://par.nsf.gov/biblio/10464383. American society for engineering education .
Eshun, Philippa, & Beddoes, Kacey. Work in Progress: An Investigation of the Influence of Academic Culture on Engineering Graduates’ Workforce Expectations and Subsequent Work Behaviors. American society for engineering education, (). Retrieved from https://par.nsf.gov/biblio/10464383.
Eshun, Philippa, and Beddoes, Kacey.
"Work in Progress: An Investigation of the Influence of Academic Culture on Engineering Graduates’ Workforce Expectations and Subsequent Work Behaviors". American society for engineering education (). Country unknown/Code not available. https://par.nsf.gov/biblio/10464383.
@article{osti_10464383,
place = {Country unknown/Code not available},
title = {Work in Progress: An Investigation of the Influence of Academic Culture on Engineering Graduates’ Workforce Expectations and Subsequent Work Behaviors},
url = {https://par.nsf.gov/biblio/10464383},
abstractNote = {The supply of civil engineering graduates has yet to meet the demand of civil engineering industries within the United States [1]. The Bureau of Labor Statistics predicted a 7 percent growth within the 2021-2031 decade with about 24,200 job openings available each year [2], but only an estimated 21,561 civil engineering degrees were awarded in the U.S. in 2020 [3]. Furthermore, the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in employees quitting their jobs at higher rates than ever historically recorded [4]; this has been further observed in the civil engineering industry [5]. A research survey conducted by the Future World Vision showed that employees with less work experience (5 years or less) were most likely to resign from their positions and the civil engineering profession entirely [6]. Previous studies have examined engineering graduates’ retention in their professions as subsets of individual values and circumstance. However, there is limited research analyzing the overarching organizational culture of engineering colleges that may influence the expectations and outcomes of engineering graduates in industry. Organizational culture describes the customs and values unique to an organization [7, pp. 565]. These aspects of organizations can encourage or inhibit organizational success. Schönborn found that “there [were] specific sets of attitudes, values, and artifacts that differentiate[d] successful from unsuccessful companies” [8]. This work-in-progress expands on Schönborn’s findings in hypothesizing that there are specific cultural norms and values adopted by students in engineering colleges that differ from those of engineering industries, and those differences may affect if and how early career engineers successfully transition to engineering careers.},
journal = {American society for engineering education},
author = {Eshun, Philippa and Beddoes, Kacey},
}
Warning: Leaving National Science Foundation Website
You are now leaving the National Science Foundation website to go to a non-government website.
Website:
NSF takes no responsibility for and exercises no control over the views expressed or the accuracy of
the information contained on this site. Also be aware that NSF's privacy policy does not apply to this site.