Search for: All records

Efforts to lead diversity, equity, inclusivity, and justice (DEIJ) change in higher education, and in STEM departments in particular, are prone to failure. We argue that these complex efforts entail orchestration of learning, change, and power, and therefore, understanding how organizational change teams function necessitates a combination of theories. We examine how faculty experience change projects in postsecondary engineering education, including the ways in which their experiences—and the change efforts they’re engaged in—are shaped by identity and intersectional power. Using a narrative approach, we report on the experiences of three composite cases of faculty members on change projects across multiple institutions, drawing on theories of learning, change, and power to glean understanding of these experiences. Our findings suggest that bringing these three theoretical lenses together through what we call the TRIPLE (Theories and Research on Intersectional Power, Learning, and Evolutionary) Change Framework helps develop a more critical and nuanced understanding of faculty experiences on organizational change leadership teams. 

A psychologically safe environment is characterized by people who feel safe to voice ideas and concerns, willingly seek feedback, have positive intentions to one another, engage in constructive confrontation, and feel safe to take risks and experiment. Outside of academia, psychological safety has been shown to impact creativity, work performance, and work engagement. In academic research environments, faculty have a major leadership role in cultivating a psychologically safe environment amongst their academic research teams. Effective graduate student mentoring, which includes both career and psychosocial support, is critical to the development and retention of talented engineers in the US workforce. There is a need to better understand how engineering departments can cultivate more inclusive, psychologically safe environments in which graduate students feel safe to engage in interpersonal risk-taking, especially in research settings. Guided by the Conservation of Resources theory, this project aims to address the following research question: What are the relationships between faculty advisor mentoring, doctoral student psychological safety, and the subsequent positive and negative outcomes for doctoral students? This work in progress paper presents the first quantitative phase of an explanatory mixed methods research design within the overarching project. The quantitative phase will address the following research aims: 1) Identify relationships between mentorship, psychological safety, and engineering doctoral student mental health, 2) Identify mentoring competencies that are predictive of research group psychological safety, and 3) Identify how different demographics experience mentoring and psychological safety in their research groups. Researchers developed a survey consisting of five pre-existing scales, four open-ended questions, and demographics questions. The scales include dyadic and team psychological safety, mentoring competency, mental health and well-being, and job stress. The survey was reviewed by graduate students outside of the participant pool at multiple institutions as well as an external advisory board panel and revised to improve clarity and ensure the selection of appropriate subscales. The survey will be administered via Qualtrics. Graduate students who have been enrolled in their doctoral program for at least one year and currently have a doctoral research advisor will be recruited to participate in the survey at four public, research-intensive institutions. The planned target sample size is 200-300 graduate students. This paper will present the design of the survey and preliminary survey results. As the first part of a larger mixed-methods study, the survey responses provide insight into graduate level engineering education and how doctoral students can be better supported. 

Faculty advisors perform a vital role in doctoral students’ experiences in their programs, but they often lack training in how to provide essential psychosocial support to their doctoral advisees. This can result in negative graduate experiences, especially for underrepresented groups. While research into psychological safety in the corporate world has highlighted its importance, the importance of psychological safety is less understood in academia, particularly in the context of graduate engineering education. This study seeks to understand how engineering faculty advisors influence the psychological safety of doctoral students they advise and the impact of psychological safety on the student’s graduate experience. We use a mixed methods design and in-depth qualitative study to address the research aims. The mixed methods design uses a survey followed by exploratory interviews. Additional narrative interviews will be conducted to gather rich data on student experiences with psychological safety and how they evolve over time. 

Recent international calls have been made to build capacity in engineering by increasing the number of scholars using research-based instructional practices in engineering classrooms. Training traditional engineering professors to conduct engineering education research (EER) supports this goal. Previous work suggests that engineering professors interested in perform­ing social sciences or educational research require structured support when making this transition. We interviewed 18 professors engaged with a grant opportunity in the United States that supports professors conducting EER for the first time through structured mentor­ship. Thematic analysis of interview data resulted in four findings describing common percep­tions and experiences of traditional engineering professors as they begin to conduct formalised EER: motivation to conduct EER, institutional support and barriers, growth in knowl­edge, and integrating with EER culture. Within these findings, barriers to entering EER were uncovered with implications for professors interested in EER, funding agencies, and prospec­tive mentors, resulting in suggestions for improving access to EER for professors developing as teaching scholars. 

This work-in-progress briefly outlines the theoretical background, methods, and preliminary results of a qualitative study conducted with gender, romantic, and sexual minority (GRSM) students immersed in higher education spaces. We elaborate on the efficacy of our innovative qualitative methodologies through the use of AI-human art-making interactions during our interviews, which helped to produce richer qualitative data from our participants. Our methodology was constructed using a Foucauldian theoretical framework to inform the framework of this study, focusing explicitly on GRSM students’ experiences with power in higher education and when using technology, as well as the ways in which they resist power through the use of technology and AI-generated visual media.