Search for: All records

Abstract BackgroundScholars agree that reciprocity is a cornerstone of service‐learning and community engagement (SLCE); however, engagement with this concept varies widely in practice and across disciplines. To enhance the potential of SLCE to fulfill its promise for societal impact, engineering education must understand how reciprocity is achieved, recognize barriers that inhibit its progress, and identify strategies for how it can be strengthened. PurposeWe performed this review to understand the ways reciprocity is articulated in the engineering SLCE literature. Drawing from these articulations, we examined the extent of engagement with reciprocity toward providing insights into the design and assessment of SLCE efforts for reciprocity. Scope/MethodWe performed a systematic literature review on engineering SLCE at institutes of higher education. Following an established approach to identify and synthesize articles, we developed deductive codes by distilling three well‐articulated orientations of reciprocity. We then analyzed the operationalization of reciprocity in the literature. ResultsThe literature demonstrated varying degrees of reciprocity. Minimally reciprocal efforts centered university stakeholders. In contrast, highly reciprocal partnerships explicitly addressed the nature of engagement with communities. Findings provide insights into the breadth of practice within reciprocity present in engineering SLCE. Further, analysis suggests that our codes and levels of reciprocity can function as a framework that supports the design and evaluation of reciprocity in SLCE efforts. ConclusionsOur review suggests that to enact more equitable SLCE, researchers and practitioners must intentionally conceptualize reciprocity, translate it into practice, and make visible the ways in which reciprocity is enacted within their SLCE efforts. 

Workshops hosted at recent Biomedical Engineering Society (BMES) meetings have identified the leap from university to a career in industry to be a nation-wide challenge for Biomedical Engineering (BME) undergraduate programs and their alumni. While some strides are being made to better utilize industry feedback to steer the future of BME curricula, a more holistic understanding of the factors influencing engineering students’ career outcomes is desired. Here, we present an exploratory study analyzing the relationship between the factor of diversity (gender, ethnicity) and undergraduate engineering students’ workforce opportunities (co-op, internship, and full-time employment offers, starting salaries). Using data collected by our university’s Engineering Career Services, we will present gender and ethnicity-based analyses of workforce opportunities and career outcomes for BME students, compared to three other undergraduate engineering majors at our university. As often typical with other BME programs, the BME major at our university has the highest percentage of female and under-represented minority students (31.7% and 15.0%, respectively), compared to our college of engineering as a whole (22.5% and 6.5%, respectively). Identifying potential diversity- and major-based inequities could provide further insight for how to improve retention and maintain appropriate pathways into the engineering workforce.