Search for: All records

Historically, research in engineering education has taken a deficit-oriented perspective by focusing on the dearth of People of Color (POC) in engineering as a supply issue while ignoring the false narratives and discourses that dominate engineering education and research which exclude POC from the start. Recently, asset-based approaches have gained more traction in the field but too often miss a critical consideration: the hegemony of Whiteness in engineering. This theoretical paper is a deeper exploration of two crucial concepts that underpin the hegemonic discourse of Whiteness: meritocracy and colorblindness. We begin with a brief review of Whiteness studies which views Whiteness as the symbolic and structural white dominance and perceived superiority that marginalizes and oppresses POC and elevates white people to the top of the racial hierarchy (Matias & Newlove, 2017; McIntyre, 2002); a false ideal, guided by a historical mechanism of power, and the product of privileged social positions that benefits white people (DuBois, 1999). The purpose of this paper provides a critical perspective on how Whiteness tends to be at the foundations of these problematic narratives and discourses. The concept of meritocracy asserts that individuals are rewarded based solely on their individual effort, implying that people attain what they deserve in life through their hard work and determination. Conversely, those that are not successful are responsible for their lot in life. However, this belief in meritocracy overlooks the complex web of institutional and systemic variables that play a pivotal role in shaping life outcomes. A colorblind ideology fortifies the myth of meritocracy because it shifts the focus away from understanding how institutions perpetuate the normalized standard of white supremacy and racism, and instead places the responsibility for combating racism and white supremacy on individuals. This perspective bestows privileges upon white individuals as acts of merit if these privileges were earned solely through merit, rather than acknowledging that they are a product of a system that perpetuates advantages like a well-oiled assembly line. Meritocracy and colorblindness form a self-reinforcing cycle—a colorblind discourse in engineering education dominated by Whiteness willfully ignores the hierarchical positioning of racialized groups, fostering the misguided belief that success is determined by inherent merits. In reality, these merits are not objective or universal, but rather intangible attributes granted primarily to those who occupy the upper rungs of the hierarchical ladder within a colorblind society dominated by Whiteness and those who align with such an ideology. This theoretical paper begins to question the ways pedagogy and research are conducted in engineering education that traditionally exclude POC identities under the veil of equality, not equity. This ontological and epistemological shift is possible by questioning the very foundation that colorblindness and merit are built upon. The foundation of this work stems from an NSF grant to uncover the scripts of Whiteness in engineering education while devising a structured environment to help build individual and institutional racial literacy. 

This Innovative Practice work-in-progress describes the use of collaborative autoethnography (CAE) as a methodology to explore the centrality of Whiteness (as an ideology) in engineering and how it informs the culture, climate, and discourse of engineering education. We began the first year of our project by conducting a CAE on our own experiences in engineering spaces. CAE takes a collaborative approach to the process of critical self-reflection and can be conducted in many forms, such as collecting personal memory data (e.g., journaling), interviewing each other, facilitating intentional dialogue, or observing each other (e.g., in the classroom). Our team’s diverse viewpoints facilitated rich conversations that let us interrogate the ways in which Whiteness reveals its form differently depending on one’s positionality and ontology. In this paper, we describe our approach, experiences, and challenges with using CAE to explore our engineering journeys. Future steps include using our findings to create a faculty development program to help engineering faculty further their development of critical consciousness. For movement towards racial equity in engineering to be effective and sustainable, we believe change must begin with action in the classroom, where engineering faculty have direct interactions and influence over students’ beliefs, attitudes, and value systems. 

Funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF) Racial Equity in STEM Education Program, this project aims to deeply interrogate the influence and pervasiveness of Whiteness in engineering culture. While there has been substantial research into the masculinity of engineering, Whiteness has received far less attention. We claim the centrality of Whiteness in engineering curricula informs the culture, climate, and discourse of engineering education, leading to an exclusionary culture within engineering as reflected by the lack of diversity and lower retention of students and faculty of color, and contributes to systemic barriers negatively impacting racial equity. Moving towards racial equity in engineering education requires a fundamental shift in thinking in two important ways: 1) we must reframe how we think about underserved populations from minority to minoritized by a dominant discourse, and 2) to begin to dismantle the impacts of Whiteness, we must first make this barrier visible. In the first year of this project, the diverse team of PIs began to explore scripts of Whiteness in engineering education by conducting a collaborative autoethnography through documenting and analyzing their own experiences facing, enacting, and challenging scripts of Whiteness in engineering spaces. A collaborative autoethnography (CAE) takes a collaborative approach to the process of critical self reflection and can be conducted in many forms, such as such as collecting personal memory data (e.g., journaling), interviewing each other, facilitating intentional dialogue, or observing each other (e.g., in the classroom). CAE is not a linear process, but requires an ongoing dialogue (conversations, negotiations, or even arguments) between researcher team members over a long period (at least months, if not years). Our diverse viewpoints and years-long experience working together facilitated rich conversations that let us interrogate the ways in which Whiteness reveals its form differently depending on one’s positionality. In the later years of the project, we will create a faculty development program intended to help engineering faculty develop their critical consciousness and begin to decenter Whiteness from their ways of thinking and discourses (i.e., beliefs, attitudes, value systems, actions, etc.) so they can begin to critically think about promoting and enacting practices that move engineering education toward racial equity. Although the pathway to critical consciousness is not linear, it is a one-way street; once faculty begin to see the systemic barriers (such as those created by scripts of Whiteness) around them, there is no going back. In the long term, we hope to lay the groundwork for recognizing, interrogating, and eventually dismantling forces of systemic oppression in engineering higher education. 

Does emphasizing the role of people in engineering influence the memorability of engineering content? This study is part of a larger project through which our team developed a new undergraduate energy course to better reflect students’ cultures and lived experiences through asset-based pedagogies to help students develop a sociotechnical mindset in engineering problem solving. In this study, students in the class were invited to participate in semi-structured interviews (n=5) to explore our effectiveness in helping them develop a sociotechnical mindset around energy issues and conceptualize engineering as a sociotechnical endeavor. This study focuses on an activity during the interview where the participants were asked to sort a variety of images associated with class learning experiences along a spectrum of least to most memorable. Emergent themes from students’ responses revolved around learning experiences that included global perspectives and emphasized a “who” (i.e., whose problems, who is impacted by engineering, and what type of engineers the students will choose to become) as the most memorable. Our results indicate that students found the sociotechnical aspects of the course more memorable than the traditional canonical engineering content. These findings suggest that framing engineering content as sociotechnical can be one strategy to increase student engagement, increase memorability of lessons, and help students to think more deeply about their own goals as future engineers. 

In the spring of 2021, the University of San Diego’s Department of Integrated Engineering taught the course, “Integrated Approach to Energy”, the second offering of a new required course, to nine second-year engineering students. The sociotechnical course covered modern energy concepts, with an emphasis on renewable energies and sustainability, and it exposed the students to other ways of being, knowing, and doing that deviated from the dominant masculine Western White colonial discourse. Following the course completion, we interviewed five students by using a semistructured protocol to explore how they perceived of and communicated about engineers and engineering. We sought to identify the takeaways from their course exposure to sustainability and the sociotechnical paradigm, which were central to the course. The findings suggest that the students were beginning to form sociotechnical descriptions, and that they were still developing their understanding and perceptions of engineers and engineering. Moreover, we observed that they were still wrestling with how best to integrate sustainability into those perceptions. There was an a-la-carte feel to the students’ conceptualizations of sustainability as it related to engineering, as in, “you can ‘do’ sustainability with engineering, but do not have to”. We argue that engineering students likely need these pedagogical paradigms (sociotechnical engineering and sustainability) woven through the entirety of their engineering courses if they are to fully accept and integrate them into their own constructs about engineers and engineering. 

Engineers are increasingly called on to develop sustainable solutions to complex problems. Within engineering, however, economic and environmental aspects of sustainability are often prioritized over social ones. This paper describes how efficiency and sustainability were conceptualized and interrelated by students in a newly developed second-year undergraduate engineering course, An Integrated Approach to Energy. This course took a sociotechnical approach and emphasized modern energy concepts (e.g., renewable energy), current issues (e.g., climate change), and local and personal contexts (e.g., connecting to students’ lived experiences). Analyses of student work and semi-structured interview data were used to explore how students conceptualized sustainability and efficiency. We found that in this cohort (n = 17) students often approached sustainability through a lens of efficiency, believing that if economic and environmental resources were prioritized and optimized, sustainability would be achieved. By exploring sustainability and efficiency together, we examined how dominant discourses that privilege technical over social aspects in engineering can be replicated within an energy context. 

The global pandemic of COVID-19 brought about the transition to Emergency Remote Teaching (ERT) at higher education institutions across the United States, prompting both students and the faculty to rapidly adjust to a different modality of teaching and learning. Other crises have induced disruptions to academic continuity (e.g., earthquakes, hurricanes), but not to the same extent as COVID-19, which has affected universities on a global scale. In this paper, we describe a qualitative case study where we interviewed 11 second-year Integrated Engineering students during the Spring 2020 semester to explore how they adapted to the transition to remote learning. Our results revealed several student challenges, how they used self-discipline strategies to overcome them, and how the faculty supported students in the classroom through a compassionate and flexible pedagogy. Faculty members showed compassion and flexibility by adjusting the curriculum and assessment and effectively communicating with students. This was especially important for the women participants in this study, who more frequently expressed utilizing pass/fail grading and the personal and gendered challenges they faced due to the pandemic. During this unprecedented crisis, we found that a key element for supporting students’ well-being and success is the faculty members communicating care and incorporating flexibility into their courses. 

What do engineering students in 2020 need to know about energy to be successful in the workplace and contribute to addressing society’s issues related to energy? Beginning with this question, we have designed a new course for second-year engineering students. Drawing on the interdisciplinary backgrounds of our diverse team of engineering instructors, we aimed to provide an introduction to energy for all engineering students that challenged the dominant discourse in engineering by valuing students’ lived experiences and bringing in examples situated in different cultural contexts. An Integrated Approach to Energy was offered for the first time in Spring 2020 for 18 students. In this paper, we describe the design of the course including learning objectives, content, and pedagogical approach. We assessed students’ learning using exams and the impact of the overall course using interviews. Students demonstrated achievement of the learning objectives in technical areas. In addition, interviews revealed that they learned about environmental, economic, and social aspects of engineering practice. We intend for this course to serve as a model of engineering as a sociotechnical endeavor by challenging students with scenarios that are technically demanding and require critical thinking about contextual implications.