skip to main content


Search for: All records

Award ID contains: 1935696

Note: When clicking on a Digital Object Identifier (DOI) number, you will be taken to an external site maintained by the publisher. Some full text articles may not yet be available without a charge during the embargo (administrative interval).
What is a DOI Number?

Some links on this page may take you to non-federal websites. Their policies may differ from this site.

  1. null (Ed.)
    Engineering is in need of new ideas and innovations to keep up with the growing demands of infrastructure and technology of today’s world. Diversity of thought and experience is necessary for this need in engineering to be met. Women of color (WOC) offer a source of underutilized intellectual capital in engineering. However, despite efforts in engineering education, WOC remain underrepresented and underserved (Green, 2006) in engineering and the student body of most engineering programs in universities in the United States (Cross et al., 2017). Research has shown that a possible reason for WOC leaving the engineering field may be from experiences of hostility within the environment that is associated with intersectional identities (Cross et al., 2017; Cross & Paretti, 2012; Mendenhall et al., 2018). The intersectionality of race and gender for WOC, also known as the “double bind,” play a large role in their engineering education experiences (Malcolm, 1976; Malcom & Malcom, 2011). This intersectionality of multiple marginalized identities has a multiplicative (i.e., not additive) effect on the struggles to participate in STEM, which can increase the impact of the hostile chilly climate of engineering (Mendenhall et al., 2018; Ong et al., 2011; Ong, Jaumot-Pascual, & Ko, 2020). WOC must operate differently than their white, male and female counterparts because of their unwelcoming experiences during their engineering education. So, how does the double bind lead to a double standard in engineering? In this study, we seek to explore how the interrelated system of oppression previous scholars named the double standard (Foschi, Lai, & Sigerson, 1994; Foschi, 1996, 2000) operate within engineering education and how the double bind WOC experience impacts this system of oppression. Foschi (2000) defines the double standard as “the use of different requirements for the inference of possession of an attribute, depending on the individuals being assessed” (p. 21). That is to say, inconsistent and unspoken performance criteria exist within engineering and WOC may be held to different standards based on negative stereotypes or bias beyond what their white male or female counterparts are held. In this work, this definition served to examine the double standards in educational and professional settings with “competence in task groups” (p. 21). We operationalize the double standard in this study to be a set of principles produced by the false notion of meritocracy and unacknowledged bias in engineering that serve to benefit the majority student population while simultaneously excluding or ignoring traditionally underserved minority (TUM) populations. 
    more » « less
  2. null (Ed.)