SlideShare a Scribd company logo
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
Women in STEM Disciplines
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Women in STEM Disciplines
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Women in STEM Disciplines
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Women in STEM Disciplines
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Women in STEM Disciplines
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
DisciplinesSTEMinWomen
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Disciplines
STEM
Women
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Disciplines
STEM
Women
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Disciplines
STEM
Women
feminist
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Disciplines
STEM
Women
Research in Feminist
Engineering
or... RIFE
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Disciplines
STEM
Women
Research in Feminist
Engineering
or... RIFE
Gender in JEE ADVANCEASK WIETY CAREER
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Disciplines
STEM
Women
Gender in JEE
ADVANCE
ASK
WIETY
CAREER
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Disciplines
STEM
Women
Gender in JEE
ADVANCE
ASK
WIETY
CAREER
Assessing Sustainability Knowledge
third-wave transnational feminism
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
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
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
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
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
Disciplines
STEM
Women
Gender in JEE
ADVANCE
ASK
WIETY
CAREER
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Disciplines
STEM
Women
Gender in JEE
ADVANCE
ASK
WIETY
CAREER
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Disciplines
STEM
Women
Gender in JEE
ADVANCE
ASK
WIETY
CAREER
Domain analysis (Spradley 1980)
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Disciplines
STEM
Women
Gender in JEE
ADVANCE
ASK
WIETY
CAREER
Academic Career Pathway (ACP)
Institutional Ethnography (IE)
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Disciplines
STEM
Women
Gender in JEE
ADVANCE
ASK
WIETY
CAREER
Academic Career Pathway (ACP)
Institutional Ethnography (IE)
HRD-0811194
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Disciplines
STEM
Women
Gender in JEE
ADVANCE
ASK
WIETY
CAREER
Academic Career Pathway (ACP)
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
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
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
Disciplines
STEM
Women
Gender in JEE
ADVANCE
ASK
WIETY
CAREER
Institutional Ethnography (IE)
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
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
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
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
Disciplines
STEM
Women
Gender in JEE
ADVANCE
ASK
WIETY
CAREER Learning from Small Numbers
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Disciplines
STEM
Women
Gender in JEE
ADVANCE
ASK
WIETY
CAREER EEC-1055900Learning from Small Numbers
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Disciplines
STEM
Women
Gender in JEE
ADVANCE
ASK
WIETY
CAREER
Learning from Small Numbers
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
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
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
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
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
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
Disciplines
STEM
Women
Gender in JEE
ADVANCE
ASK
WIETY
CAREER
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Disciplines
STEM
Women
Gender in JEE
ADVANCE
ASK
WIETY
CAREER
What should sustainability mean?
boundaries in engineering education
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
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
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
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
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
Disciplines
STEM
Women
boundary work in research
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
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
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
!"#$%&'#()*+,-.-,/01, &,2,&,
3#)),1020,
!"!#$%&#'()*+,-#./0#12(3+)+42-#+5#!/6(/77,(/6#!089.*(+/#:;#9,70(*)<#=.33#&%>%?#
4567%"#+%,20890&2810,!:;<,201=,,
,
@"ABCDEBFCA#
:>?@A,!"#$%,B!:;<,2199C,DEF&91FGC,7#"#$%HI67"6*J*"6K,!)@L*,'#()*+,B!:;<,291/C,DEF&210EC,#I#()*+HI67"6*J*"6K,M*>7N*,:@LL>,B'O4:,1G0C,N7@LL>HI67"6*J*"6K,,
,
EFDCA!#G!HA@B!A#
P)#LQ?>#7"8,5RRI%8SS?)#LQ?>#7"JI67"6*J*"6S(*?LRS)>N>ASDF2/20=FEF2=2,P)>N,B7*T)*LR@U*,I7#LR@L*,%@R*K8,,5RRI8SS*A*&5I&T20J?)>N%I>RJL>$S,,
,
EFDCA!#IJK!EB@L!A#
T>6A"#R@>A#),&,L7@R@L#),&,7*T)*LR@U*,&,L>))#?>7#R@U*,&,7@%Q+,&,L5#))*AN@AN,&,7*U*)#R>7+,&,T6A,&,6AL>$T>7R#?)*,
&,L#R5#7R@L,&,%6II>7R@U*,&,*I@I5+R@L,&,*AN#N@AN,&,N7>6A"*",&,I*7%6#%@U*,&,)@?*7#R@AN,&,7#"@L#),JJJ,!"#$#%&'#%
()$!%$*+#%*,%!"#%-*'.$%-#%"*/#%0*)%-122%)$#%-"#3%&$4#.%&5*)!%0*)'%#6/#'1#37#%13%!"1$%7*)'$#8,,,
EFDCA!#J!AEC@1B@F"#
45@%,L)#%%,@%,"*%@NA*",R>,5*)I,I#7R@L@I#AR%8,
B2K "*U*)>I,#,L6)R67*,>T,L7@R@L#),7*T)*LR@>AC,*AN#N*$*AR,#A",)*#7A@AN,R>N*R5*7,B1K @"*AR@T+,#A",6A"*7%R#A",R>>)%,R>,@AV6@7*,@AR>,R5*,5@%R>7+,#A",I5@)>%>I5+,>T,*AN@A**7@AN,*"6L#R@>AC,#A","*U*)>I,%Q@))%,T>7,6%@AN,R5*%*,R>>)%,B9K $#Q*,6%*,>T,R5*%*,R>>)%,R>,T>7$,#7N6$*AR%,#?>6R,R5*,A#R67*,>T,*AN@A**7@AN,*"6L#R@>A,T>7,>A*%*)T,#A",T>7,>R5*7%J,
,
W@%R>7+,#A",I5@)>%>I5+,#7*,?>"@*%,>T,QA>()*"N*,#A",$>"*%,>T,@AV6@7+,R5#R,?>R5,%5#I*,#A",#7*,%5#I*",
?+,R5*@7,%>L@>&L6)R67#),L>AR*XR%J,45*+,#7*,$>7*,R5#A,#,L57>A>)>N+,>T,*U*AR%,>7,N7#A",%R#R*$*AR%,Y,R5*+,
#7*,)*A%*%,T>7,@))6$@A#R@AN,#/1$!#+*2*91#$,>T,*AN@A**7@ANC,R5*,I7@AL@I)*%C,@"*#%C,#A",$*R5>"%,R5#R,
6A"*7)@*,(5#R,@R,$*#A%,R>,QA>(,*AN@A**7@ANC,R>,?*,#A,*AN@A**7C,I7#LR@L*,*AN@A**7@ANC,#A",I7*I#7*,
>R5*7%,T>7,*AN@A**7@AN,I7#LR@L*,B*JNJC,@A%R76LR@>AKJ,,ZR,@%,R57>6N5,R5@%,@AV6@7+,I7>L*%%,R5#R,(*,5>I*,+>6,
?*N@A,R>,#7R@L6)#R*,+>67,>(A,7>)*B%K,@A,%5#I@AN,*AN@A**7@AN,*"6L#R@>A,#%,(*)),#%,*XI)>7@AN,(#+%,>T,
L>AA*LR@AN,+>67,7*%*#7L5,#A",R*#L5@AN,@AR*7*%R%J,,O67,N>#),T>7,R5@%,L>67%*,@%,R>,I7>U@"*,#,T>6A"#R@>A,T>7,
"**I*7,@AU*%R@N#R@>A[,(5@)*,(*,7*#)@*,R5#R,*AN@A**7@AN,5#%,#,)>AN,#A",@A%I@7*",5@%R>7+C,(*,(@)),T>L6%,
>A,R5*,*#7)+,2=00%,R>,R5*,I7*%*AR,"#+,@A,R5*,]A@R*",<R#R*%J,,^*,*AL>67#N*,I#7R@L@I#AR%,R>,?7@AN,R5*@7,
>(A,@AR*7A#R@>A#),#A",5@%R>7@L#),I*7%I*LR@U*%J,,
ZA,R5@%,L>67%*,(*,*X#$@A*,R5*,5@%R>7+,#A",I5@)>%>I5+,>T,*AN@A**7@AN,*"6L#R@>A,R57>6N5,R>>)%,#A",
T7#$*(>7Q%,R>,N6@"*,L7@R@L#),7*T)*LR@>A,#A",#A#)+%@%,>T,I5@)>%>I5@L#)C,*I@%R*$>)>N@L#)C,#A",5@%R>7@L#),
#7N6$*AR%J,,45*%*,R>>)%,@AL)6"*8,
B2K 7*T)*LR@U*,I7#LR@L*,B@A,#A",>A,#LR@>AK,#A",_%@RR@AN,L>$T>7R#?)*,(@R5,I#7#">X`,#%,#,(#+,>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
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
!"#$%&'#()*+,-.-,/01, &,2,&,
3#)),1020,
!"!#$%&#'()*+,-#./0#12(3+)+42-#+5#!/6(/77,(/6#!089.*(+/#:;#9,70(*)<#=.33#&%>%?#
4567%"#+%,20890&2810,!:;<,201=,,
,
@"ABCDEBFCA#
:>?@A,!"#$%,B!:;<,2199C,DEF&91FGC,7#"#$%HI67"6*J*"6K,!)@L*,'#()*+,B!:;<,291/C,DEF&210EC,#I#()*+HI67"6*J*"6K,M*>7N*,:@LL>,B'O4:,1G0C,N7@LL>HI67"6*J*"6K,,
,
EFDCA!#G!HA@B!A#
P)#LQ?>#7"8,5RRI%8SS?)#LQ?>#7"JI67"6*J*"6S(*?LRS)>N>ASDF2/20=FEF2=2,P)>N,B7*T)*LR@U*,I7#LR@L*,%@R*K8,,5RRI8SS*A*&5I&T20J?)>N%I>RJL>$S,,
,
EFDCA!#IJK!EB@L!A#
T>6A"#R@>A#),&,L7@R@L#),&,7*T)*LR@U*,&,L>))#?>7#R@U*,&,7@%Q+,&,L5#))*AN@AN,&,7*U*)#R>7+,&,T6A,&,6AL>$T>7R#?)*,
&,L#R5#7R@L,&,%6II>7R@U*,&,*I@I5+R@L,&,*AN#N@AN,&,N7>6A"*",&,I*7%6#%@U*,&,)@?*7#R@AN,&,7#"@L#),JJJ,!"#$#%&'#%
()$!%$*+#%*,%!"#%-*'.$%-#%"*/#%0*)%-122%)$#%-"#3%&$4#.%&5*)!%0*)'%#6/#'1#37#%13%!"1$%7*)'$#8,,,
EFDCA!#J!AEC@1B@F"#
45@%,L)#%%,@%,"*%@NA*",R>,5*)I,I#7R@L@I#AR%8,
B2K "*U*)>I,#,L6)R67*,>T,L7@R@L#),7*T)*LR@>AC,*AN#N*$*AR,#A",)*#7A@AN,R>N*R5*7,B1K @"*AR@T+,#A",6A"*7%R#A",R>>)%,R>,@AV6@7*,@AR>,R5*,5@%R>7+,#A",I5@)>%>I5+,>T,*AN@A**7@AN,*"6L#R@>AC,#A","*U*)>I,%Q@))%,T>7,6%@AN,R5*%*,R>>)%,B9K $#Q*,6%*,>T,R5*%*,R>>)%,R>,T>7$,#7N6$*AR%,#?>6R,R5*,A#R67*,>T,*AN@A**7@AN,*"6L#R@>A,T>7,>A*%*)T,#A",T>7,>R5*7%J,
,
W@%R>7+,#A",I5@)>%>I5+,#7*,?>"@*%,>T,QA>()*"N*,#A",$>"*%,>T,@AV6@7+,R5#R,?>R5,%5#I*,#A",#7*,%5#I*",
?+,R5*@7,%>L@>&L6)R67#),L>AR*XR%J,45*+,#7*,$>7*,R5#A,#,L57>A>)>N+,>T,*U*AR%,>7,N7#A",%R#R*$*AR%,Y,R5*+,
#7*,)*A%*%,T>7,@))6$@A#R@AN,#/1$!#+*2*91#$,>T,*AN@A**7@ANC,R5*,I7@AL@I)*%C,@"*#%C,#A",$*R5>"%,R5#R,
6A"*7)@*,(5#R,@R,$*#A%,R>,QA>(,*AN@A**7@ANC,R>,?*,#A,*AN@A**7C,I7#LR@L*,*AN@A**7@ANC,#A",I7*I#7*,
>R5*7%,T>7,*AN@A**7@AN,I7#LR@L*,B*JNJC,@A%R76LR@>AKJ,,ZR,@%,R57>6N5,R5@%,@AV6@7+,I7>L*%%,R5#R,(*,5>I*,+>6,
?*N@A,R>,#7R@L6)#R*,+>67,>(A,7>)*B%K,@A,%5#I@AN,*AN@A**7@AN,*"6L#R@>A,#%,(*)),#%,*XI)>7@AN,(#+%,>T,
L>AA*LR@AN,+>67,7*%*#7L5,#A",R*#L5@AN,@AR*7*%R%J,,O67,N>#),T>7,R5@%,L>67%*,@%,R>,I7>U@"*,#,T>6A"#R@>A,T>7,
"**I*7,@AU*%R@N#R@>A[,(5@)*,(*,7*#)@*,R5#R,*AN@A**7@AN,5#%,#,)>AN,#A",@A%I@7*",5@%R>7+C,(*,(@)),T>L6%,
>A,R5*,*#7)+,2=00%,R>,R5*,I7*%*AR,"#+,@A,R5*,]A@R*",<R#R*%J,,^*,*AL>67#N*,I#7R@L@I#AR%,R>,?7@AN,R5*@7,
>(A,@AR*7A#R@>A#),#A",5@%R>7@L#),I*7%I*LR@U*%J,,
ZA,R5@%,L>67%*,(*,*X#$@A*,R5*,5@%R>7+,#A",I5@)>%>I5+,>T,*AN@A**7@AN,*"6L#R@>A,R57>6N5,R>>)%,#A",
T7#$*(>7Q%,R>,N6@"*,L7@R@L#),7*T)*LR@>A,#A",#A#)+%@%,>T,I5@)>%>I5@L#)C,*I@%R*$>)>N@L#)C,#A",5@%R>7@L#),
#7N6$*AR%J,,45*%*,R>>)%,@AL)6"*8,
B2K 7*T)*LR@U*,I7#LR@L*,B@A,#A",>A,#LR@>AK,#A",_%@RR@AN,L>$T>7R#?)*,(@R5,I#7#">X`,#%,#,(#+,>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
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
!"#$%&'#()*+,-.-,/01, &,2,&,
3#)),1020,
!"!#$%&#'()*+,-#./0#12(3+)+42-#+5#!/6(/77,(/6#!089.*(+/#:;#9,70(*)<#=.33#&%>%?#
4567%"#+%,20890&2810,!:;<,201=,,
,
@"ABCDEBFCA#
:>?@A,!"#$%,B!:;<,2199C,DEF&91FGC,7#"#$%HI67"6*J*"6K,!)@L*,'#()*+,B!:;<,291/C,DEF&210EC,#I#()*+HI67"6*J*"6K,M*>7N*,:@LL>,B'O4:,1G0C,N7@LL>HI67"6*J*"6K,,
,
EFDCA!#G!HA@B!A#
P)#LQ?>#7"8,5RRI%8SS?)#LQ?>#7"JI67"6*J*"6S(*?LRS)>N>ASDF2/20=FEF2=2,P)>N,B7*T)*LR@U*,I7#LR@L*,%@R*K8,,5RRI8SS*A*&5I&T20J?)>N%I>RJL>$S,,
,
EFDCA!#IJK!EB@L!A#
T>6A"#R@>A#),&,L7@R@L#),&,7*T)*LR@U*,&,L>))#?>7#R@U*,&,7@%Q+,&,L5#))*AN@AN,&,7*U*)#R>7+,&,T6A,&,6AL>$T>7R#?)*,
&,L#R5#7R@L,&,%6II>7R@U*,&,*I@I5+R@L,&,*AN#N@AN,&,N7>6A"*",&,I*7%6#%@U*,&,)@?*7#R@AN,&,7#"@L#),JJJ,!"#$#%&'#%
()$!%$*+#%*,%!"#%-*'.$%-#%"*/#%0*)%-122%)$#%-"#3%&$4#.%&5*)!%0*)'%#6/#'1#37#%13%!"1$%7*)'$#8,,,
EFDCA!#J!AEC@1B@F"#
45@%,L)#%%,@%,"*%@NA*",R>,5*)I,I#7R@L@I#AR%8,
B2K "*U*)>I,#,L6)R67*,>T,L7@R@L#),7*T)*LR@>AC,*AN#N*$*AR,#A",)*#7A@AN,R>N*R5*7,B1K @"*AR@T+,#A",6A"*7%R#A",R>>)%,R>,@AV6@7*,@AR>,R5*,5@%R>7+,#A",I5@)>%>I5+,>T,*AN@A**7@AN,*"6L#R@>AC,#A","*U*)>I,%Q@))%,T>7,6%@AN,R5*%*,R>>)%,B9K $#Q*,6%*,>T,R5*%*,R>>)%,R>,T>7$,#7N6$*AR%,#?>6R,R5*,A#R67*,>T,*AN@A**7@AN,*"6L#R@>A,T>7,>A*%*)T,#A",T>7,>R5*7%J,
,
W@%R>7+,#A",I5@)>%>I5+,#7*,?>"@*%,>T,QA>()*"N*,#A",$>"*%,>T,@AV6@7+,R5#R,?>R5,%5#I*,#A",#7*,%5#I*",
?+,R5*@7,%>L@>&L6)R67#),L>AR*XR%J,45*+,#7*,$>7*,R5#A,#,L57>A>)>N+,>T,*U*AR%,>7,N7#A",%R#R*$*AR%,Y,R5*+,
#7*,)*A%*%,T>7,@))6$@A#R@AN,#/1$!#+*2*91#$,>T,*AN@A**7@ANC,R5*,I7@AL@I)*%C,@"*#%C,#A",$*R5>"%,R5#R,
6A"*7)@*,(5#R,@R,$*#A%,R>,QA>(,*AN@A**7@ANC,R>,?*,#A,*AN@A**7C,I7#LR@L*,*AN@A**7@ANC,#A",I7*I#7*,
>R5*7%,T>7,*AN@A**7@AN,I7#LR@L*,B*JNJC,@A%R76LR@>AKJ,,ZR,@%,R57>6N5,R5@%,@AV6@7+,I7>L*%%,R5#R,(*,5>I*,+>6,
?*N@A,R>,#7R@L6)#R*,+>67,>(A,7>)*B%K,@A,%5#I@AN,*AN@A**7@AN,*"6L#R@>A,#%,(*)),#%,*XI)>7@AN,(#+%,>T,
L>AA*LR@AN,+>67,7*%*#7L5,#A",R*#L5@AN,@AR*7*%R%J,,O67,N>#),T>7,R5@%,L>67%*,@%,R>,I7>U@"*,#,T>6A"#R@>A,T>7,
"**I*7,@AU*%R@N#R@>A[,(5@)*,(*,7*#)@*,R5#R,*AN@A**7@AN,5#%,#,)>AN,#A",@A%I@7*",5@%R>7+C,(*,(@)),T>L6%,
>A,R5*,*#7)+,2=00%,R>,R5*,I7*%*AR,"#+,@A,R5*,]A@R*",<R#R*%J,,^*,*AL>67#N*,I#7R@L@I#AR%,R>,?7@AN,R5*@7,
>(A,@AR*7A#R@>A#),#A",5@%R>7@L#),I*7%I*LR@U*%J,,
ZA,R5@%,L>67%*,(*,*X#$@A*,R5*,5@%R>7+,#A",I5@)>%>I5+,>T,*AN@A**7@AN,*"6L#R@>A,R57>6N5,R>>)%,#A",
T7#$*(>7Q%,R>,N6@"*,L7@R@L#),7*T)*LR@>A,#A",#A#)+%@%,>T,I5@)>%>I5@L#)C,*I@%R*$>)>N@L#)C,#A",5@%R>7@L#),
#7N6$*AR%J,,45*%*,R>>)%,@AL)6"*8,
B2K 7*T)*LR@U*,I7#LR@L*,B@A,#A",>A,#LR@>AK,#A",_%@RR@AN,L>$T>7R#?)*,(@R5,I#7#">X`,#%,#,(#+,>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
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
!"#$%&'#()*+,-.-,/01, &,2,&,
3#)),1020,
!"!#$%&#'()*+,-#./0#12(3+)+42-#+5#!/6(/77,(/6#!089.*(+/#:;#9,70(*)<#=.33#&%>%?#
4567%"#+%,20890&2810,!:;<,201=,,
,
@"ABCDEBFCA#
:>?@A,!"#$%,B!:;<,2199C,DEF&91FGC,7#"#$%HI67"6*J*"6K,!)@L*,'#()*+,B!:;<,291/C,DEF&210EC,#I#()*+HI67"6*J*"6K,M*>7N*,:@LL>,B'O4:,1G0C,N7@LL>HI67"6*J*"6K,,
,
EFDCA!#G!HA@B!A#
P)#LQ?>#7"8,5RRI%8SS?)#LQ?>#7"JI67"6*J*"6S(*?LRS)>N>ASDF2/20=FEF2=2,P)>N,B7*T)*LR@U*,I7#LR@L*,%@R*K8,,5RRI8SS*A*&5I&T20J?)>N%I>RJL>$S,,
,
EFDCA!#IJK!EB@L!A#
T>6A"#R@>A#),&,L7@R@L#),&,7*T)*LR@U*,&,L>))#?>7#R@U*,&,7@%Q+,&,L5#))*AN@AN,&,7*U*)#R>7+,&,T6A,&,6AL>$T>7R#?)*,
&,L#R5#7R@L,&,%6II>7R@U*,&,*I@I5+R@L,&,*AN#N@AN,&,N7>6A"*",&,I*7%6#%@U*,&,)@?*7#R@AN,&,7#"@L#),JJJ,!"#$#%&'#%
()$!%$*+#%*,%!"#%-*'.$%-#%"*/#%0*)%-122%)$#%-"#3%&$4#.%&5*)!%0*)'%#6/#'1#37#%13%!"1$%7*)'$#8,,,
EFDCA!#J!AEC@1B@F"#
45@%,L)#%%,@%,"*%@NA*",R>,5*)I,I#7R@L@I#AR%8,
B2K "*U*)>I,#,L6)R67*,>T,L7@R@L#),7*T)*LR@>AC,*AN#N*$*AR,#A",)*#7A@AN,R>N*R5*7,B1K @"*AR@T+,#A",6A"*7%R#A",R>>)%,R>,@AV6@7*,@AR>,R5*,5@%R>7+,#A",I5@)>%>I5+,>T,*AN@A**7@AN,*"6L#R@>AC,#A","*U*)>I,%Q@))%,T>7,6%@AN,R5*%*,R>>)%,B9K $#Q*,6%*,>T,R5*%*,R>>)%,R>,T>7$,#7N6$*AR%,#?>6R,R5*,A#R67*,>T,*AN@A**7@AN,*"6L#R@>A,T>7,>A*%*)T,#A",T>7,>R5*7%J,
,
W@%R>7+,#A",I5@)>%>I5+,#7*,?>"@*%,>T,QA>()*"N*,#A",$>"*%,>T,@AV6@7+,R5#R,?>R5,%5#I*,#A",#7*,%5#I*",
?+,R5*@7,%>L@>&L6)R67#),L>AR*XR%J,45*+,#7*,$>7*,R5#A,#,L57>A>)>N+,>T,*U*AR%,>7,N7#A",%R#R*$*AR%,Y,R5*+,
#7*,)*A%*%,T>7,@))6$@A#R@AN,#/1$!#+*2*91#$,>T,*AN@A**7@ANC,R5*,I7@AL@I)*%C,@"*#%C,#A",$*R5>"%,R5#R,
6A"*7)@*,(5#R,@R,$*#A%,R>,QA>(,*AN@A**7@ANC,R>,?*,#A,*AN@A**7C,I7#LR@L*,*AN@A**7@ANC,#A",I7*I#7*,
>R5*7%,T>7,*AN@A**7@AN,I7#LR@L*,B*JNJC,@A%R76LR@>AKJ,,ZR,@%,R57>6N5,R5@%,@AV6@7+,I7>L*%%,R5#R,(*,5>I*,+>6,
?*N@A,R>,#7R@L6)#R*,+>67,>(A,7>)*B%K,@A,%5#I@AN,*AN@A**7@AN,*"6L#R@>A,#%,(*)),#%,*XI)>7@AN,(#+%,>T,
L>AA*LR@AN,+>67,7*%*#7L5,#A",R*#L5@AN,@AR*7*%R%J,,O67,N>#),T>7,R5@%,L>67%*,@%,R>,I7>U@"*,#,T>6A"#R@>A,T>7,
"**I*7,@AU*%R@N#R@>A[,(5@)*,(*,7*#)@*,R5#R,*AN@A**7@AN,5#%,#,)>AN,#A",@A%I@7*",5@%R>7+C,(*,(@)),T>L6%,
>A,R5*,*#7)+,2=00%,R>,R5*,I7*%*AR,"#+,@A,R5*,]A@R*",<R#R*%J,,^*,*AL>67#N*,I#7R@L@I#AR%,R>,?7@AN,R5*@7,
>(A,@AR*7A#R@>A#),#A",5@%R>7@L#),I*7%I*LR@U*%J,,
ZA,R5@%,L>67%*,(*,*X#$@A*,R5*,5@%R>7+,#A",I5@)>%>I5+,>T,*AN@A**7@AN,*"6L#R@>A,R57>6N5,R>>)%,#A",
T7#$*(>7Q%,R>,N6@"*,L7@R@L#),7*T)*LR@>A,#A",#A#)+%@%,>T,I5@)>%>I5@L#)C,*I@%R*$>)>N@L#)C,#A",5@%R>7@L#),
#7N6$*AR%J,,45*%*,R>>)%,@AL)6"*8,
B2K 7*T)*LR@U*,I7#LR@L*,B@A,#A",>A,#LR@>AK,#A",_%@RR@AN,L>$T>7R#?)*,(@R5,I#7#">X`,#%,#,(#+,>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
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
!"#$%&'#()*+,-.-,/01, &,2,&,
3#)),1020,
!"!#$%&#'()*+,-#./0#12(3+)+42-#+5#!/6(/77,(/6#!089.*(+/#:;#9,70(*)<#=.33#&%>%?#
4567%"#+%,20890&2810,!:;<,201=,,
,
@"ABCDEBFCA#
:>?@A,!"#$%,B!:;<,2199C,DEF&91FGC,7#"#$%HI67"6*J*"6K,!)@L*,'#()*+,B!:;<,291/C,DEF&210EC,#I#()*+HI67"6*J*"6K,M*>7N*,:@LL>,B'O4:,1G0C,N7@LL>HI67"6*J*"6K,,
,
EFDCA!#G!HA@B!A#
P)#LQ?>#7"8,5RRI%8SS?)#LQ?>#7"JI67"6*J*"6S(*?LRS)>N>ASDF2/20=FEF2=2,P)>N,B7*T)*LR@U*,I7#LR@L*,%@R*K8,,5RRI8SS*A*&5I&T20J?)>N%I>RJL>$S,,
,
EFDCA!#IJK!EB@L!A#
T>6A"#R@>A#),&,L7@R@L#),&,7*T)*LR@U*,&,L>))#?>7#R@U*,&,7@%Q+,&,L5#))*AN@AN,&,7*U*)#R>7+,&,T6A,&,6AL>$T>7R#?)*,
&,L#R5#7R@L,&,%6II>7R@U*,&,*I@I5+R@L,&,*AN#N@AN,&,N7>6A"*",&,I*7%6#%@U*,&,)@?*7#R@AN,&,7#"@L#),JJJ,!"#$#%&'#%
()$!%$*+#%*,%!"#%-*'.$%-#%"*/#%0*)%-122%)$#%-"#3%&$4#.%&5*)!%0*)'%#6/#'1#37#%13%!"1$%7*)'$#8,,,
EFDCA!#J!AEC@1B@F"#
45@%,L)#%%,@%,"*%@NA*",R>,5*)I,I#7R@L@I#AR%8,
B2K "*U*)>I,#,L6)R67*,>T,L7@R@L#),7*T)*LR@>AC,*AN#N*$*AR,#A",)*#7A@AN,R>N*R5*7,B1K @"*AR@T+,#A",6A"*7%R#A",R>>)%,R>,@AV6@7*,@AR>,R5*,5@%R>7+,#A",I5@)>%>I5+,>T,*AN@A**7@AN,*"6L#R@>AC,#A","*U*)>I,%Q@))%,T>7,6%@AN,R5*%*,R>>)%,B9K $#Q*,6%*,>T,R5*%*,R>>)%,R>,T>7$,#7N6$*AR%,#?>6R,R5*,A#R67*,>T,*AN@A**7@AN,*"6L#R@>A,T>7,>A*%*)T,#A",T>7,>R5*7%J,
,
W@%R>7+,#A",I5@)>%>I5+,#7*,?>"@*%,>T,QA>()*"N*,#A",$>"*%,>T,@AV6@7+,R5#R,?>R5,%5#I*,#A",#7*,%5#I*",
?+,R5*@7,%>L@>&L6)R67#),L>AR*XR%J,45*+,#7*,$>7*,R5#A,#,L57>A>)>N+,>T,*U*AR%,>7,N7#A",%R#R*$*AR%,Y,R5*+,
#7*,)*A%*%,T>7,@))6$@A#R@AN,#/1$!#+*2*91#$,>T,*AN@A**7@ANC,R5*,I7@AL@I)*%C,@"*#%C,#A",$*R5>"%,R5#R,
6A"*7)@*,(5#R,@R,$*#A%,R>,QA>(,*AN@A**7@ANC,R>,?*,#A,*AN@A**7C,I7#LR@L*,*AN@A**7@ANC,#A",I7*I#7*,
>R5*7%,T>7,*AN@A**7@AN,I7#LR@L*,B*JNJC,@A%R76LR@>AKJ,,ZR,@%,R57>6N5,R5@%,@AV6@7+,I7>L*%%,R5#R,(*,5>I*,+>6,
?*N@A,R>,#7R@L6)#R*,+>67,>(A,7>)*B%K,@A,%5#I@AN,*AN@A**7@AN,*"6L#R@>A,#%,(*)),#%,*XI)>7@AN,(#+%,>T,
L>AA*LR@AN,+>67,7*%*#7L5,#A",R*#L5@AN,@AR*7*%R%J,,O67,N>#),T>7,R5@%,L>67%*,@%,R>,I7>U@"*,#,T>6A"#R@>A,T>7,
"**I*7,@AU*%R@N#R@>A[,(5@)*,(*,7*#)@*,R5#R,*AN@A**7@AN,5#%,#,)>AN,#A",@A%I@7*",5@%R>7+C,(*,(@)),T>L6%,
>A,R5*,*#7)+,2=00%,R>,R5*,I7*%*AR,"#+,@A,R5*,]A@R*",<R#R*%J,,^*,*AL>67#N*,I#7R@L@I#AR%,R>,?7@AN,R5*@7,
>(A,@AR*7A#R@>A#),#A",5@%R>7@L#),I*7%I*LR@U*%J,,
ZA,R5@%,L>67%*,(*,*X#$@A*,R5*,5@%R>7+,#A",I5@)>%>I5+,>T,*AN@A**7@AN,*"6L#R@>A,R57>6N5,R>>)%,#A",
T7#$*(>7Q%,R>,N6@"*,L7@R@L#),7*T)*LR@>A,#A",#A#)+%@%,>T,I5@)>%>I5@L#)C,*I@%R*$>)>N@L#)C,#A",5@%R>7@L#),
#7N6$*AR%J,,45*%*,R>>)%,@AL)6"*8,
B2K 7*T)*LR@U*,I7#LR@L*,B@A,#A",>A,#LR@>AK,#A",_%@RR@AN,L>$T>7R#?)*,(@R5,I#7#">X`,#%,#,(#+,>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
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
!"#$%&'#()*+,-.-,/01, &,2,&,
3#)),1020,
!"!#$%&#'()*+,-#./0#12(3+)+42-#+5#!/6(/77,(/6#!089.*(+/#:;#9,70(*)<#=.33#&%>%?#
4567%"#+%,20890&2810,!:;<,201=,,
,
@"ABCDEBFCA#
:>?@A,!"#$%,B!:;<,2199C,DEF&91FGC,7#"#$%HI67"6*J*"6K,!)@L*,'#()*+,B!:;<,291/C,DEF&210EC,#I#()*+HI67"6*J*"6K,M*>7N*,:@LL>,B'O4:,1G0C,N7@LL>HI67"6*J*"6K,,
,
EFDCA!#G!HA@B!A#
P)#LQ?>#7"8,5RRI%8SS?)#LQ?>#7"JI67"6*J*"6S(*?LRS)>N>ASDF2/20=FEF2=2,P)>N,B7*T)*LR@U*,I7#LR@L*,%@R*K8,,5RRI8SS*A*&5I&T20J?)>N%I>RJL>$S,,
,
EFDCA!#IJK!EB@L!A#
T>6A"#R@>A#),&,L7@R@L#),&,7*T)*LR@U*,&,L>))#?>7#R@U*,&,7@%Q+,&,L5#))*AN@AN,&,7*U*)#R>7+,&,T6A,&,6AL>$T>7R#?)*,
&,L#R5#7R@L,&,%6II>7R@U*,&,*I@I5+R@L,&,*AN#N@AN,&,N7>6A"*",&,I*7%6#%@U*,&,)@?*7#R@AN,&,7#"@L#),JJJ,!"#$#%&'#%
()$!%$*+#%*,%!"#%-*'.$%-#%"*/#%0*)%-122%)$#%-"#3%&$4#.%&5*)!%0*)'%#6/#'1#37#%13%!"1$%7*)'$#8,,,
EFDCA!#J!AEC@1B@F"#
45@%,L)#%%,@%,"*%@NA*",R>,5*)I,I#7R@L@I#AR%8,
B2K "*U*)>I,#,L6)R67*,>T,L7@R@L#),7*T)*LR@>AC,*AN#N*$*AR,#A",)*#7A@AN,R>N*R5*7,B1K @"*AR@T+,#A",6A"*7%R#A",R>>)%,R>,@AV6@7*,@AR>,R5*,5@%R>7+,#A",I5@)>%>I5+,>T,*AN@A**7@AN,*"6L#R@>AC,#A","*U*)>I,%Q@))%,T>7,6%@AN,R5*%*,R>>)%,B9K $#Q*,6%*,>T,R5*%*,R>>)%,R>,T>7$,#7N6$*AR%,#?>6R,R5*,A#R67*,>T,*AN@A**7@AN,*"6L#R@>A,T>7,>A*%*)T,#A",T>7,>R5*7%J,
,
W@%R>7+,#A",I5@)>%>I5+,#7*,?>"@*%,>T,QA>()*"N*,#A",$>"*%,>T,@AV6@7+,R5#R,?>R5,%5#I*,#A",#7*,%5#I*",
?+,R5*@7,%>L@>&L6)R67#),L>AR*XR%J,45*+,#7*,$>7*,R5#A,#,L57>A>)>N+,>T,*U*AR%,>7,N7#A",%R#R*$*AR%,Y,R5*+,
#7*,)*A%*%,T>7,@))6$@A#R@AN,#/1$!#+*2*91#$,>T,*AN@A**7@ANC,R5*,I7@AL@I)*%C,@"*#%C,#A",$*R5>"%,R5#R,
6A"*7)@*,(5#R,@R,$*#A%,R>,QA>(,*AN@A**7@ANC,R>,?*,#A,*AN@A**7C,I7#LR@L*,*AN@A**7@ANC,#A",I7*I#7*,
>R5*7%,T>7,*AN@A**7@AN,I7#LR@L*,B*JNJC,@A%R76LR@>AKJ,,ZR,@%,R57>6N5,R5@%,@AV6@7+,I7>L*%%,R5#R,(*,5>I*,+>6,
?*N@A,R>,#7R@L6)#R*,+>67,>(A,7>)*B%K,@A,%5#I@AN,*AN@A**7@AN,*"6L#R@>A,#%,(*)),#%,*XI)>7@AN,(#+%,>T,
L>AA*LR@AN,+>67,7*%*#7L5,#A",R*#L5@AN,@AR*7*%R%J,,O67,N>#),T>7,R5@%,L>67%*,@%,R>,I7>U@"*,#,T>6A"#R@>A,T>7,
"**I*7,@AU*%R@N#R@>A[,(5@)*,(*,7*#)@*,R5#R,*AN@A**7@AN,5#%,#,)>AN,#A",@A%I@7*",5@%R>7+C,(*,(@)),T>L6%,
>A,R5*,*#7)+,2=00%,R>,R5*,I7*%*AR,"#+,@A,R5*,]A@R*",<R#R*%J,,^*,*AL>67#N*,I#7R@L@I#AR%,R>,?7@AN,R5*@7,
>(A,@AR*7A#R@>A#),#A",5@%R>7@L#),I*7%I*LR@U*%J,,
ZA,R5@%,L>67%*,(*,*X#$@A*,R5*,5@%R>7+,#A",I5@)>%>I5+,>T,*AN@A**7@AN,*"6L#R@>A,R57>6N5,R>>)%,#A",
T7#$*(>7Q%,R>,N6@"*,L7@R@L#),7*T)*LR@>A,#A",#A#)+%@%,>T,I5@)>%>I5@L#)C,*I@%R*$>)>N@L#)C,#A",5@%R>7@L#),
#7N6$*AR%J,,45*%*,R>>)%,@AL)6"*8,
B2K 7*T)*LR@U*,I7#LR@L*,B@A,#A",>A,#LR@>AK,#A",_%@RR@AN,L>$T>7R#?)*,(@R5,I#7#">X`,#%,#,(#+,>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
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
!"#$%&'#()*+,-.-,/01, &,2,&,
3#)),1020,
!"!#$%&#'()*+,-#./0#12(3+)+42-#+5#!/6(/77,(/6#!089.*(+/#:;#9,70(*)<#=.33#&%>%?#
4567%"#+%,20890&2810,!:;<,201=,,
,
@"ABCDEBFCA#
:>?@A,!"#$%,B!:;<,2199C,DEF&91FGC,7#"#$%HI67"6*J*"6K,!)@L*,'#()*+,B!:;<,291/C,DEF&210EC,#I#()*+HI67"6*J*"6K,M*>7N*,:@LL>,B'O4:,1G0C,N7@LL>HI67"6*J*"6K,,
,
EFDCA!#G!HA@B!A#
P)#LQ?>#7"8,5RRI%8SS?)#LQ?>#7"JI67"6*J*"6S(*?LRS)>N>ASDF2/20=FEF2=2,P)>N,B7*T)*LR@U*,I7#LR@L*,%@R*K8,,5RRI8SS*A*&5I&T20J?)>N%I>RJL>$S,,
,
EFDCA!#IJK!EB@L!A#
T>6A"#R@>A#),&,L7@R@L#),&,7*T)*LR@U*,&,L>))#?>7#R@U*,&,7@%Q+,&,L5#))*AN@AN,&,7*U*)#R>7+,&,T6A,&,6AL>$T>7R#?)*,
&,L#R5#7R@L,&,%6II>7R@U*,&,*I@I5+R@L,&,*AN#N@AN,&,N7>6A"*",&,I*7%6#%@U*,&,)@?*7#R@AN,&,7#"@L#),JJJ,!"#$#%&'#%
()$!%$*+#%*,%!"#%-*'.$%-#%"*/#%0*)%-122%)$#%-"#3%&$4#.%&5*)!%0*)'%#6/#'1#37#%13%!"1$%7*)'$#8,,,
EFDCA!#J!AEC@1B@F"#
45@%,L)#%%,@%,"*%@NA*",R>,5*)I,I#7R@L@I#AR%8,
B2K "*U*)>I,#,L6)R67*,>T,L7@R@L#),7*T)*LR@>AC,*AN#N*$*AR,#A",)*#7A@AN,R>N*R5*7,B1K @"*AR@T+,#A",6A"*7%R#A",R>>)%,R>,@AV6@7*,@AR>,R5*,5@%R>7+,#A",I5@)>%>I5+,>T,*AN@A**7@AN,*"6L#R@>AC,#A","*U*)>I,%Q@))%,T>7,6%@AN,R5*%*,R>>)%,B9K $#Q*,6%*,>T,R5*%*,R>>)%,R>,T>7$,#7N6$*AR%,#?>6R,R5*,A#R67*,>T,*AN@A**7@AN,*"6L#R@>A,T>7,>A*%*)T,#A",T>7,>R5*7%J,
,
W@%R>7+,#A",I5@)>%>I5+,#7*,?>"@*%,>T,QA>()*"N*,#A",$>"*%,>T,@AV6@7+,R5#R,?>R5,%5#I*,#A",#7*,%5#I*",
?+,R5*@7,%>L@>&L6)R67#),L>AR*XR%J,45*+,#7*,$>7*,R5#A,#,L57>A>)>N+,>T,*U*AR%,>7,N7#A",%R#R*$*AR%,Y,R5*+,
#7*,)*A%*%,T>7,@))6$@A#R@AN,#/1$!#+*2*91#$,>T,*AN@A**7@ANC,R5*,I7@AL@I)*%C,@"*#%C,#A",$*R5>"%,R5#R,
6A"*7)@*,(5#R,@R,$*#A%,R>,QA>(,*AN@A**7@ANC,R>,?*,#A,*AN@A**7C,I7#LR@L*,*AN@A**7@ANC,#A",I7*I#7*,
>R5*7%,T>7,*AN@A**7@AN,I7#LR@L*,B*JNJC,@A%R76LR@>AKJ,,ZR,@%,R57>6N5,R5@%,@AV6@7+,I7>L*%%,R5#R,(*,5>I*,+>6,
?*N@A,R>,#7R@L6)#R*,+>67,>(A,7>)*B%K,@A,%5#I@AN,*AN@A**7@AN,*"6L#R@>A,#%,(*)),#%,*XI)>7@AN,(#+%,>T,
L>AA*LR@AN,+>67,7*%*#7L5,#A",R*#L5@AN,@AR*7*%R%J,,O67,N>#),T>7,R5@%,L>67%*,@%,R>,I7>U@"*,#,T>6A"#R@>A,T>7,
"**I*7,@AU*%R@N#R@>A[,(5@)*,(*,7*#)@*,R5#R,*AN@A**7@AN,5#%,#,)>AN,#A",@A%I@7*",5@%R>7+C,(*,(@)),T>L6%,
>A,R5*,*#7)+,2=00%,R>,R5*,I7*%*AR,"#+,@A,R5*,]A@R*",<R#R*%J,,^*,*AL>67#N*,I#7R@L@I#AR%,R>,?7@AN,R5*@7,
>(A,@AR*7A#R@>A#),#A",5@%R>7@L#),I*7%I*LR@U*%J,,
ZA,R5@%,L>67%*,(*,*X#$@A*,R5*,5@%R>7+,#A",I5@)>%>I5+,>T,*AN@A**7@AN,*"6L#R@>A,R57>6N5,R>>)%,#A",
T7#$*(>7Q%,R>,N6@"*,L7@R@L#),7*T)*LR@>A,#A",#A#)+%@%,>T,I5@)>%>I5@L#)C,*I@%R*$>)>N@L#)C,#A",5@%R>7@L#),
#7N6$*AR%J,,45*%*,R>>)%,@AL)6"*8,
B2K 7*T)*LR@U*,I7#LR@L*,B@A,#A",>A,#LR@>AK,#A",_%@RR@AN,L>$T>7R#?)*,(@R5,I#7#">X`,#%,#,(#+,>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
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
Disciplines
STEM
Women
boundary work for FiSTS
39
http://femscitech.pbworks.com
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
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
40
Disciplines
STEM
Women
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
40
Disciplines
STEM
Women Gender as:
more than women
changing over time
within people
intersectional
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
41
Disciplines
STEM
Women
STEM as:
specific, not generic
varying within areas
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
42
Disciplines
STEM
Women
Discipline as:
a noun (a discipline)
a verb (to discipline)
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
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

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Making connections - Women in STEM - a wicked problem
Making connections - Women in STEM - a wicked problemMaking connections - Women in STEM - a wicked problem
Making connections - Women in STEM - a wicked problem
Mary Loftus
 
Taungana Women in STEM Forum
Taungana Women in STEM ForumTaungana Women in STEM Forum
Taungana Women in STEM Forum
Zimkhita Buwa
 
Women in STEM Through the Product Lens
Women in STEM Through the Product LensWomen in STEM Through the Product Lens
Women in STEM Through the Product Lens
Shakhina Pulatova
 
Women in STEM
Women in STEMWomen in STEM
Women in STEM
Madison Maloney
 
women in stem higher education
women in stem higher educationwomen in stem higher education
women in stem higher education
Sara Ludwig-Nagy
 
Three theoretical approaches to gender: Implications for creating effective p...
Three theoretical approaches to gender: Implications for creating effective p...Three theoretical approaches to gender: Implications for creating effective p...
Three theoretical approaches to gender: Implications for creating effective p...
ADVANCE-Purdue
 
Why So Few Women in STEM
Why So Few Women in STEMWhy So Few Women in STEM
Why So Few Women in STEM
Kevin Carter
 
Gender diversity talk MultiCore World 2017
Gender diversity talk MultiCore World 2017Gender diversity talk MultiCore World 2017
Gender diversity talk MultiCore World 2017
Victoria MacLennan
 
Brandemix Employer Branding, Marketing and Communications
Brandemix Employer Branding, Marketing and CommunicationsBrandemix Employer Branding, Marketing and Communications
Brandemix Employer Branding, Marketing and Communications
Jody Ordioni
 
Women empwrmt ppt
Women empwrmt pptWomen empwrmt ppt
Women empwrmt ppt
Deepthy Philip Thomas
 
Build Features, Not Apps
Build Features, Not AppsBuild Features, Not Apps
Build Features, Not Apps
Natasha Murashev
 
How to Become a Thought Leader in Your Niche
How to Become a Thought Leader in Your NicheHow to Become a Thought Leader in Your Niche
How to Become a Thought Leader in Your Niche
Leslie Samuel
 

Viewers also liked (12)

Making connections - Women in STEM - a wicked problem
Making connections - Women in STEM - a wicked problemMaking connections - Women in STEM - a wicked problem
Making connections - Women in STEM - a wicked problem
 
Taungana Women in STEM Forum
Taungana Women in STEM ForumTaungana Women in STEM Forum
Taungana Women in STEM Forum
 
Women in STEM Through the Product Lens
Women in STEM Through the Product LensWomen in STEM Through the Product Lens
Women in STEM Through the Product Lens
 
Women in STEM
Women in STEMWomen in STEM
Women in STEM
 
women in stem higher education
women in stem higher educationwomen in stem higher education
women in stem higher education
 
Three theoretical approaches to gender: Implications for creating effective p...
Three theoretical approaches to gender: Implications for creating effective p...Three theoretical approaches to gender: Implications for creating effective p...
Three theoretical approaches to gender: Implications for creating effective p...
 
Why So Few Women in STEM
Why So Few Women in STEMWhy So Few Women in STEM
Why So Few Women in STEM
 
Gender diversity talk MultiCore World 2017
Gender diversity talk MultiCore World 2017Gender diversity talk MultiCore World 2017
Gender diversity talk MultiCore World 2017
 
Brandemix Employer Branding, Marketing and Communications
Brandemix Employer Branding, Marketing and CommunicationsBrandemix Employer Branding, Marketing and Communications
Brandemix Employer Branding, Marketing and Communications
 
Women empwrmt ppt
Women empwrmt pptWomen empwrmt ppt
Women empwrmt ppt
 
Build Features, Not Apps
Build Features, Not AppsBuild Features, Not Apps
Build Features, Not Apps
 
How to Become a Thought Leader in Your Niche
How to Become a Thought Leader in Your NicheHow to Become a Thought Leader in Your Niche
How to Become a Thought Leader in Your Niche
 

Similar to Women in STEM Disciplines: Walking boundaries

ASEE 2010: Using the Emergent Methodology of Domain Analysis to Answer Comple...
ASEE 2010: Using the Emergent Methodology of Domain Analysis to Answer Comple...ASEE 2010: Using the Emergent Methodology of Domain Analysis to Answer Comple...
ASEE 2010: Using the Emergent Methodology of Domain Analysis to Answer Comple...
Research in Feminist Engineering Group
 
The Computer Scientist and the Cleaner v4
The Computer Scientist and the Cleaner v4The Computer Scientist and the Cleaner v4
The Computer Scientist and the Cleaner v4
turingfan
 
Watkins_A_Research Paper
Watkins_A_Research PaperWatkins_A_Research Paper
Watkins_A_Research Paper
Annie Watkins
 
THESIS-Victoria_Strelnikova_FINAL
THESIS-Victoria_Strelnikova_FINALTHESIS-Victoria_Strelnikova_FINAL
THESIS-Victoria_Strelnikova_FINAL
Victoria Strelnikova
 
100507 UW-Madison SWE presentation
100507 UW-Madison SWE presentation100507 UW-Madison SWE presentation
100507 UW-Madison SWE presentation
Research in Feminist Engineering Group
 
Starry Tales of Women, Men and Crocodiles
Starry Tales of Women, Men and CrocodilesStarry Tales of Women, Men and Crocodiles
Starry Tales of Women, Men and Crocodiles
Rachel Morgain
 
4/15/10 School of Engineering Education Research Seminar
4/15/10 School of Engineering Education Research Seminar4/15/10 School of Engineering Education Research Seminar
4/15/10 School of Engineering Education Research Seminar
Research in Feminist Engineering Group
 
Q200 Powerpoint- Laura Stewart
Q200 Powerpoint- Laura StewartQ200 Powerpoint- Laura Stewart
Q200 Powerpoint- Laura Stewart
guest4a936a
 
V1 of The Computer Scientist and The Cleaner
V1 of The Computer Scientist and The CleanerV1 of The Computer Scientist and The Cleaner
V1 of The Computer Scientist and The Cleaner
turingfan
 
Women in Science: High School
Women in Science: High SchoolWomen in Science: High School
Women in Science: High School
ccnywins
 
US-Delegation-Poster-08-01-2014-2
US-Delegation-Poster-08-01-2014-2US-Delegation-Poster-08-01-2014-2
US-Delegation-Poster-08-01-2014-2
Sujatha Sampath
 
Stella - aftershow discussion about nebulae and women in astronomy
Stella - aftershow discussion about nebulae and women in astronomyStella - aftershow discussion about nebulae and women in astronomy
Stella - aftershow discussion about nebulae and women in astronomy
Karen Masters
 
Implicit bias in higher ed - for undergraduates
Implicit bias in higher ed - for undergraduatesImplicit bias in higher ed - for undergraduates
Implicit bias in higher ed - for undergraduates
Kim Cobb
 
Are all researchers male?
Are all researchers male?Are all researchers male?
Are all researchers male?
GRAPE
 
The Computer Scientist and the Cleaner v5
The Computer Scientist and the Cleaner v5The Computer Scientist and the Cleaner v5
The Computer Scientist and the Cleaner v5
turingfan
 

Similar to Women in STEM Disciplines: Walking boundaries (15)

ASEE 2010: Using the Emergent Methodology of Domain Analysis to Answer Comple...
ASEE 2010: Using the Emergent Methodology of Domain Analysis to Answer Comple...ASEE 2010: Using the Emergent Methodology of Domain Analysis to Answer Comple...
ASEE 2010: Using the Emergent Methodology of Domain Analysis to Answer Comple...
 
The Computer Scientist and the Cleaner v4
The Computer Scientist and the Cleaner v4The Computer Scientist and the Cleaner v4
The Computer Scientist and the Cleaner v4
 
Watkins_A_Research Paper
Watkins_A_Research PaperWatkins_A_Research Paper
Watkins_A_Research Paper
 
THESIS-Victoria_Strelnikova_FINAL
THESIS-Victoria_Strelnikova_FINALTHESIS-Victoria_Strelnikova_FINAL
THESIS-Victoria_Strelnikova_FINAL
 
100507 UW-Madison SWE presentation
100507 UW-Madison SWE presentation100507 UW-Madison SWE presentation
100507 UW-Madison SWE presentation
 
Starry Tales of Women, Men and Crocodiles
Starry Tales of Women, Men and CrocodilesStarry Tales of Women, Men and Crocodiles
Starry Tales of Women, Men and Crocodiles
 
4/15/10 School of Engineering Education Research Seminar
4/15/10 School of Engineering Education Research Seminar4/15/10 School of Engineering Education Research Seminar
4/15/10 School of Engineering Education Research Seminar
 
Q200 Powerpoint- Laura Stewart
Q200 Powerpoint- Laura StewartQ200 Powerpoint- Laura Stewart
Q200 Powerpoint- Laura Stewart
 
V1 of The Computer Scientist and The Cleaner
V1 of The Computer Scientist and The CleanerV1 of The Computer Scientist and The Cleaner
V1 of The Computer Scientist and The Cleaner
 
Women in Science: High School
Women in Science: High SchoolWomen in Science: High School
Women in Science: High School
 
US-Delegation-Poster-08-01-2014-2
US-Delegation-Poster-08-01-2014-2US-Delegation-Poster-08-01-2014-2
US-Delegation-Poster-08-01-2014-2
 
Stella - aftershow discussion about nebulae and women in astronomy
Stella - aftershow discussion about nebulae and women in astronomyStella - aftershow discussion about nebulae and women in astronomy
Stella - aftershow discussion about nebulae and women in astronomy
 
Implicit bias in higher ed - for undergraduates
Implicit bias in higher ed - for undergraduatesImplicit bias in higher ed - for undergraduates
Implicit bias in higher ed - for undergraduates
 
Are all researchers male?
Are all researchers male?Are all researchers male?
Are all researchers male?
 
The Computer Scientist and the Cleaner v5
The Computer Scientist and the Cleaner v5The Computer Scientist and the Cleaner v5
The Computer Scientist and the Cleaner v5
 

More from Research in Feminist Engineering Group

Institutional Ethnography as a Method to Understand the Career and Parental L...
Institutional Ethnography as a Method to Understand the Career and Parental L...Institutional Ethnography as a Method to Understand the Career and Parental L...
Institutional Ethnography as a Method to Understand the Career and Parental L...
Research in Feminist Engineering Group
 
Defining "sustainable engineering": a comparative analysis of published susta...
Defining "sustainable engineering": a comparative analysis of published susta...Defining "sustainable engineering": a comparative analysis of published susta...
Defining "sustainable engineering": a comparative analysis of published susta...
Research in Feminist Engineering Group
 
IEECI: Assessing Sustainability Knowledge: Development of a framework to asse...
IEECI: Assessing Sustainability Knowledge: Development of a framework to asse...IEECI: Assessing Sustainability Knowledge: Development of a framework to asse...
IEECI: Assessing Sustainability Knowledge: Development of a framework to asse...
Research in Feminist Engineering Group
 
CAREER: Learning from Small Numbers: Using personal narratives by underrepres...
CAREER: Learning from Small Numbers: Using personal narratives by underrepres...CAREER: Learning from Small Numbers: Using personal narratives by underrepres...
CAREER: Learning from Small Numbers: Using personal narratives by underrepres...
Research in Feminist Engineering Group
 
2011 NSF EEC Grantees Meeting: CAREER: Learning from Small Numbers
2011 NSF EEC Grantees Meeting: CAREER: Learning from Small Numbers2011 NSF EEC Grantees Meeting: CAREER: Learning from Small Numbers
2011 NSF EEC Grantees Meeting: CAREER: Learning from Small Numbers
Research in Feminist Engineering Group
 
2011 NSF EEC Grantees Meeting: IEECI-ASK: Assessing Sustainability Knowledge
2011 NSF EEC Grantees Meeting: IEECI-ASK: Assessing Sustainability Knowledge2011 NSF EEC Grantees Meeting: IEECI-ASK: Assessing Sustainability Knowledge
2011 NSF EEC Grantees Meeting: IEECI-ASK: Assessing Sustainability Knowledge
Research in Feminist Engineering Group
 
2010 FIE Special Session: What should a course reader on gender and engineeri...
2010 FIE Special Session: What should a course reader on gender and engineeri...2010 FIE Special Session: What should a course reader on gender and engineeri...
2010 FIE Special Session: What should a course reader on gender and engineeri...
Research in Feminist Engineering Group
 
2010 FIE Work in Progress: Development of a framework to Assess Sustainabilit...
2010 FIE Work in Progress: Development of a framework to Assess Sustainabilit...2010 FIE Work in Progress: Development of a framework to Assess Sustainabilit...
2010 FIE Work in Progress: Development of a framework to Assess Sustainabilit...
Research in Feminist Engineering Group
 
ASEE 2010: ’The image of a woman engineer:' Women’s identities as engineers a...
ASEE 2010: ’The image of a woman engineer:' Women’s identities as engineers a...ASEE 2010: ’The image of a woman engineer:' Women’s identities as engineers a...
ASEE 2010: ’The image of a woman engineer:' Women’s identities as engineers a...
Research in Feminist Engineering Group
 

More from Research in Feminist Engineering Group (9)

Institutional Ethnography as a Method to Understand the Career and Parental L...
Institutional Ethnography as a Method to Understand the Career and Parental L...Institutional Ethnography as a Method to Understand the Career and Parental L...
Institutional Ethnography as a Method to Understand the Career and Parental L...
 
Defining "sustainable engineering": a comparative analysis of published susta...
Defining "sustainable engineering": a comparative analysis of published susta...Defining "sustainable engineering": a comparative analysis of published susta...
Defining "sustainable engineering": a comparative analysis of published susta...
 
IEECI: Assessing Sustainability Knowledge: Development of a framework to asse...
IEECI: Assessing Sustainability Knowledge: Development of a framework to asse...IEECI: Assessing Sustainability Knowledge: Development of a framework to asse...
IEECI: Assessing Sustainability Knowledge: Development of a framework to asse...
 
CAREER: Learning from Small Numbers: Using personal narratives by underrepres...
CAREER: Learning from Small Numbers: Using personal narratives by underrepres...CAREER: Learning from Small Numbers: Using personal narratives by underrepres...
CAREER: Learning from Small Numbers: Using personal narratives by underrepres...
 
2011 NSF EEC Grantees Meeting: CAREER: Learning from Small Numbers
2011 NSF EEC Grantees Meeting: CAREER: Learning from Small Numbers2011 NSF EEC Grantees Meeting: CAREER: Learning from Small Numbers
2011 NSF EEC Grantees Meeting: CAREER: Learning from Small Numbers
 
2011 NSF EEC Grantees Meeting: IEECI-ASK: Assessing Sustainability Knowledge
2011 NSF EEC Grantees Meeting: IEECI-ASK: Assessing Sustainability Knowledge2011 NSF EEC Grantees Meeting: IEECI-ASK: Assessing Sustainability Knowledge
2011 NSF EEC Grantees Meeting: IEECI-ASK: Assessing Sustainability Knowledge
 
2010 FIE Special Session: What should a course reader on gender and engineeri...
2010 FIE Special Session: What should a course reader on gender and engineeri...2010 FIE Special Session: What should a course reader on gender and engineeri...
2010 FIE Special Session: What should a course reader on gender and engineeri...
 
2010 FIE Work in Progress: Development of a framework to Assess Sustainabilit...
2010 FIE Work in Progress: Development of a framework to Assess Sustainabilit...2010 FIE Work in Progress: Development of a framework to Assess Sustainabilit...
2010 FIE Work in Progress: Development of a framework to Assess Sustainabilit...
 
ASEE 2010: ’The image of a woman engineer:' Women’s identities as engineers a...
ASEE 2010: ’The image of a woman engineer:' Women’s identities as engineers a...ASEE 2010: ’The image of a woman engineer:' Women’s identities as engineers a...
ASEE 2010: ’The image of a woman engineer:' Women’s identities as engineers a...
 

Recently uploaded

BÀI TẬP BỔ TRỢ TIẾNG ANH 8 CẢ NĂM - GLOBAL SUCCESS - NĂM HỌC 2023-2024 (CÓ FI...
BÀI TẬP BỔ TRỢ TIẾNG ANH 8 CẢ NĂM - GLOBAL SUCCESS - NĂM HỌC 2023-2024 (CÓ FI...BÀI TẬP BỔ TRỢ TIẾNG ANH 8 CẢ NĂM - GLOBAL SUCCESS - NĂM HỌC 2023-2024 (CÓ FI...
BÀI TẬP BỔ TRỢ TIẾNG ANH 8 CẢ NĂM - GLOBAL SUCCESS - NĂM HỌC 2023-2024 (CÓ FI...
Nguyen Thanh Tu Collection
 
How to Manage Your Lost Opportunities in Odoo 17 CRM
How to Manage Your Lost Opportunities in Odoo 17 CRMHow to Manage Your Lost Opportunities in Odoo 17 CRM
How to Manage Your Lost Opportunities in Odoo 17 CRM
Celine George
 
LAND USE LAND COVER AND NDVI OF MIRZAPUR DISTRICT, UP
LAND USE LAND COVER AND NDVI OF MIRZAPUR DISTRICT, UPLAND USE LAND COVER AND NDVI OF MIRZAPUR DISTRICT, UP
LAND USE LAND COVER AND NDVI OF MIRZAPUR DISTRICT, UP
RAHUL
 
Chapter 4 - Islamic Financial Institutions in Malaysia.pptx
Chapter 4 - Islamic Financial Institutions in Malaysia.pptxChapter 4 - Islamic Financial Institutions in Malaysia.pptx
Chapter 4 - Islamic Financial Institutions in Malaysia.pptx
Mohd Adib Abd Muin, Senior Lecturer at Universiti Utara Malaysia
 
Your Skill Boost Masterclass: Strategies for Effective Upskilling
Your Skill Boost Masterclass: Strategies for Effective UpskillingYour Skill Boost Masterclass: Strategies for Effective Upskilling
Your Skill Boost Masterclass: Strategies for Effective Upskilling
Excellence Foundation for South Sudan
 
How to Add Chatter in the odoo 17 ERP Module
How to Add Chatter in the odoo 17 ERP ModuleHow to Add Chatter in the odoo 17 ERP Module
How to Add Chatter in the odoo 17 ERP Module
Celine George
 
The Diamonds of 2023-2024 in the IGRA collection
The Diamonds of 2023-2024 in the IGRA collectionThe Diamonds of 2023-2024 in the IGRA collection
The Diamonds of 2023-2024 in the IGRA collection
Israel Genealogy Research Association
 
World environment day ppt For 5 June 2024
World environment day ppt For 5 June 2024World environment day ppt For 5 June 2024
World environment day ppt For 5 June 2024
ak6969907
 
Smart-Money for SMC traders good time and ICT
Smart-Money for SMC traders good time and ICTSmart-Money for SMC traders good time and ICT
Smart-Money for SMC traders good time and ICT
simonomuemu
 
Azure Interview Questions and Answers PDF By ScholarHat
Azure Interview Questions and Answers PDF By ScholarHatAzure Interview Questions and Answers PDF By ScholarHat
Azure Interview Questions and Answers PDF By ScholarHat
Scholarhat
 
Life upper-Intermediate B2 Workbook for student
Life upper-Intermediate B2 Workbook for studentLife upper-Intermediate B2 Workbook for student
Life upper-Intermediate B2 Workbook for student
NgcHiNguyn25
 
How to Fix the Import Error in the Odoo 17
How to Fix the Import Error in the Odoo 17How to Fix the Import Error in the Odoo 17
How to Fix the Import Error in the Odoo 17
Celine George
 
How to Build a Module in Odoo 17 Using the Scaffold Method
How to Build a Module in Odoo 17 Using the Scaffold MethodHow to Build a Module in Odoo 17 Using the Scaffold Method
How to Build a Module in Odoo 17 Using the Scaffold Method
Celine George
 
Executive Directors Chat Leveraging AI for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
Executive Directors Chat  Leveraging AI for Diversity, Equity, and InclusionExecutive Directors Chat  Leveraging AI for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
Executive Directors Chat Leveraging AI for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
TechSoup
 
The basics of sentences session 6pptx.pptx
The basics of sentences session 6pptx.pptxThe basics of sentences session 6pptx.pptx
The basics of sentences session 6pptx.pptx
heathfieldcps1
 
Digital Artefact 1 - Tiny Home Environmental Design
Digital Artefact 1 - Tiny Home Environmental DesignDigital Artefact 1 - Tiny Home Environmental Design
Digital Artefact 1 - Tiny Home Environmental Design
amberjdewit93
 
RPMS TEMPLATE FOR SCHOOL YEAR 2023-2024 FOR TEACHER 1 TO TEACHER 3
RPMS TEMPLATE FOR SCHOOL YEAR 2023-2024 FOR TEACHER 1 TO TEACHER 3RPMS TEMPLATE FOR SCHOOL YEAR 2023-2024 FOR TEACHER 1 TO TEACHER 3
RPMS TEMPLATE FOR SCHOOL YEAR 2023-2024 FOR TEACHER 1 TO TEACHER 3
IreneSebastianRueco1
 
Exploiting Artificial Intelligence for Empowering Researchers and Faculty, In...
Exploiting Artificial Intelligence for Empowering Researchers and Faculty, In...Exploiting Artificial Intelligence for Empowering Researchers and Faculty, In...
Exploiting Artificial Intelligence for Empowering Researchers and Faculty, In...
Dr. Vinod Kumar Kanvaria
 
writing about opinions about Australia the movie
writing about opinions about Australia the moviewriting about opinions about Australia the movie
writing about opinions about Australia the movie
Nicholas Montgomery
 
Pollock and Snow "DEIA in the Scholarly Landscape, Session One: Setting Expec...
Pollock and Snow "DEIA in the Scholarly Landscape, Session One: Setting Expec...Pollock and Snow "DEIA in the Scholarly Landscape, Session One: Setting Expec...
Pollock and Snow "DEIA in the Scholarly Landscape, Session One: Setting Expec...
National Information Standards Organization (NISO)
 

Recently uploaded (20)

BÀI TẬP BỔ TRỢ TIẾNG ANH 8 CẢ NĂM - GLOBAL SUCCESS - NĂM HỌC 2023-2024 (CÓ FI...
BÀI TẬP BỔ TRỢ TIẾNG ANH 8 CẢ NĂM - GLOBAL SUCCESS - NĂM HỌC 2023-2024 (CÓ FI...BÀI TẬP BỔ TRỢ TIẾNG ANH 8 CẢ NĂM - GLOBAL SUCCESS - NĂM HỌC 2023-2024 (CÓ FI...
BÀI TẬP BỔ TRỢ TIẾNG ANH 8 CẢ NĂM - GLOBAL SUCCESS - NĂM HỌC 2023-2024 (CÓ FI...
 
How to Manage Your Lost Opportunities in Odoo 17 CRM
How to Manage Your Lost Opportunities in Odoo 17 CRMHow to Manage Your Lost Opportunities in Odoo 17 CRM
How to Manage Your Lost Opportunities in Odoo 17 CRM
 
LAND USE LAND COVER AND NDVI OF MIRZAPUR DISTRICT, UP
LAND USE LAND COVER AND NDVI OF MIRZAPUR DISTRICT, UPLAND USE LAND COVER AND NDVI OF MIRZAPUR DISTRICT, UP
LAND USE LAND COVER AND NDVI OF MIRZAPUR DISTRICT, UP
 
Chapter 4 - Islamic Financial Institutions in Malaysia.pptx
Chapter 4 - Islamic Financial Institutions in Malaysia.pptxChapter 4 - Islamic Financial Institutions in Malaysia.pptx
Chapter 4 - Islamic Financial Institutions in Malaysia.pptx
 
Your Skill Boost Masterclass: Strategies for Effective Upskilling
Your Skill Boost Masterclass: Strategies for Effective UpskillingYour Skill Boost Masterclass: Strategies for Effective Upskilling
Your Skill Boost Masterclass: Strategies for Effective Upskilling
 
How to Add Chatter in the odoo 17 ERP Module
How to Add Chatter in the odoo 17 ERP ModuleHow to Add Chatter in the odoo 17 ERP Module
How to Add Chatter in the odoo 17 ERP Module
 
The Diamonds of 2023-2024 in the IGRA collection
The Diamonds of 2023-2024 in the IGRA collectionThe Diamonds of 2023-2024 in the IGRA collection
The Diamonds of 2023-2024 in the IGRA collection
 
World environment day ppt For 5 June 2024
World environment day ppt For 5 June 2024World environment day ppt For 5 June 2024
World environment day ppt For 5 June 2024
 
Smart-Money for SMC traders good time and ICT
Smart-Money for SMC traders good time and ICTSmart-Money for SMC traders good time and ICT
Smart-Money for SMC traders good time and ICT
 
Azure Interview Questions and Answers PDF By ScholarHat
Azure Interview Questions and Answers PDF By ScholarHatAzure Interview Questions and Answers PDF By ScholarHat
Azure Interview Questions and Answers PDF By ScholarHat
 
Life upper-Intermediate B2 Workbook for student
Life upper-Intermediate B2 Workbook for studentLife upper-Intermediate B2 Workbook for student
Life upper-Intermediate B2 Workbook for student
 
How to Fix the Import Error in the Odoo 17
How to Fix the Import Error in the Odoo 17How to Fix the Import Error in the Odoo 17
How to Fix the Import Error in the Odoo 17
 
How to Build a Module in Odoo 17 Using the Scaffold Method
How to Build a Module in Odoo 17 Using the Scaffold MethodHow to Build a Module in Odoo 17 Using the Scaffold Method
How to Build a Module in Odoo 17 Using the Scaffold Method
 
Executive Directors Chat Leveraging AI for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
Executive Directors Chat  Leveraging AI for Diversity, Equity, and InclusionExecutive Directors Chat  Leveraging AI for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
Executive Directors Chat Leveraging AI for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
 
The basics of sentences session 6pptx.pptx
The basics of sentences session 6pptx.pptxThe basics of sentences session 6pptx.pptx
The basics of sentences session 6pptx.pptx
 
Digital Artefact 1 - Tiny Home Environmental Design
Digital Artefact 1 - Tiny Home Environmental DesignDigital Artefact 1 - Tiny Home Environmental Design
Digital Artefact 1 - Tiny Home Environmental Design
 
RPMS TEMPLATE FOR SCHOOL YEAR 2023-2024 FOR TEACHER 1 TO TEACHER 3
RPMS TEMPLATE FOR SCHOOL YEAR 2023-2024 FOR TEACHER 1 TO TEACHER 3RPMS TEMPLATE FOR SCHOOL YEAR 2023-2024 FOR TEACHER 1 TO TEACHER 3
RPMS TEMPLATE FOR SCHOOL YEAR 2023-2024 FOR TEACHER 1 TO TEACHER 3
 
Exploiting Artificial Intelligence for Empowering Researchers and Faculty, In...
Exploiting Artificial Intelligence for Empowering Researchers and Faculty, In...Exploiting Artificial Intelligence for Empowering Researchers and Faculty, In...
Exploiting Artificial Intelligence for Empowering Researchers and Faculty, In...
 
writing about opinions about Australia the movie
writing about opinions about Australia the moviewriting about opinions about Australia the movie
writing about opinions about Australia the movie
 
Pollock and Snow "DEIA in the Scholarly Landscape, Session One: Setting Expec...
Pollock and Snow "DEIA in the Scholarly Landscape, Session One: Setting Expec...Pollock and Snow "DEIA in the Scholarly Landscape, Session One: Setting Expec...
Pollock and Snow "DEIA in the Scholarly Landscape, Session One: Setting Expec...
 

Women in STEM Disciplines: Walking boundaries

  • 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
  • 12. Disciplines STEM Women Research in Feminist Engineering or... RIFE Gender in JEE ADVANCEASK 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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 !"#$%&'#()*+,-.-,/01, &,2,&, 3#)),1020, !"!#$%&#'()*+,-#./0#12(3+)+42-#+5#!/6(/77,(/6#!089.*(+/#:;#9,70(*)<#=.33#&%>%?# 4567%"#+%,20890&2810,!:;<,201=,, , @"ABCDEBFCA# :>?@A,!"#$%,B!:;<,2199C,DEF&91FGC,7#"#$%HI67"6*J*"6K,!)@L*,'#()*+,B!:;<,291/C,DEF&210EC,#I#()*+HI67"6*J*"6K,M*>7N*,:@LL>,B'O4:,1G0C,N7@LL>HI67"6*J*"6K,, , EFDCA!#G!HA@B!A# P)#LQ?>#7"8,5RRI%8SS?)#LQ?>#7"JI67"6*J*"6S(*?LRS)>N>ASDF2/20=FEF2=2,P)>N,B7*T)*LR@U*,I7#LR@L*,%@R*K8,,5RRI8SS*A*&5I&T20J?)>N%I>RJL>$S,, , EFDCA!#IJK!EB@L!A# T>6A"#R@>A#),&,L7@R@L#),&,7*T)*LR@U*,&,L>))#?>7#R@U*,&,7@%Q+,&,L5#))*AN@AN,&,7*U*)#R>7+,&,T6A,&,6AL>$T>7R#?)*, &,L#R5#7R@L,&,%6II>7R@U*,&,*I@I5+R@L,&,*AN#N@AN,&,N7>6A"*",&,I*7%6#%@U*,&,)@?*7#R@AN,&,7#"@L#),JJJ,!"#$#%&'#% ()$!%$*+#%*,%!"#%-*'.$%-#%"*/#%0*)%-122%)$#%-"#3%&$4#.%&5*)!%0*)'%#6/#'1#37#%13%!"1$%7*)'$#8,,, EFDCA!#J!AEC@1B@F"# 45@%,L)#%%,@%,"*%@NA*",R>,5*)I,I#7R@L@I#AR%8, B2K "*U*)>I,#,L6)R67*,>T,L7@R@L#),7*T)*LR@>AC,*AN#N*$*AR,#A",)*#7A@AN,R>N*R5*7,B1K @"*AR@T+,#A",6A"*7%R#A",R>>)%,R>,@AV6@7*,@AR>,R5*,5@%R>7+,#A",I5@)>%>I5+,>T,*AN@A**7@AN,*"6L#R@>AC,#A","*U*)>I,%Q@))%,T>7,6%@AN,R5*%*,R>>)%,B9K $#Q*,6%*,>T,R5*%*,R>>)%,R>,T>7$,#7N6$*AR%,#?>6R,R5*,A#R67*,>T,*AN@A**7@AN,*"6L#R@>A,T>7,>A*%*)T,#A",T>7,>R5*7%J, , W@%R>7+,#A",I5@)>%>I5+,#7*,?>"@*%,>T,QA>()*"N*,#A",$>"*%,>T,@AV6@7+,R5#R,?>R5,%5#I*,#A",#7*,%5#I*", ?+,R5*@7,%>L@>&L6)R67#),L>AR*XR%J,45*+,#7*,$>7*,R5#A,#,L57>A>)>N+,>T,*U*AR%,>7,N7#A",%R#R*$*AR%,Y,R5*+, #7*,)*A%*%,T>7,@))6$@A#R@AN,#/1$!#+*2*91#$,>T,*AN@A**7@ANC,R5*,I7@AL@I)*%C,@"*#%C,#A",$*R5>"%,R5#R, 6A"*7)@*,(5#R,@R,$*#A%,R>,QA>(,*AN@A**7@ANC,R>,?*,#A,*AN@A**7C,I7#LR@L*,*AN@A**7@ANC,#A",I7*I#7*, >R5*7%,T>7,*AN@A**7@AN,I7#LR@L*,B*JNJC,@A%R76LR@>AKJ,,ZR,@%,R57>6N5,R5@%,@AV6@7+,I7>L*%%,R5#R,(*,5>I*,+>6, ?*N@A,R>,#7R@L6)#R*,+>67,>(A,7>)*B%K,@A,%5#I@AN,*AN@A**7@AN,*"6L#R@>A,#%,(*)),#%,*XI)>7@AN,(#+%,>T, L>AA*LR@AN,+>67,7*%*#7L5,#A",R*#L5@AN,@AR*7*%R%J,,O67,N>#),T>7,R5@%,L>67%*,@%,R>,I7>U@"*,#,T>6A"#R@>A,T>7, "**I*7,@AU*%R@N#R@>A[,(5@)*,(*,7*#)@*,R5#R,*AN@A**7@AN,5#%,#,)>AN,#A",@A%I@7*",5@%R>7+C,(*,(@)),T>L6%, >A,R5*,*#7)+,2=00%,R>,R5*,I7*%*AR,"#+,@A,R5*,]A@R*",<R#R*%J,,^*,*AL>67#N*,I#7R@L@I#AR%,R>,?7@AN,R5*@7, >(A,@AR*7A#R@>A#),#A",5@%R>7@L#),I*7%I*LR@U*%J,, ZA,R5@%,L>67%*,(*,*X#$@A*,R5*,5@%R>7+,#A",I5@)>%>I5+,>T,*AN@A**7@AN,*"6L#R@>A,R57>6N5,R>>)%,#A", T7#$*(>7Q%,R>,N6@"*,L7@R@L#),7*T)*LR@>A,#A",#A#)+%@%,>T,I5@)>%>I5@L#)C,*I@%R*$>)>N@L#)C,#A",5@%R>7@L#), #7N6$*AR%J,,45*%*,R>>)%,@AL)6"*8, B2K 7*T)*LR@U*,I7#LR@L*,B@A,#A",>A,#LR@>AK,#A",_%@RR@AN,L>$T>7R#?)*,(@R5,I#7#">X`,#%,#,(#+,>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 !"#$%&'#()*+,-.-,/01, &,2,&, 3#)),1020, !"!#$%&#'()*+,-#./0#12(3+)+42-#+5#!/6(/77,(/6#!089.*(+/#:;#9,70(*)<#=.33#&%>%?# 4567%"#+%,20890&2810,!:;<,201=,, , @"ABCDEBFCA# :>?@A,!"#$%,B!:;<,2199C,DEF&91FGC,7#"#$%HI67"6*J*"6K,!)@L*,'#()*+,B!:;<,291/C,DEF&210EC,#I#()*+HI67"6*J*"6K,M*>7N*,:@LL>,B'O4:,1G0C,N7@LL>HI67"6*J*"6K,, , EFDCA!#G!HA@B!A# P)#LQ?>#7"8,5RRI%8SS?)#LQ?>#7"JI67"6*J*"6S(*?LRS)>N>ASDF2/20=FEF2=2,P)>N,B7*T)*LR@U*,I7#LR@L*,%@R*K8,,5RRI8SS*A*&5I&T20J?)>N%I>RJL>$S,, , EFDCA!#IJK!EB@L!A# T>6A"#R@>A#),&,L7@R@L#),&,7*T)*LR@U*,&,L>))#?>7#R@U*,&,7@%Q+,&,L5#))*AN@AN,&,7*U*)#R>7+,&,T6A,&,6AL>$T>7R#?)*, &,L#R5#7R@L,&,%6II>7R@U*,&,*I@I5+R@L,&,*AN#N@AN,&,N7>6A"*",&,I*7%6#%@U*,&,)@?*7#R@AN,&,7#"@L#),JJJ,!"#$#%&'#% ()$!%$*+#%*,%!"#%-*'.$%-#%"*/#%0*)%-122%)$#%-"#3%&$4#.%&5*)!%0*)'%#6/#'1#37#%13%!"1$%7*)'$#8,,, EFDCA!#J!AEC@1B@F"# 45@%,L)#%%,@%,"*%@NA*",R>,5*)I,I#7R@L@I#AR%8, B2K "*U*)>I,#,L6)R67*,>T,L7@R@L#),7*T)*LR@>AC,*AN#N*$*AR,#A",)*#7A@AN,R>N*R5*7,B1K @"*AR@T+,#A",6A"*7%R#A",R>>)%,R>,@AV6@7*,@AR>,R5*,5@%R>7+,#A",I5@)>%>I5+,>T,*AN@A**7@AN,*"6L#R@>AC,#A","*U*)>I,%Q@))%,T>7,6%@AN,R5*%*,R>>)%,B9K $#Q*,6%*,>T,R5*%*,R>>)%,R>,T>7$,#7N6$*AR%,#?>6R,R5*,A#R67*,>T,*AN@A**7@AN,*"6L#R@>A,T>7,>A*%*)T,#A",T>7,>R5*7%J, , W@%R>7+,#A",I5@)>%>I5+,#7*,?>"@*%,>T,QA>()*"N*,#A",$>"*%,>T,@AV6@7+,R5#R,?>R5,%5#I*,#A",#7*,%5#I*", ?+,R5*@7,%>L@>&L6)R67#),L>AR*XR%J,45*+,#7*,$>7*,R5#A,#,L57>A>)>N+,>T,*U*AR%,>7,N7#A",%R#R*$*AR%,Y,R5*+, #7*,)*A%*%,T>7,@))6$@A#R@AN,#/1$!#+*2*91#$,>T,*AN@A**7@ANC,R5*,I7@AL@I)*%C,@"*#%C,#A",$*R5>"%,R5#R, 6A"*7)@*,(5#R,@R,$*#A%,R>,QA>(,*AN@A**7@ANC,R>,?*,#A,*AN@A**7C,I7#LR@L*,*AN@A**7@ANC,#A",I7*I#7*, >R5*7%,T>7,*AN@A**7@AN,I7#LR@L*,B*JNJC,@A%R76LR@>AKJ,,ZR,@%,R57>6N5,R5@%,@AV6@7+,I7>L*%%,R5#R,(*,5>I*,+>6, ?*N@A,R>,#7R@L6)#R*,+>67,>(A,7>)*B%K,@A,%5#I@AN,*AN@A**7@AN,*"6L#R@>A,#%,(*)),#%,*XI)>7@AN,(#+%,>T, L>AA*LR@AN,+>67,7*%*#7L5,#A",R*#L5@AN,@AR*7*%R%J,,O67,N>#),T>7,R5@%,L>67%*,@%,R>,I7>U@"*,#,T>6A"#R@>A,T>7, "**I*7,@AU*%R@N#R@>A[,(5@)*,(*,7*#)@*,R5#R,*AN@A**7@AN,5#%,#,)>AN,#A",@A%I@7*",5@%R>7+C,(*,(@)),T>L6%, >A,R5*,*#7)+,2=00%,R>,R5*,I7*%*AR,"#+,@A,R5*,]A@R*",<R#R*%J,,^*,*AL>67#N*,I#7R@L@I#AR%,R>,?7@AN,R5*@7, >(A,@AR*7A#R@>A#),#A",5@%R>7@L#),I*7%I*LR@U*%J,, ZA,R5@%,L>67%*,(*,*X#$@A*,R5*,5@%R>7+,#A",I5@)>%>I5+,>T,*AN@A**7@AN,*"6L#R@>A,R57>6N5,R>>)%,#A", T7#$*(>7Q%,R>,N6@"*,L7@R@L#),7*T)*LR@>A,#A",#A#)+%@%,>T,I5@)>%>I5@L#)C,*I@%R*$>)>N@L#)C,#A",5@%R>7@L#), #7N6$*AR%J,,45*%*,R>>)%,@AL)6"*8, B2K 7*T)*LR@U*,I7#LR@L*,B@A,#A",>A,#LR@>AK,#A",_%@RR@AN,L>$T>7R#?)*,(@R5,I#7#">X`,#%,#,(#+,>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
  • 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