Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Women in STEM Disciplines: Walking boundaries
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Introducing the official SlideShare app

Stunning, full-screen experience for iPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Women in STEM Disciplines: Walking boundaries

833
views

Published on

Presentation

Presentation

Published in: Education

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
833
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Women in STEM Disciplines Alice L. Pawley School of Engineering Education Purdue University November 9, 2010 Walking boundaries... Women’s Studies Noon Lecture : Tuesday, November 9, 2010
  • 2. Women in STEM Disciplines Tuesday, November 9, 2010
  • 3. Women in STEM Disciplines Tuesday, November 9, 2010
  • 4. Women in STEM Disciplines Tuesday, November 9, 2010
  • 5. Women in STEM Disciplines Tuesday, November 9, 2010
  • 6. Women in STEM Disciplines Tuesday, November 9, 2010
  • 7. DisciplinesSTEMinWomen Tuesday, November 9, 2010
  • 8. Disciplines STEM Women Tuesday, November 9, 2010
  • 9. Disciplines STEM Women Tuesday, November 9, 2010
  • 10. Disciplines STEM Women feminist Tuesday, November 9, 2010
  • 11. Disciplines STEM Women Research in Feminist Engineering or... RIFE Tuesday, November 9, 2010
  • 12. Disciplines STEM Women Research in Feminist Engineering or... RIFE Gender in JEE ADVANCEASK WIETY CAREER Tuesday, November 9, 2010
  • 13. Disciplines STEM Women Gender in JEE ADVANCE ASK WIETY CAREER Tuesday, November 9, 2010
  • 14. Disciplines STEM Women Gender in JEE ADVANCE ASK WIETY CAREER Assessing Sustainability Knowledge third-wave transnational feminism Tuesday, November 9, 2010
  • 15. Disciplines STEM Women Gender in JEE ADVANCE ASK WIETY CAREER Assessing Sustainability Knowledge third-wave transnational feminism Gendered space in Journal of Engineering Education intersectionality, gender spectra Tuesday, November 9, 2010
  • 16. Disciplines STEM Women Gender in JEE ADVANCE ASK WIETY CAREER Assessing Sustainability Knowledge third-wave transnational feminism Gendered space in Journal of Engineering Education intersectionality, gender spectra Academic STEM institutions as gendered, raced intersectionality, gendered institutions, discourse analysis Tuesday, November 9, 2010
  • 17. Disciplines STEM Women Gender in JEE ADVANCE ASK WIETY CAREER Assessing Sustainability Knowledge third-wave transnational feminism Gendered space in Journal of Engineering Education intersectionality, gender spectra Academic STEM institutions as gendered, raced intersectionality, gendered institutions, discourse analysis Engineering’s boundaries through photographs gendered objects, action research Tuesday, November 9, 2010
  • 18. Disciplines STEM Women Gender in JEE ADVANCE ASK WIETY CAREER Assessing Sustainability Knowledge third-wave transnational feminism Gendered space in Journal of Engineering Education intersectionality, gender spectra Academic STEM institutions as gendered, raced intersectionality, gendered institutions, discourse analysis Engineering’s boundaries through photographs gendered objects, action research Students’ stories to learn about institutions intersectionality, social change, decolonizing methods Tuesday, November 9, 2010
  • 19. Disciplines STEM Women Gender in JEE ADVANCE ASK WIETY CAREER Tuesday, November 9, 2010
  • 20. Disciplines STEM Women Gender in JEE ADVANCE ASK WIETY CAREER Tuesday, November 9, 2010
  • 21. Disciplines STEM Women Gender in JEE ADVANCE ASK WIETY CAREER Domain analysis (Spradley 1980) Tuesday, November 9, 2010
  • 22. Disciplines STEM Women Gender in JEE ADVANCE ASK WIETY CAREER Domain analysis (Spradley 1980) 9  types  of  inter-­‐rela0onships 1. Strict  Inclusion:  X  is  a  kind  of  Y 2. Spa0al:  X  is  a  part  of  Y 3. Cause-­‐effect:  X  is  the  result  of  Y 4. Ra0onale:  X  is  a  reason  for  doing  Y 5. Loca0on-­‐for-­‐ac0on:  X  is  a  place  to  do  Y 6. Func0on:  X  is  used  for  Y 7. Means-­‐End:  X  is  a  way  to  do  Y 8. Sequence:  X  is  a  step  in  Y 9. AIribu0on:  X  is  a  characteris8c  of  Y Tuesday, November 9, 2010
  • 23. Disciplines STEM Women Gender in JEE ADVANCE ASK WIETY CAREER Domain analysis (Spradley 1980) 9  types  of  inter-­‐rela0onships 1. Strict  Inclusion:  X  is  a  kind  of  Y 2. Spa0al:  X  is  a  part  of  Y 3. Cause-­‐effect:  X  is  the  result  of  Y 4. Ra0onale:  X  is  a  reason  for  doing  Y 5. Loca0on-­‐for-­‐ac0on:  X  is  a  place  to  do  Y 6. Func0on:  X  is  used  for  Y 7. Means-­‐End:  X  is  a  way  to  do  Y 8. Sequence:  X  is  a  step  in  Y 9. AIribu0on:  X  is  a  characteris8c  of  Y Tuesday, November 9, 2010
  • 24. Disciplines STEM Women Gender in JEE ADVANCE ASK WIETY CAREER Domain analysis (Spradley 1980) 9  types  of  inter-­‐rela0onships 1. Strict  Inclusion:  X  is  a  kind  of  Y 2. Spa0al:  X  is  a  part  of  Y 3. Cause-­‐effect:  X  is  the  result  of  Y 4. Ra0onale:  X  is  a  reason  for  doing  Y 5. Loca0on-­‐for-­‐ac0on:  X  is  a  place  to  do  Y 6. Func0on:  X  is  used  for  Y 7. Means-­‐End:  X  is  a  way  to  do  Y 8. Sequence:  X  is  a  step  in  Y 9. AIribu0on:  X  is  a  characteris8c  of  Y Tuesday, November 9, 2010
  • 25. Disciplines STEM Women Gender in JEE ADVANCE ASK WIETY CAREER Domain analysis (Spradley 1980) 1. Engineering education researchers rely on a demographic definition of gender. 2. Most research cites underrepresentation as motivation to conduct gender research. 3. Engineering education researchers incorporate very few theoretical frameworks when researching gender. Tuesday, November 9, 2010
  • 26. Disciplines STEM Women Gender in JEE ADVANCE ASK WIETY CAREER Domain analysis (Spradley 1980) 1. Engineering education researchers rely on a demographic definition of gender. 2. Most research cites underrepresentation as motivation to conduct gender research. 3. Engineering education researchers incorporate very few theoretical frameworks when researching gender. Tuesday, November 9, 2010
  • 27. Disciplines STEM Women Gender in JEE ADVANCE ASK WIETY CAREER Domain analysis (Spradley 1980) 1. Engineering education researchers rely on a demographic definition of gender. 2. Most research cites underrepresentation as motivation to conduct gender research. 3. Engineering education researchers incorporate very few theoretical frameworks when researching gender. Tuesday, November 9, 2010
  • 28. Disciplines STEM Women Gender in JEE ADVANCE ASK WIETY CAREER Domain analysis (Spradley 1980) 1. Engineering education researchers rely on a demographic definition of gender. 2. Most research cites underrepresentation as motivation to conduct gender research. 3. Engineering education researchers incorporate very few theoretical frameworks when researching gender. We need researchers who: •understand and value intersectionality •see gender as more complex than ♀ or ♂ •connect theory to method Tuesday, November 9, 2010
  • 29. Disciplines STEM Women Gender in JEE ADVANCE ASK WIETY CAREER Academic Career Pathway (ACP) Institutional Ethnography (IE) Tuesday, November 9, 2010
  • 30. Disciplines STEM Women Gender in JEE ADVANCE ASK WIETY CAREER Academic Career Pathway (ACP) Institutional Ethnography (IE) HRD-0811194 Tuesday, November 9, 2010
  • 31. Disciplines STEM Women Gender in JEE ADVANCE ASK WIETY CAREER Academic Career Pathway (ACP) Tuesday, November 9, 2010
  • 32. Disciplines STEM Women Gender in JEE ADVANCE ASK WIETY CAREER Academic Career Pathway (ACP) 1. How applicable are pipeline, climate metaphors to actual women’s lives (in Purdue STEM disciplines) 2. What might be new metaphors to help us see additional places to work on? Tuesday, November 9, 2010
  • 33. Disciplines STEM Women Gender in JEE ADVANCE ASK WIETY CAREER Academic Career Pathway (ACP) Methods: Collection: Oral history, Participatory research Analysis: Open, axial coding; Discourse analysis Tuesday, November 9, 2010
  • 34. Disciplines STEM Women Gender in JEE ADVANCE ASK WIETY CAREER Institutional Ethnography (IE) Tuesday, November 9, 2010
  • 35. Disciplines STEM Women Gender in JEE ADVANCE ASK WIETY CAREER Institutional Ethnography (IE) 1. How do women faculty experience Purdue as an academic STEM institution through policies? 2. Where are disconnects between intent and experience? Tuesday, November 9, 2010
  • 36. Disciplines STEM Women Gender in JEE ADVANCE ASK WIETY CAREER Institutional Ethnography (IE) 1. How do women faculty experience Purdue as an academic STEM institution through policies? 2. Where are disconnects between intent and experience? Methods: Institutional ethnography (Smith) Tuesday, November 9, 2010
  • 37. Disciplines STEM Women Gender in JEE ADVANCE ASK WIETY CAREER Institutional Ethnography (IE) 1. How do women faculty experience Purdue as an academic STEM institution through policies? 2. Where are disconnects between intent and experience? Methods: Institutional ethnography (Smith) We need researchers who • understand agency and structure • can learn across disciplines • can use many research tools Tuesday, November 9, 2010
  • 38. Disciplines STEM Women Gender in JEE ADVANCE ASK WIETY CAREER Learning from Small Numbers Tuesday, November 9, 2010
  • 39. Disciplines STEM Women Gender in JEE ADVANCE ASK WIETY CAREER EEC-1055900Learning from Small Numbers Tuesday, November 9, 2010
  • 40. Disciplines STEM Women Gender in JEE ADVANCE ASK WIETY CAREER Learning from Small Numbers Tuesday, November 9, 2010
  • 41. Disciplines STEM Women Gender in JEE ADVANCE ASK WIETY CAREER Learning from Small Numbers 1. How do underrepresented undergraduate engineering students describe their interactions with educational institutions through personal narratives? Tuesday, November 9, 2010
  • 42. Disciplines STEM Women Gender in JEE ADVANCE ASK WIETY CAREER Learning from Small Numbers 1. How do underrepresented undergraduate engineering students describe their interactions with educational institutions through personal narratives? 2. What institutional factors do these narratives reveal that affect the educational persistence and success of white women and students of color in undergraduate engineering educational institutions? Tuesday, November 9, 2010
  • 43. Disciplines STEM Women Gender in JEE ADVANCE ASK WIETY CAREER Learning from Small Numbers Methods: Research: in-depth open interviews with undergraduate white women and students of color in engineering: “Tell me how you got to be where you are.” Tuesday, November 9, 2010
  • 44. Disciplines STEM Women Gender in JEE ADVANCE ASK WIETY CAREER Learning from Small Numbers Methods: Research: in-depth open interviews with undergraduate white women and students of color in engineering: “Tell me how you got to be where you are.” Education: personas and informance to help engineering educational administrators learn from small numbers Tuesday, November 9, 2010
  • 45. Disciplines STEM Women Gender in JEE ADVANCE ASK WIETY CAREER Learning from Small Numbers Methods: Research: in-depth open interviews with undergraduate white women and students of color in engineering: “Tell me how you got to be where you are.” Education: personas and informance to help engineering educational administrators learn from small numbers We need researchers who • aren’t afraid of complexity • fit methods to context • can learn sans generalizability Tuesday, November 9, 2010
  • 46. Disciplines STEM Women Gender in JEE ADVANCE ASK WIETY CAREER Tuesday, November 9, 2010
  • 47. Disciplines STEM Women Gender in JEE ADVANCE ASK WIETY CAREER What should sustainability mean? boundaries in engineering education Tuesday, November 9, 2010
  • 48. Disciplines STEM Women Gender in JEE ADVANCE ASK WIETY CAREER What should sustainability mean? boundaries in engineering education How do we study gender “better”? crossing boundaries into women’s studies Tuesday, November 9, 2010
  • 49. Disciplines STEM Women Gender in JEE ADVANCE ASK WIETY CAREER What should sustainability mean? boundaries in engineering education How do we study gender “better”? crossing boundaries into women’s studies How is gender built into our institutions? boundary work in professional contexts Tuesday, November 9, 2010
  • 50. Disciplines STEM Women Gender in JEE ADVANCE ASK WIETY CAREER What should sustainability mean? boundaries in engineering education How do we study gender “better”? crossing boundaries into women’s studies How is gender built into our institutions? boundary work in professional contexts How do we redefine engineering to be more inclusive? boundary work redefining engineering with students Tuesday, November 9, 2010
  • 51. Disciplines STEM Women Gender in JEE ADVANCE ASK WIETY CAREER What should sustainability mean? boundaries in engineering education How do we study gender “better”? crossing boundaries into women’s studies How is gender built into our institutions? boundary work in professional contexts How do we redefine engineering to be more inclusive? boundary work redefining engineering with students How do we redefine institutions to be more inclusive? boundary work restructuring academic engineering Tuesday, November 9, 2010
  • 52. Disciplines STEM Women boundary work in research Tuesday, November 9, 2010
  • 53. Disciplines STEM Women boundary work in research October 2009 Journal of Engineering Education 309 Universalized Narratives: Patterns in How Faculty Members Define “Engineering” ALICE L. PAWLEY Purdue University BACKGROUND U.S. engineering educators are discussing how we define engineering to our- selves and to others, such as in the recently released U.S. National Academy of Engineering (NAE) report, Changing the Conversation. In these conversations, leaders have proposed the skills, knowledge, processes, values, and attitudes that should define engineering. However, little attention has been paid to the daily work of engineering faculty, through their engineering research and teaching students to be new engineers, that puts these discipline-defining ideas into practice in academia. PURPOSE (HYPOTHESIS) The different types of narratives engineering faculty explicitly or implicitly use to describe engineering are categorized. Categorizing these common nar- ratives can help inform the nationwide conversation about whether these are the best narratives to tell in order to attract a diverse population of future engineers. DESIGN/METHOD Interviews with ten engineering faculty at a research-extensive university were conducted. Interview transcripts were coded thematically through coarse then fine coding passes. The coarse codes were drawn from boundary theory; the fine codes emerged from the data. RESULTS Faculty members’ descriptions moved within and among the narratives of engineering as applied science and math, as problem-solving, and as making things. The narratives are termed “universalized” because of their broad- sweeping discursive application within and across participants’ interviews. CONCLUSIONS These narratives drawn from academic engineers’ practice put engineering at odds with recommendations from the NAE report. However, naming the narratives helps make them visible so we may then develop and practice telling contrasting narratives to future and current engineering students. KEYWORDS discourse analysis, engineering epistemology, faculty work I.INTRODUCTION In the summer of 2008, the National Academy of Engineering published a new report, Changing the Conversation, which argues that engineers (and particularly engineering educators) should change the message of engineering away from the difficulty and elite character of the profession towards one of social relevance and “making a difference” (Committee on Public Understanding of En- gineering Messages, 2008). This report aimed to investigate the American public’s understanding of what engineering is and what engineers do, and to provide a set of tested messages that might im- prove that understanding. The report noted that “[c]urrent and past engineering outreach to the public and message development have been ad hoc efforts…[and] although a variety of useful tactics have been tried, no consistent message has been communicated, even among projects by the same organization” (p. 4). The report also re- marked that “[m]ost current messages are framed to emphasize the strong links between engineering and just one of its attributes—the need for mathematics and science skills. In other words, current messages often ignore other vital characteristics of engineering, such as creativity, teamwork, and communication” (p. 10). This report comes at a time of significant professional reflec- tion in the engineering education research community on the na- ture of engineering and engineering beliefs, values, and knowl- edge (see, for example, Grimson, 2007; Heywood, 2008a, 2008b; Heywood, Smith, and McGrann, 2007; Heywood, McGrann, and Smith, 2008; Royal Academy of Engineering, 2008; Smith and Korte, 2008), which has been made particularly visible by the inclusion of an “engineering epistemology” category within the engineering education research framework laid out by the Engi- neering Education Research Colloquies (2006). In addition, the NAE report was published shortly after the Year of Dialogue by the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE), which has spurred leading engineering education researchers to articu- late their manifestos on the future of engineering education (see, for example, Fortenberry, 2006; Gabriele, 2005; Haghighi, 2005; Shulman, 2005; Streveler and Smith, 2006; Wormley, 2006). To- gether, these two discussions, one of the public images of engi- neering and the other of the future directions of engineering edu- cation, intend to influence not only engineering outreach activities, but also the practice of engineering faculty in how and what they teach as engineering. However, it is unclear that mainstream engineering faculty members value these same conclusions, let alone make decisions about what to teach or research based on these public treatises. How do engineering faculty in the U.S. view their work of educating en- gineers? This paper works to uncover the daily “disciplining” work of constructing and reconstructing a discipline,work that results in defining engineering alongside any public outreach campaign,that engineering educators do in their teaching, research, and service within schools of engineering. This paper documents three narra- tives that research participants used to explain their work to others Tuesday, November 9, 2010
  • 54. Disciplines STEM Women boundary work in teaching October 2009 Journal of Engineering Education 309 Universalized Narratives: Patterns in How Faculty Members Define “Engineering” ALICE L. PAWLEY Purdue University BACKGROUND U.S. engineering educators are discussing how we define engineering to our- selves and to others, such as in the recently released U.S. National Academy of Engineering (NAE) report, Changing the Conversation. In these conversations, leaders have proposed the skills, knowledge, processes, values, and attitudes that should define engineering. However, little attention has been paid to the daily work of engineering faculty, through their engineering research and teaching students to be new engineers, that puts these discipline-defining ideas into practice in academia. PURPOSE (HYPOTHESIS) The different types of narratives engineering faculty explicitly or implicitly use to describe engineering are categorized. Categorizing these common nar- ratives can help inform the nationwide conversation about whether these are the best narratives to tell in order to attract a diverse population of future engineers. DESIGN/METHOD Interviews with ten engineering faculty at a research-extensive university were conducted. Interview transcripts were coded thematically through coarse then fine coding passes. The coarse codes were drawn from boundary theory; the fine codes emerged from the data. RESULTS Faculty members’ descriptions moved within and among the narratives of engineering as applied science and math, as problem-solving, and as making things. The narratives are termed “universalized” because of their broad- sweeping discursive application within and across participants’ interviews. CONCLUSIONS These narratives drawn from academic engineers’ practice put engineering at odds with recommendations from the NAE report. However, naming the narratives helps make them visible so we may then develop and practice telling contrasting narratives to future and current engineering students. KEYWORDS discourse analysis, engineering epistemology, faculty work I.INTRODUCTION In the summer of 2008, the National Academy of Engineering published a new report, Changing the Conversation, which argues that engineers (and particularly engineering educators) should change the message of engineering away from the difficulty and elite character of the profession towards one of social relevance and “making a difference” (Committee on Public Understanding of En- gineering Messages, 2008). This report aimed to investigate the American public’s understanding of what engineering is and what engineers do, and to provide a set of tested messages that might im- prove that understanding. The report noted that “[c]urrent and past engineering outreach to the public and message development have been ad hoc efforts…[and] although a variety of useful tactics have been tried, no consistent message has been communicated, even among projects by the same organization” (p. 4). The report also re- marked that “[m]ost current messages are framed to emphasize the strong links between engineering and just one of its attributes—the need for mathematics and science skills. In other words, current messages often ignore other vital characteristics of engineering, such as creativity, teamwork, and communication” (p. 10). This report comes at a time of significant professional reflec- tion in the engineering education research community on the na- ture of engineering and engineering beliefs, values, and knowl- edge (see, for example, Grimson, 2007; Heywood, 2008a, 2008b; Heywood, Smith, and McGrann, 2007; Heywood, McGrann, and Smith, 2008; Royal Academy of Engineering, 2008; Smith and Korte, 2008), which has been made particularly visible by the inclusion of an “engineering epistemology” category within the engineering education research framework laid out by the Engi- neering Education Research Colloquies (2006). In addition, the NAE report was published shortly after the Year of Dialogue by the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE), which has spurred leading engineering education researchers to articu- late their manifestos on the future of engineering education (see, for example, Fortenberry, 2006; Gabriele, 2005; Haghighi, 2005; Shulman, 2005; Streveler and Smith, 2006; Wormley, 2006). To- gether, these two discussions, one of the public images of engi- neering and the other of the future directions of engineering edu- cation, intend to influence not only engineering outreach activities, but also the practice of engineering faculty in how and what they teach as engineering. However, it is unclear that mainstream engineering faculty members value these same conclusions, let alone make decisions about what to teach or research based on these public treatises. How do engineering faculty in the U.S. view their work of educating en- gineers? This paper works to uncover the daily “disciplining” work of constructing and reconstructing a discipline,work that results in defining engineering alongside any public outreach campaign,that engineering educators do in their teaching, research, and service within schools of engineering. This paper documents three narra- tives that research participants used to explain their work to others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`,#%,#,(#+,>T,"*U*)>I@AN,L7@R@L#),7*T)*LR@>A,L>$I*R*AL@*%,B1K @A%@"*7,B*AN@A**7%K,#A",>6R%@"*7,BR5>%*,(5>,%R6"+,*AN@A**7%K,I*7%I*LR@U*%,#%,#,(#+,>T,7*U*#)@AN%-"&!,*AN@A**7%,QA>(,#A"%"*-,R5*+,QA>(,@R,,B9K I5@)>%>I5@*%,>T,*"6L#R@>A,R5#R,#7N6*,T>7,I#7R@L6)#7,#@$%C,I67I>%*%C,#A",I7>L*%%*%,>T,*"6L#R@>A,#%,#,(#+,>T,#7R@L6)#R@AN,#,I5@)>%>I5+,>T,#3913##'139,*"6L#R@>A, Tuesday, November 9, 2010
  • 55. Disciplines STEM Women boundary work in teaching October 2009 Journal of Engineering Education 309 Universalized Narratives: Patterns in How Faculty Members Define “Engineering” ALICE L. PAWLEY Purdue University BACKGROUND U.S. engineering educators are discussing how we define engineering to our- selves and to others, such as in the recently released U.S. National Academy of Engineering (NAE) report, Changing the Conversation. In these conversations, leaders have proposed the skills, knowledge, processes, values, and attitudes that should define engineering. However, little attention has been paid to the daily work of engineering faculty, through their engineering research and teaching students to be new engineers, that puts these discipline-defining ideas into practice in academia. PURPOSE (HYPOTHESIS) The different types of narratives engineering faculty explicitly or implicitly use to describe engineering are categorized. Categorizing these common nar- ratives can help inform the nationwide conversation about whether these are the best narratives to tell in order to attract a diverse population of future engineers. DESIGN/METHOD Interviews with ten engineering faculty at a research-extensive university were conducted. Interview transcripts were coded thematically through coarse then fine coding passes. The coarse codes were drawn from boundary theory; the fine codes emerged from the data. RESULTS Faculty members’ descriptions moved within and among the narratives of engineering as applied science and math, as problem-solving, and as making things. The narratives are termed “universalized” because of their broad- sweeping discursive application within and across participants’ interviews. CONCLUSIONS These narratives drawn from academic engineers’ practice put engineering at odds with recommendations from the NAE report. However, naming the narratives helps make them visible so we may then develop and practice telling contrasting narratives to future and current engineering students. KEYWORDS discourse analysis, engineering epistemology, faculty work I.INTRODUCTION In the summer of 2008, the National Academy of Engineering published a new report, Changing the Conversation, which argues that engineers (and particularly engineering educators) should change the message of engineering away from the difficulty and elite character of the profession towards one of social relevance and “making a difference” (Committee on Public Understanding of En- gineering Messages, 2008). This report aimed to investigate the American public’s understanding of what engineering is and what engineers do, and to provide a set of tested messages that might im- prove that understanding. The report noted that “[c]urrent and past engineering outreach to the public and message development have been ad hoc efforts…[and] although a variety of useful tactics have been tried, no consistent message has been communicated, even among projects by the same organization” (p. 4). The report also re- marked that “[m]ost current messages are framed to emphasize the strong links between engineering and just one of its attributes—the need for mathematics and science skills. In other words, current messages often ignore other vital characteristics of engineering, such as creativity, teamwork, and communication” (p. 10). This report comes at a time of significant professional reflec- tion in the engineering education research community on the na- ture of engineering and engineering beliefs, values, and knowl- edge (see, for example, Grimson, 2007; Heywood, 2008a, 2008b; Heywood, Smith, and McGrann, 2007; Heywood, McGrann, and Smith, 2008; Royal Academy of Engineering, 2008; Smith and Korte, 2008), which has been made particularly visible by the inclusion of an “engineering epistemology” category within the engineering education research framework laid out by the Engi- neering Education Research Colloquies (2006). In addition, the NAE report was published shortly after the Year of Dialogue by the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE), which has spurred leading engineering education researchers to articu- late their manifestos on the future of engineering education (see, for example, Fortenberry, 2006; Gabriele, 2005; Haghighi, 2005; Shulman, 2005; Streveler and Smith, 2006; Wormley, 2006). To- gether, these two discussions, one of the public images of engi- neering and the other of the future directions of engineering edu- cation, intend to influence not only engineering outreach activities, but also the practice of engineering faculty in how and what they teach as engineering. However, it is unclear that mainstream engineering faculty members value these same conclusions, let alone make decisions about what to teach or research based on these public treatises. How do engineering faculty in the U.S. view their work of educating en- gineers? This paper works to uncover the daily “disciplining” work of constructing and reconstructing a discipline,work that results in defining engineering alongside any public outreach campaign,that engineering educators do in their teaching, research, and service within schools of engineering. This paper documents three narra- tives that research participants used to explain their work to others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`,#%,#,(#+,>T,"*U*)>I@AN,L7@R@L#),7*T)*LR@>A,L>$I*R*AL@*%,B1K @A%@"*7,B*AN@A**7%K,#A",>6R%@"*7,BR5>%*,(5>,%R6"+,*AN@A**7%K,I*7%I*LR@U*%,#%,#,(#+,>T,7*U*#)@AN%-"&!,*AN@A**7%,QA>(,#A"%"*-,R5*+,QA>(,@R,,B9K I5@)>%>I5@*%,>T,*"6L#R@>A,R5#R,#7N6*,T>7,I#7R@L6)#7,#@$%C,I67I>%*%C,#A",I7>L*%%*%,>T,*"6L#R@>A,#%,#,(#+,>T,#7R@L6)#R@AN,#,I5@)>%>I5+,>T,#3913##'139,*"6L#R@>A, 36 Tuesday, November 9, 2010
  • 56. Disciplines STEM Women boundary work in teaching October 2009 Journal of Engineering Education 309 Universalized Narratives: Patterns in How Faculty Members Define “Engineering” ALICE L. PAWLEY Purdue University BACKGROUND U.S. engineering educators are discussing how we define engineering to our- selves and to others, such as in the recently released U.S. National Academy of Engineering (NAE) report, Changing the Conversation. In these conversations, leaders have proposed the skills, knowledge, processes, values, and attitudes that should define engineering. However, little attention has been paid to the daily work of engineering faculty, through their engineering research and teaching students to be new engineers, that puts these discipline-defining ideas into practice in academia. PURPOSE (HYPOTHESIS) The different types of narratives engineering faculty explicitly or implicitly use to describe engineering are categorized. Categorizing these common nar- ratives can help inform the nationwide conversation about whether these are the best narratives to tell in order to attract a diverse population of future engineers. DESIGN/METHOD Interviews with ten engineering faculty at a research-extensive university were conducted. Interview transcripts were coded thematically through coarse then fine coding passes. The coarse codes were drawn from boundary theory; the fine codes emerged from the data. RESULTS Faculty members’ descriptions moved within and among the narratives of engineering as applied science and math, as problem-solving, and as making things. The narratives are termed “universalized” because of their broad- sweeping discursive application within and across participants’ interviews. CONCLUSIONS These narratives drawn from academic engineers’ practice put engineering at odds with recommendations from the NAE report. However, naming the narratives helps make them visible so we may then develop and practice telling contrasting narratives to future and current engineering students. KEYWORDS discourse analysis, engineering epistemology, faculty work I.INTRODUCTION In the summer of 2008, the National Academy of Engineering published a new report, Changing the Conversation, which argues that engineers (and particularly engineering educators) should change the message of engineering away from the difficulty and elite character of the profession towards one of social relevance and “making a difference” (Committee on Public Understanding of En- gineering Messages, 2008). This report aimed to investigate the American public’s understanding of what engineering is and what engineers do, and to provide a set of tested messages that might im- prove that understanding. The report noted that “[c]urrent and past engineering outreach to the public and message development have been ad hoc efforts…[and] although a variety of useful tactics have been tried, no consistent message has been communicated, even among projects by the same organization” (p. 4). The report also re- marked that “[m]ost current messages are framed to emphasize the strong links between engineering and just one of its attributes—the need for mathematics and science skills. In other words, current messages often ignore other vital characteristics of engineering, such as creativity, teamwork, and communication” (p. 10). This report comes at a time of significant professional reflec- tion in the engineering education research community on the na- ture of engineering and engineering beliefs, values, and knowl- edge (see, for example, Grimson, 2007; Heywood, 2008a, 2008b; Heywood, Smith, and McGrann, 2007; Heywood, McGrann, and Smith, 2008; Royal Academy of Engineering, 2008; Smith and Korte, 2008), which has been made particularly visible by the inclusion of an “engineering epistemology” category within the engineering education research framework laid out by the Engi- neering Education Research Colloquies (2006). In addition, the NAE report was published shortly after the Year of Dialogue by the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE), which has spurred leading engineering education researchers to articu- late their manifestos on the future of engineering education (see, for example, Fortenberry, 2006; Gabriele, 2005; Haghighi, 2005; Shulman, 2005; Streveler and Smith, 2006; Wormley, 2006). To- gether, these two discussions, one of the public images of engi- neering and the other of the future directions of engineering edu- cation, intend to influence not only engineering outreach activities, but also the practice of engineering faculty in how and what they teach as engineering. However, it is unclear that mainstream engineering faculty members value these same conclusions, let alone make decisions about what to teach or research based on these public treatises. How do engineering faculty in the U.S. view their work of educating en- gineers? This paper works to uncover the daily “disciplining” work of constructing and reconstructing a discipline,work that results in defining engineering alongside any public outreach campaign,that engineering educators do in their teaching, research, and service within schools of engineering. This paper documents three narra- tives that research participants used to explain their work to others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`,#%,#,(#+,>T,"*U*)>I@AN,L7@R@L#),7*T)*LR@>A,L>$I*R*AL@*%,B1K @A%@"*7,B*AN@A**7%K,#A",>6R%@"*7,BR5>%*,(5>,%R6"+,*AN@A**7%K,I*7%I*LR@U*%,#%,#,(#+,>T,7*U*#)@AN%-"&!,*AN@A**7%,QA>(,#A"%"*-,R5*+,QA>(,@R,,B9K I5@)>%>I5@*%,>T,*"6L#R@>A,R5#R,#7N6*,T>7,I#7R@L6)#7,#@$%C,I67I>%*%C,#A",I7>L*%%*%,>T,*"6L#R@>A,#%,#,(#+,>T,#7R@L6)#R@AN,#,I5@)>%>I5+,>T,#3913##'139,*"6L#R@>A, 36 Whose words and ideas do we read as “knowledge”? Can we critique ideas and respect our differences? Whose contributions do I learn are valuable in this field? Whose history are we learning? Are people like me part of it? How is power used or shared in this classroom? Do I feel welcome to contribute my ideas and questions? Tuesday, November 9, 2010
  • 57. Disciplines STEM Women boundary work in teaching October 2009 Journal of Engineering Education 309 Universalized Narratives: Patterns in How Faculty Members Define “Engineering” ALICE L. PAWLEY Purdue University BACKGROUND U.S. engineering educators are discussing how we define engineering to our- selves and to others, such as in the recently released U.S. National Academy of Engineering (NAE) report, Changing the Conversation. In these conversations, leaders have proposed the skills, knowledge, processes, values, and attitudes that should define engineering. However, little attention has been paid to the daily work of engineering faculty, through their engineering research and teaching students to be new engineers, that puts these discipline-defining ideas into practice in academia. PURPOSE (HYPOTHESIS) The different types of narratives engineering faculty explicitly or implicitly use to describe engineering are categorized. Categorizing these common nar- ratives can help inform the nationwide conversation about whether these are the best narratives to tell in order to attract a diverse population of future engineers. DESIGN/METHOD Interviews with ten engineering faculty at a research-extensive university were conducted. Interview transcripts were coded thematically through coarse then fine coding passes. The coarse codes were drawn from boundary theory; the fine codes emerged from the data. RESULTS Faculty members’ descriptions moved within and among the narratives of engineering as applied science and math, as problem-solving, and as making things. The narratives are termed “universalized” because of their broad- sweeping discursive application within and across participants’ interviews. CONCLUSIONS These narratives drawn from academic engineers’ practice put engineering at odds with recommendations from the NAE report. However, naming the narratives helps make them visible so we may then develop and practice telling contrasting narratives to future and current engineering students. KEYWORDS discourse analysis, engineering epistemology, faculty work I.INTRODUCTION In the summer of 2008, the National Academy of Engineering published a new report, Changing the Conversation, which argues that engineers (and particularly engineering educators) should change the message of engineering away from the difficulty and elite character of the profession towards one of social relevance and “making a difference” (Committee on Public Understanding of En- gineering Messages, 2008). This report aimed to investigate the American public’s understanding of what engineering is and what engineers do, and to provide a set of tested messages that might im- prove that understanding. The report noted that “[c]urrent and past engineering outreach to the public and message development have been ad hoc efforts…[and] although a variety of useful tactics have been tried, no consistent message has been communicated, even among projects by the same organization” (p. 4). The report also re- marked that “[m]ost current messages are framed to emphasize the strong links between engineering and just one of its attributes—the need for mathematics and science skills. In other words, current messages often ignore other vital characteristics of engineering, such as creativity, teamwork, and communication” (p. 10). This report comes at a time of significant professional reflec- tion in the engineering education research community on the na- ture of engineering and engineering beliefs, values, and knowl- edge (see, for example, Grimson, 2007; Heywood, 2008a, 2008b; Heywood, Smith, and McGrann, 2007; Heywood, McGrann, and Smith, 2008; Royal Academy of Engineering, 2008; Smith and Korte, 2008), which has been made particularly visible by the inclusion of an “engineering epistemology” category within the engineering education research framework laid out by the Engi- neering Education Research Colloquies (2006). In addition, the NAE report was published shortly after the Year of Dialogue by the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE), which has spurred leading engineering education researchers to articu- late their manifestos on the future of engineering education (see, for example, Fortenberry, 2006; Gabriele, 2005; Haghighi, 2005; Shulman, 2005; Streveler and Smith, 2006; Wormley, 2006). To- gether, these two discussions, one of the public images of engi- neering and the other of the future directions of engineering edu- cation, intend to influence not only engineering outreach activities, but also the practice of engineering faculty in how and what they teach as engineering. However, it is unclear that mainstream engineering faculty members value these same conclusions, let alone make decisions about what to teach or research based on these public treatises. How do engineering faculty in the U.S. view their work of educating en- gineers? This paper works to uncover the daily “disciplining” work of constructing and reconstructing a discipline,work that results in defining engineering alongside any public outreach campaign,that engineering educators do in their teaching, research, and service within schools of engineering. This paper documents three narra- tives that research participants used to explain their work to others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`,#%,#,(#+,>T,"*U*)>I@AN,L7@R@L#),7*T)*LR@>A,L>$I*R*AL@*%,B1K @A%@"*7,B*AN@A**7%K,#A",>6R%@"*7,BR5>%*,(5>,%R6"+,*AN@A**7%K,I*7%I*LR@U*%,#%,#,(#+,>T,7*U*#)@AN%-"&!,*AN@A**7%,QA>(,#A"%"*-,R5*+,QA>(,@R,,B9K I5@)>%>I5@*%,>T,*"6L#R@>A,R5#R,#7N6*,T>7,I#7R@L6)#7,#@$%C,I67I>%*%C,#A",I7>L*%%*%,>T,*"6L#R@>A,#%,#,(#+,>T,#7R@L6)#R@AN,#,I5@)>%>I5+,>T,#3913##'139,*"6L#R@>A, 36 Tuesday, November 9, 2010
  • 58. Disciplines STEM Women boundary work in service October 2009 Journal of Engineering Education 309 Universalized Narratives: Patterns in How Faculty Members Define “Engineering” ALICE L. PAWLEY Purdue University BACKGROUND U.S. engineering educators are discussing how we define engineering to our- selves and to others, such as in the recently released U.S. National Academy of Engineering (NAE) report, Changing the Conversation. In these conversations, leaders have proposed the skills, knowledge, processes, values, and attitudes that should define engineering. However, little attention has been paid to the daily work of engineering faculty, through their engineering research and teaching students to be new engineers, that puts these discipline-defining ideas into practice in academia. PURPOSE (HYPOTHESIS) The different types of narratives engineering faculty explicitly or implicitly use to describe engineering are categorized. Categorizing these common nar- ratives can help inform the nationwide conversation about whether these are the best narratives to tell in order to attract a diverse population of future engineers. DESIGN/METHOD Interviews with ten engineering faculty at a research-extensive university were conducted. Interview transcripts were coded thematically through coarse then fine coding passes. The coarse codes were drawn from boundary theory; the fine codes emerged from the data. RESULTS Faculty members’ descriptions moved within and among the narratives of engineering as applied science and math, as problem-solving, and as making things. The narratives are termed “universalized” because of their broad- sweeping discursive application within and across participants’ interviews. CONCLUSIONS These narratives drawn from academic engineers’ practice put engineering at odds with recommendations from the NAE report. However, naming the narratives helps make them visible so we may then develop and practice telling contrasting narratives to future and current engineering students. KEYWORDS discourse analysis, engineering epistemology, faculty work I.INTRODUCTION In the summer of 2008, the National Academy of Engineering published a new report, Changing the Conversation, which argues that engineers (and particularly engineering educators) should change the message of engineering away from the difficulty and elite character of the profession towards one of social relevance and “making a difference” (Committee on Public Understanding of En- gineering Messages, 2008). This report aimed to investigate the American public’s understanding of what engineering is and what engineers do, and to provide a set of tested messages that might im- prove that understanding. The report noted that “[c]urrent and past engineering outreach to the public and message development have been ad hoc efforts…[and] although a variety of useful tactics have been tried, no consistent message has been communicated, even among projects by the same organization” (p. 4). The report also re- marked that “[m]ost current messages are framed to emphasize the strong links between engineering and just one of its attributes—the need for mathematics and science skills. In other words, current messages often ignore other vital characteristics of engineering, such as creativity, teamwork, and communication” (p. 10). This report comes at a time of significant professional reflec- tion in the engineering education research community on the na- ture of engineering and engineering beliefs, values, and knowl- edge (see, for example, Grimson, 2007; Heywood, 2008a, 2008b; Heywood, Smith, and McGrann, 2007; Heywood, McGrann, and Smith, 2008; Royal Academy of Engineering, 2008; Smith and Korte, 2008), which has been made particularly visible by the inclusion of an “engineering epistemology” category within the engineering education research framework laid out by the Engi- neering Education Research Colloquies (2006). In addition, the NAE report was published shortly after the Year of Dialogue by the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE), which has spurred leading engineering education researchers to articu- late their manifestos on the future of engineering education (see, for example, Fortenberry, 2006; Gabriele, 2005; Haghighi, 2005; Shulman, 2005; Streveler and Smith, 2006; Wormley, 2006). To- gether, these two discussions, one of the public images of engi- neering and the other of the future directions of engineering edu- cation, intend to influence not only engineering outreach activities, but also the practice of engineering faculty in how and what they teach as engineering. However, it is unclear that mainstream engineering faculty members value these same conclusions, let alone make decisions about what to teach or research based on these public treatises. How do engineering faculty in the U.S. view their work of educating en- gineers? This paper works to uncover the daily “disciplining” work of constructing and reconstructing a discipline,work that results in defining engineering alongside any public outreach campaign,that engineering educators do in their teaching, research, and service within schools of engineering. This paper documents three narra- tives that research participants used to explain their work to others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`,#%,#,(#+,>T,"*U*)>I@AN,L7@R@L#),7*T)*LR@>A,L>$I*R*AL@*%,B1K @A%@"*7,B*AN@A**7%K,#A",>6R%@"*7,BR5>%*,(5>,%R6"+,*AN@A**7%K,I*7%I*LR@U*%,#%,#,(#+,>T,7*U*#)@AN%-"&!,*AN@A**7%,QA>(,#A"%"*-,R5*+,QA>(,@R,,B9K I5@)>%>I5@*%,>T,*"6L#R@>A,R5#R,#7N6*,T>7,I#7R@L6)#7,#@$%C,I67I>%*%C,#A",I7>L*%%*%,>T,*"6L#R@>A,#%,#,(#+,>T,#7R@L6)#R@AN,#,I5@)>%>I5+,>T,#3913##'139,*"6L#R@>A, 37 ! Acknowledgements This event is presented in conjunction withIntersections: A Student Conference on Diversity. This year's Intersections theme is "Many Voices, One Campus: Living the Questions"; more information is at! http://www.purdue.edu/diversikey.! We are very grateful for the financial support of these organizations: Susan Bulkeley Butler Center for Leadership Excellence, the College of Consumer and Family Sciences, the Diversity Resource Office and DiversiKey, the ADVANCE Research team, and the College of Science Women in Academia group. Thank you to the abstract reviewers (listed alphabetically): Omolola Adedokun, Colleen Arendt, Dina Banerjee, Megan Grunert, Mindy Hart, Jordana Hoegh, Beth Holloway, Julia Kalish, Rene Ketterer, Daphene Koch, Alice Pawley, Wendy Peer, Johannes Strobel, Michele Tomarelli, Ralph Webb, Anna Woodcock. Purdue Center for Faculty Success Purdue University Phone: (765) 494-9407 dvance-cfs@purdue.edu Date: February 19, 2010 Time: 8:00 AM - 4:30 PM Location: Stewart 310 Gender and STEM Research Symposium Thanks also to the symposium planning committee:Dina Banerjee, Lana Rice, Alice Pawley, Saranya Srinivasan, and Suzanne Zurn- Birkhimer. - 28 - - 1 - Tuesday, November 9, 2010
  • 59. Disciplines STEM Women boundary work in service October 2009 Journal of Engineering Education 309 Universalized Narratives: Patterns in How Faculty Members Define “Engineering” ALICE L. PAWLEY Purdue University BACKGROUND U.S. engineering educators are discussing how we define engineering to our- selves and to others, such as in the recently released U.S. National Academy of Engineering (NAE) report, Changing the Conversation. In these conversations, leaders have proposed the skills, knowledge, processes, values, and attitudes that should define engineering. However, little attention has been paid to the daily work of engineering faculty, through their engineering research and teaching students to be new engineers, that puts these discipline-defining ideas into practice in academia. PURPOSE (HYPOTHESIS) The different types of narratives engineering faculty explicitly or implicitly use to describe engineering are categorized. Categorizing these common nar- ratives can help inform the nationwide conversation about whether these are the best narratives to tell in order to attract a diverse population of future engineers. DESIGN/METHOD Interviews with ten engineering faculty at a research-extensive university were conducted. Interview transcripts were coded thematically through coarse then fine coding passes. The coarse codes were drawn from boundary theory; the fine codes emerged from the data. RESULTS Faculty members’ descriptions moved within and among the narratives of engineering as applied science and math, as problem-solving, and as making things. The narratives are termed “universalized” because of their broad- sweeping discursive application within and across participants’ interviews. CONCLUSIONS These narratives drawn from academic engineers’ practice put engineering at odds with recommendations from the NAE report. However, naming the narratives helps make them visible so we may then develop and practice telling contrasting narratives to future and current engineering students. KEYWORDS discourse analysis, engineering epistemology, faculty work I.INTRODUCTION In the summer of 2008, the National Academy of Engineering published a new report, Changing the Conversation, which argues that engineers (and particularly engineering educators) should change the message of engineering away from the difficulty and elite character of the profession towards one of social relevance and “making a difference” (Committee on Public Understanding of En- gineering Messages, 2008). This report aimed to investigate the American public’s understanding of what engineering is and what engineers do, and to provide a set of tested messages that might im- prove that understanding. The report noted that “[c]urrent and past engineering outreach to the public and message development have been ad hoc efforts…[and] although a variety of useful tactics have been tried, no consistent message has been communicated, even among projects by the same organization” (p. 4). The report also re- marked that “[m]ost current messages are framed to emphasize the strong links between engineering and just one of its attributes—the need for mathematics and science skills. In other words, current messages often ignore other vital characteristics of engineering, such as creativity, teamwork, and communication” (p. 10). This report comes at a time of significant professional reflec- tion in the engineering education research community on the na- ture of engineering and engineering beliefs, values, and knowl- edge (see, for example, Grimson, 2007; Heywood, 2008a, 2008b; Heywood, Smith, and McGrann, 2007; Heywood, McGrann, and Smith, 2008; Royal Academy of Engineering, 2008; Smith and Korte, 2008), which has been made particularly visible by the inclusion of an “engineering epistemology” category within the engineering education research framework laid out by the Engi- neering Education Research Colloquies (2006). In addition, the NAE report was published shortly after the Year of Dialogue by the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE), which has spurred leading engineering education researchers to articu- late their manifestos on the future of engineering education (see, for example, Fortenberry, 2006; Gabriele, 2005; Haghighi, 2005; Shulman, 2005; Streveler and Smith, 2006; Wormley, 2006). To- gether, these two discussions, one of the public images of engi- neering and the other of the future directions of engineering edu- cation, intend to influence not only engineering outreach activities, but also the practice of engineering faculty in how and what they teach as engineering. However, it is unclear that mainstream engineering faculty members value these same conclusions, let alone make decisions about what to teach or research based on these public treatises. How do engineering faculty in the U.S. view their work of educating en- gineers? This paper works to uncover the daily “disciplining” work of constructing and reconstructing a discipline,work that results in defining engineering alongside any public outreach campaign,that engineering educators do in their teaching, research, and service within schools of engineering. This paper documents three narra- tives that research participants used to explain their work to others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`,#%,#,(#+,>T,"*U*)>I@AN,L7@R@L#),7*T)*LR@>A,L>$I*R*AL@*%,B1K @A%@"*7,B*AN@A**7%K,#A",>6R%@"*7,BR5>%*,(5>,%R6"+,*AN@A**7%K,I*7%I*LR@U*%,#%,#,(#+,>T,7*U*#)@AN%-"&!,*AN@A**7%,QA>(,#A"%"*-,R5*+,QA>(,@R,,B9K I5@)>%>I5@*%,>T,*"6L#R@>A,R5#R,#7N6*,T>7,I#7R@L6)#7,#@$%C,I67I>%*%C,#A",I7>L*%%*%,>T,*"6L#R@>A,#%,#,(#+,>T,#7R@L6)#R@AN,#,I5@)>%>I5+,>T,#3913##'139,*"6L#R@>A, 37 how is my teaching or research accessible to non-academics? ! Acknowledgements This event is presented in conjunction withIntersections: A Student Conference on Diversity. This year's Intersections theme is "Many Voices, One Campus: Living the Questions"; more information is at! http://www.purdue.edu/diversikey.! We are very grateful for the financial support of these organizations: Susan Bulkeley Butler Center for Leadership Excellence, the College of Consumer and Family Sciences, the Diversity Resource Office and DiversiKey, the ADVANCE Research team, and the College of Science Women in Academia group. Thank you to the abstract reviewers (listed alphabetically): Omolola Adedokun, Colleen Arendt, Dina Banerjee, Megan Grunert, Mindy Hart, Jordana Hoegh, Beth Holloway, Julia Kalish, Rene Ketterer, Daphene Koch, Alice Pawley, Wendy Peer, Johannes Strobel, Michele Tomarelli, Ralph Webb, Anna Woodcock. Purdue Center for Faculty Success Purdue University Phone: (765) 494-9407 dvance-cfs@purdue.edu Date: February 19, 2010 Time: 8:00 AM - 4:30 PM Location: Stewart 310 Gender and STEM Research Symposium Thanks also to the symposium planning committee:Dina Banerjee, Lana Rice, Alice Pawley, Saranya Srinivasan, and Suzanne Zurn- Birkhimer. - 28 - - 1 - Tuesday, November 9, 2010
  • 60. Disciplines STEM Women boundary work in service October 2009 Journal of Engineering Education 309 Universalized Narratives: Patterns in How Faculty Members Define “Engineering” ALICE L. PAWLEY Purdue University BACKGROUND U.S. engineering educators are discussing how we define engineering to our- selves and to others, such as in the recently released U.S. National Academy of Engineering (NAE) report, Changing the Conversation. In these conversations, leaders have proposed the skills, knowledge, processes, values, and attitudes that should define engineering. However, little attention has been paid to the daily work of engineering faculty, through their engineering research and teaching students to be new engineers, that puts these discipline-defining ideas into practice in academia. PURPOSE (HYPOTHESIS) The different types of narratives engineering faculty explicitly or implicitly use to describe engineering are categorized. Categorizing these common nar- ratives can help inform the nationwide conversation about whether these are the best narratives to tell in order to attract a diverse population of future engineers. DESIGN/METHOD Interviews with ten engineering faculty at a research-extensive university were conducted. Interview transcripts were coded thematically through coarse then fine coding passes. The coarse codes were drawn from boundary theory; the fine codes emerged from the data. RESULTS Faculty members’ descriptions moved within and among the narratives of engineering as applied science and math, as problem-solving, and as making things. The narratives are termed “universalized” because of their broad- sweeping discursive application within and across participants’ interviews. CONCLUSIONS These narratives drawn from academic engineers’ practice put engineering at odds with recommendations from the NAE report. However, naming the narratives helps make them visible so we may then develop and practice telling contrasting narratives to future and current engineering students. KEYWORDS discourse analysis, engineering epistemology, faculty work I.INTRODUCTION In the summer of 2008, the National Academy of Engineering published a new report, Changing the Conversation, which argues that engineers (and particularly engineering educators) should change the message of engineering away from the difficulty and elite character of the profession towards one of social relevance and “making a difference” (Committee on Public Understanding of En- gineering Messages, 2008). This report aimed to investigate the American public’s understanding of what engineering is and what engineers do, and to provide a set of tested messages that might im- prove that understanding. The report noted that “[c]urrent and past engineering outreach to the public and message development have been ad hoc efforts…[and] although a variety of useful tactics have been tried, no consistent message has been communicated, even among projects by the same organization” (p. 4). The report also re- marked that “[m]ost current messages are framed to emphasize the strong links between engineering and just one of its attributes—the need for mathematics and science skills. In other words, current messages often ignore other vital characteristics of engineering, such as creativity, teamwork, and communication” (p. 10). This report comes at a time of significant professional reflec- tion in the engineering education research community on the na- ture of engineering and engineering beliefs, values, and knowl- edge (see, for example, Grimson, 2007; Heywood, 2008a, 2008b; Heywood, Smith, and McGrann, 2007; Heywood, McGrann, and Smith, 2008; Royal Academy of Engineering, 2008; Smith and Korte, 2008), which has been made particularly visible by the inclusion of an “engineering epistemology” category within the engineering education research framework laid out by the Engi- neering Education Research Colloquies (2006). In addition, the NAE report was published shortly after the Year of Dialogue by the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE), which has spurred leading engineering education researchers to articu- late their manifestos on the future of engineering education (see, for example, Fortenberry, 2006; Gabriele, 2005; Haghighi, 2005; Shulman, 2005; Streveler and Smith, 2006; Wormley, 2006). To- gether, these two discussions, one of the public images of engi- neering and the other of the future directions of engineering edu- cation, intend to influence not only engineering outreach activities, but also the practice of engineering faculty in how and what they teach as engineering. However, it is unclear that mainstream engineering faculty members value these same conclusions, let alone make decisions about what to teach or research based on these public treatises. How do engineering faculty in the U.S. view their work of educating en- gineers? This paper works to uncover the daily “disciplining” work of constructing and reconstructing a discipline,work that results in defining engineering alongside any public outreach campaign,that engineering educators do in their teaching, research, and service within schools of engineering. This paper documents three narra- tives that research participants used to explain their work to others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`,#%,#,(#+,>T,"*U*)>I@AN,L7@R@L#),7*T)*LR@>A,L>$I*R*AL@*%,B1K @A%@"*7,B*AN@A**7%K,#A",>6R%@"*7,BR5>%*,(5>,%R6"+,*AN@A**7%K,I*7%I*LR@U*%,#%,#,(#+,>T,7*U*#)@AN%-"&!,*AN@A**7%,QA>(,#A"%"*-,R5*+,QA>(,@R,,B9K I5@)>%>I5@*%,>T,*"6L#R@>A,R5#R,#7N6*,T>7,I#7R@L6)#7,#@$%C,I67I>%*%C,#A",I7>L*%%*%,>T,*"6L#R@>A,#%,#,(#+,>T,#7R@L6)#R@AN,#,I5@)>%>I5+,>T,#3913##'139,*"6L#R@>A, 37 how is my teaching or research accessible to non-academics? how does my teaching or research connect with the “real world”? ! Acknowledgements This event is presented in conjunction withIntersections: A Student Conference on Diversity. This year's Intersections theme is "Many Voices, One Campus: Living the Questions"; more information is at! http://www.purdue.edu/diversikey.! We are very grateful for the financial support of these organizations: Susan Bulkeley Butler Center for Leadership Excellence, the College of Consumer and Family Sciences, the Diversity Resource Office and DiversiKey, the ADVANCE Research team, and the College of Science Women in Academia group. Thank you to the abstract reviewers (listed alphabetically): Omolola Adedokun, Colleen Arendt, Dina Banerjee, Megan Grunert, Mindy Hart, Jordana Hoegh, Beth Holloway, Julia Kalish, Rene Ketterer, Daphene Koch, Alice Pawley, Wendy Peer, Johannes Strobel, Michele Tomarelli, Ralph Webb, Anna Woodcock. Purdue Center for Faculty Success Purdue University Phone: (765) 494-9407 dvance-cfs@purdue.edu Date: February 19, 2010 Time: 8:00 AM - 4:30 PM Location: Stewart 310 Gender and STEM Research Symposium Thanks also to the symposium planning committee:Dina Banerjee, Lana Rice, Alice Pawley, Saranya Srinivasan, and Suzanne Zurn- Birkhimer. - 28 - - 1 - Tuesday, November 9, 2010
  • 61. Disciplines STEM Women boundary work for FiSTS 38 ©2009 NWSA Journal, Vol. 21 No. 2 (Summer) Feminisms in Engineering Education: Transformative Possibilities DONNA RILEY, ALICE L. PAWLEY, JESSICA TUCKER, and GEORGE D. CATALANO The goal of this paper is to examine the possibilities for explicitly femi- nist work in engineering and engineering education. What does it mean in engineering contexts to take a feminist perspective, and how might this influence the profession and society? We seek to establish an under- standing of feminist perspectives in the engineering community broadly to recognize the connectedness of all forms of social injustice. Thus feminist visions of engineering might address a broad set of concerns such as militarism, racism, and global economic inequality as well as sexism and heterosexism. Our exploration of three feminist frameworks within engineering generates a set of questions for future research and institutional transformation. Keywords: liberative pedagogies / social justice / ethic of care / engineering / feminist technology studies. Introduction We are a group of engineering educators who have come together in several overlapping contexts to consider the relationships among engineering, social justice, and peace, and to ask what feminisms have to offer engi- neering education and practice (see, Frontiers in Education 2009). In this paper, we describe theoretical frameworks, examples from our research and teaching, and thought questions to help further a discussion about what engineering education and practice might be like if they were done from explicitly feminist perspectives, and with social justice and peace as central goals. This work is informed by feminist theory, which brings specific ques- tions that employ gender as a category of analysis (Scott 1986), as well as feminist activism, which offers experiential knowledge and tools for change. It builds on the previous work of scholars who have analyzed gender in the profession of engineering in historical and contemporary contexts, taking up a variety of issues from workplace culture to profes- sional ethics (Adam 2001; Dryburgh 1999; Oldenziel 2000; Frehill 2004; Trescott 1983). Some scholars have focused their analysis specifically on the context of engineering education, considering topics including cultural !"!#$!%&'()*%+!#",-.$'/00%%%!# 12!!2-3%%%4567%89 Tuesday, November 9, 2010
  • 62. Disciplines STEM Women boundary work for FiSTS 39 http://femscitech.pbworks.com Tuesday, November 9, 2010
  • 63. Disciplines STEM Women boundary work for FiSTS 39 http://femscitech.pbworks.com Friday Nov 12 10:50 am -12:05 pm Crossing Borders: Strengthening connections between NSF’s ADVANCE Program and Women’s Studies Plaza Concourse Level, Rm Plaza Court 3 Tuesday, November 9, 2010
  • 64. 40 Disciplines STEM Women Tuesday, November 9, 2010
  • 65. 40 Disciplines STEM Women Gender as: more than women changing over time within people intersectional Tuesday, November 9, 2010
  • 66. 41 Disciplines STEM Women STEM as: specific, not generic varying within areas Tuesday, November 9, 2010
  • 67. 42 Disciplines STEM Women Discipline as: a noun (a discipline) a verb (to discipline) Tuesday, November 9, 2010
  • 68. Alice L. Pawley apawley@purdue.edu Research in Feminist Engineering http://feministengineering.org Questions? Thanks to RIFE team National Science Foundation and study participants. Tuesday, November 9, 2010