The document discusses research being conducted on women in STEM disciplines. It summarizes three projects: 1) Examining how applicable pipeline and climate metaphors are to women's actual experiences in STEM fields and identifying new metaphors. 2) Using institutional ethnography to understand how women faculty experience their institution through policies and identifying disconnects between intent and experience. 3) Using personal narratives to understand how underrepresented students describe interacting with educational institutions and revealing institutional factors that affect their persistence. The goal is to help engineering education researchers better understand gender through theoretical frameworks and diverse methodologies.
PARKER, LYNNE. PANEL: ENGAGING WOMEN IN ROBOTICSAlex Goldstein
This document summarizes a panel discussion on engaging women in robotics. The panelists discussed how efforts to promote women in STEM fields through programs like camps and scholarships have had limited success. They questioned how many women are currently in robotics roles across academia, government and industry. The panelists were interested in better understanding the experiences of women in robotics careers, including when they enter the field, if/when they leave, and strategies for effective engagement and retention. They also discussed the need for metrics to track progress and potential changes to educational curricula. Examples of efforts to promote women in robotics, like a girls-focused robotics competition at ICRA 2015, were provided. The panel concluded with a
Lynne Parker - Engaging Women in RoboticsDaniel Huber
This panel discussion focused on engaging more women in robotics. The panelists discussed current statistics on female representation in robotics fields and brainstormed questions about how to better recruit and retain women. They shared some efforts that have been made, such as outreach programs and special scholarships, but noted the need for more evaluation of their impact. The panel proposed that increasing advocacy from male colleagues could help address issues like unconscious bias facing women in STEM.
#SPNE12 - Workshop: How to address gender stereotypes in science education th...Brussels, Belgium
A workshop by the PERFORM and GEDII projects at the 12th Scientix Projects Networking Event held at the Future Classroom Lab by European Schoolnet on 5 December 2017.
Francisco Diaz Bretones presented a study on immigrant entrepreneurship in Andalusia, Spain. The study aims to analyze the behavioral profiles and precursors/barriers for non-EU immigrant entrepreneurs in Andalusia. Data was collected through statistical databases and qualitative interviews, questionnaires, and focus groups from 2007-2009. Variables studied include employment history, migratory history, social networking, motivations, and sociodemographics, which will be compared to a non-entrepreneurial group. Preliminary results show the number and origins of immigrant entrepreneurs in Andalusia and two cities between 1999-2003.
It’s my choice – women in STEM studies, Doris ElsterBrussels, Belgium
This document summarizes findings from the IRIS project regarding factors influencing women's choice to study STEM subjects. The study surveyed over 3,500 first-year STEM students in Germany and Austria. It found that secondary school experiences strongly influence STEM study choice, particularly interest in the subject, previous performance, and seeing practical applications. Family and friends were also important, especially for women. After the first year, expectations of success and interest in the subject were lower for women, but social relationships met or exceeded expectations. To prevent dropout, the study emphasizes showing relevance, building confidence students can succeed, and providing academic and social support, particularly for women.
KGWI: Women in STEM - A European PerspectiveKelly Services
This document discusses the importance of retaining women in STEM careers in Europe to help close the talent gap. It notes that women make up only 24% of science and engineering professionals in Europe. Flexible work arrangements are very important to retaining women in STEM across all levels and countries in Europe. The confidence gap between women and men in STEM fields is also discussed, with women generally feeling less confident in their skills and market demand compared to men. Recommendations to help boost women's confidence include sharing statistics, encouraging senior executives to sponsor high-potential women, making it easier for women to be mentors/role models, and ensuring job requirements focus on essential skills.
This document discusses the need to increase the number of women in STEM fields through several initiatives. It notes declining US competitiveness globally in STEM degrees and occupations. Several programs at Purdue University aimed at improving retention of women in engineering are highlighted, including learning communities, the EPICS program, and the Ideas to Innovation lab. Barriers that cause women to leave engineering include work conditions, lack of advancement and lower salaries. The document emphasizes improving the workplace climate and flexibility to attract more women to STEM careers.
Presence came together to discuss implicit bias/unconscious bias and how it impacts hiring, retention, and our experiences in the workplace. Lindsay Murdock, Inclusion Strategist discusses why we have bias, history of bias, and actionable items individuals can takeaway to combat their own biases.
PARKER, LYNNE. PANEL: ENGAGING WOMEN IN ROBOTICSAlex Goldstein
This document summarizes a panel discussion on engaging women in robotics. The panelists discussed how efforts to promote women in STEM fields through programs like camps and scholarships have had limited success. They questioned how many women are currently in robotics roles across academia, government and industry. The panelists were interested in better understanding the experiences of women in robotics careers, including when they enter the field, if/when they leave, and strategies for effective engagement and retention. They also discussed the need for metrics to track progress and potential changes to educational curricula. Examples of efforts to promote women in robotics, like a girls-focused robotics competition at ICRA 2015, were provided. The panel concluded with a
Lynne Parker - Engaging Women in RoboticsDaniel Huber
This panel discussion focused on engaging more women in robotics. The panelists discussed current statistics on female representation in robotics fields and brainstormed questions about how to better recruit and retain women. They shared some efforts that have been made, such as outreach programs and special scholarships, but noted the need for more evaluation of their impact. The panel proposed that increasing advocacy from male colleagues could help address issues like unconscious bias facing women in STEM.
#SPNE12 - Workshop: How to address gender stereotypes in science education th...Brussels, Belgium
A workshop by the PERFORM and GEDII projects at the 12th Scientix Projects Networking Event held at the Future Classroom Lab by European Schoolnet on 5 December 2017.
Francisco Diaz Bretones presented a study on immigrant entrepreneurship in Andalusia, Spain. The study aims to analyze the behavioral profiles and precursors/barriers for non-EU immigrant entrepreneurs in Andalusia. Data was collected through statistical databases and qualitative interviews, questionnaires, and focus groups from 2007-2009. Variables studied include employment history, migratory history, social networking, motivations, and sociodemographics, which will be compared to a non-entrepreneurial group. Preliminary results show the number and origins of immigrant entrepreneurs in Andalusia and two cities between 1999-2003.
It’s my choice – women in STEM studies, Doris ElsterBrussels, Belgium
This document summarizes findings from the IRIS project regarding factors influencing women's choice to study STEM subjects. The study surveyed over 3,500 first-year STEM students in Germany and Austria. It found that secondary school experiences strongly influence STEM study choice, particularly interest in the subject, previous performance, and seeing practical applications. Family and friends were also important, especially for women. After the first year, expectations of success and interest in the subject were lower for women, but social relationships met or exceeded expectations. To prevent dropout, the study emphasizes showing relevance, building confidence students can succeed, and providing academic and social support, particularly for women.
KGWI: Women in STEM - A European PerspectiveKelly Services
This document discusses the importance of retaining women in STEM careers in Europe to help close the talent gap. It notes that women make up only 24% of science and engineering professionals in Europe. Flexible work arrangements are very important to retaining women in STEM across all levels and countries in Europe. The confidence gap between women and men in STEM fields is also discussed, with women generally feeling less confident in their skills and market demand compared to men. Recommendations to help boost women's confidence include sharing statistics, encouraging senior executives to sponsor high-potential women, making it easier for women to be mentors/role models, and ensuring job requirements focus on essential skills.
This document discusses the need to increase the number of women in STEM fields through several initiatives. It notes declining US competitiveness globally in STEM degrees and occupations. Several programs at Purdue University aimed at improving retention of women in engineering are highlighted, including learning communities, the EPICS program, and the Ideas to Innovation lab. Barriers that cause women to leave engineering include work conditions, lack of advancement and lower salaries. The document emphasizes improving the workplace climate and flexibility to attract more women to STEM careers.
Presence came together to discuss implicit bias/unconscious bias and how it impacts hiring, retention, and our experiences in the workplace. Lindsay Murdock, Inclusion Strategist discusses why we have bias, history of bias, and actionable items individuals can takeaway to combat their own biases.
Making connections - Women in STEM - a wicked problemMary Loftus
The document discusses the lack of women in STEM fields as a "wicked problem" with no single solution. It notes that the problem is interconnected with many other issues like childcare, culture, and confidence. While there is no definitive answer, the document advocates connecting with others to identify approaches and build models to help integrate tensions and reduce trade-offs. It provides examples of initiatives aimed at advancing women's participation in areas like academia, business, film, and technology. The document emphasizes the importance of connections between women in overcoming unconscious biases and advancing equality.
This document advertises an event to empower women in STEM fields. It provides details about a social mixer and forum on using STEM to advance women's representation. Attendees will meet an expert STEM panel and learn how to apply STEM skills. The proceeds will benefit a STEM expo to empower girls in rural Africa. The event is on July 29 from 6-9 pm at Liliesleaf in Johannesburg.
In this talk I apply a product thinking approach to think through the problems at the intersection of STEM and gender. In addition, I share my thoughts and discoveries on reimagining and transforming math education.
There is a global discrepancy between the number of men and women working in STEM fields. This is a problem because it means that STEM fields are lacking diverse perspectives. While this issue has existed for a long time, it is being more widely recognized and efforts are underway in many countries to address it, though no easy solutions have emerged. Encouraging girls in STEM at a young age through toys and activities may help address cultural and social factors contributing to the imbalance between men and women in these fields over time.
This document discusses the history and current state of women in STEM fields in higher education. It notes that while women now make up over half of all college students, they remain underrepresented in STEM fields and leadership positions. The document examines various barriers that women face, from cultural stereotypes and unconscious biases among faculty and students to difficulties balancing family and career demands. It concludes by discussing strategies to improve women's representation and success in STEM, such as modifying secondary education, increasing family support programs, and providing more female role models.
Three theoretical approaches to gender: Implications for creating effective p...ADVANCE-Purdue
In recent decades, there have been increasing national, state, local and institutional efforts to increase the representation of women in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) disciplines and careers. For example, many Colleges and Universities have established programs to recruit female students, and increase female students’ persistence in STEM majors. While some of these programs have been successful in their efforts, a major limitation is that most of the programs do not address the underlying socio-psychological factors that may inhibit the representation of women in STEM disciplines. This presentation provides a discussion of three socio-psychological theoretical perspectives of gender and how these theories highlight some misleading societal explanations for the gender disparity in STEM majors and careers. Specifically, this presentation will discuss the essentialist approach, socialization approach and social constructionist approach, and their implications for creating effective programs to increase the participation of women in the STEM pipeline.
Essentialist perspective holds that behavioral differences between men and women result from innate biological differences that are culturally stable, and not susceptible to the influences of socio-cultural factors. Sex and gender are thought to be “isomorphic” and “conceptualized as stable, innate, bipolar property of individuals” (Howard and Hollander, p. 27). Although the essentialist perspective is no longer considered valid in recent social psychological research, this presentation will highlight some of its underlying assumptions that still prevail in the explanation of gender disparities in STEM. For example, the gender gap in STEM is often explained as a result of the biological and psychological differences between men and women. Men are thought of as “wired” for STEM disciplines while women are viewed as lacking the “intelligent capacity” needed to be successful scientists and engineers.
Socialization perspective holds that gendered behaviors are not biologically determined, but, are learned through a myriad of social learning processes. That is, children learn to be ‘male’ or ‘female’ by observing and imitating their parents and other members of the society, and by internalizing the gender norms of the society. This approach argues that children, through the process of socialization, learn and fulfill the gender stereotypes and role expectations (e.g., career choices) embedded in the norms of their societies. For example, parents are likely to encourage and stir their sons to engineering careers and girls to education and liberal arts. Similarly, boys are viewed as capable of succeeding in STEM careers because the requirements and qualities associated with these professions (e.g., strength and confidence) are consistent with societal views of male roles. This presentation will discuss how gender focused STEM programs can effectively address the effects of the socialization process on the participation of women in STEM careers.
Social constructionist perspective views gendered behaviors as the result of complex and dynamic processes, external to the individual. The basic argument of the social constructionist approach is that gendered behaviors are created by the daily lived experiences of people, the complex interactions between people and by the discourse of a culture. Social constructionists opine that men and women often act in gender-defined ways because they face different societal constraints and expectations. For example, women may not choose full time research careers in STEM disciplines because of other time demanding roles (e.g., parenting and other family responsibilities.) This presentation will provide some insights to how effective programs can address the societal constraints that hinder women’s participation in STEM careers.
In summary, this presentation will examine the impact of each of these
The document discusses reasons for the underrepresentation of women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields. It identifies three key areas that shape girls' and women's achievement and interest in these fields: social and environmental factors, the climate of university STEM departments, and the influence of implicit bias. The document provides research findings on how stereotypes, mindsets, spatial skills training, and work-life balance policies can impact gender disparities in STEM.
Why are we still failing to attract and retain Women in STEM? why aren't girls learning STEM subjects at school? or entering STEM careers?
This presentation focuses on 3 things we can all do to effect change in the Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics fields. Men and women alike - we all have a role to play in creating opportunities and balance.
Brandemix Employer Branding, Marketing and CommunicationsJody Ordioni
Brandemix is a branding, advertising, and marketing firm established in 2005. They offer end-to-end branding and marketing programs through a team of strategists, creative specialists, and digital experts. Their process involves extensive research, defining the brand identity and vision, developing strategic and creative plans, and implementing multi-channel campaigns. They provide services including branding, advertising, public relations, corporate communications, social media marketing, and employer branding.
The document discusses women empowerment, defining it as challenging patriarchal ideology and male dominance. It is the process of changing systematic forces that marginalize women. Empowerment involves decision-making power, access to resources, options/choices, assertiveness, positive thinking, skill development, changing others' perceptions, involvement in growth/changes, and positive self-image. It discusses crimes against women, pre-requisites for empowerment, facilitating/constraining factors, advantages, rights of women, and legislative acts supporting empowerment in India like quotas and laws against violence and discrimination. It also outlines government programs and policies aimed at economic, social, political, cultural, and educational empowerment of women.
How to Become a Thought Leader in Your NicheLeslie Samuel
Are bloggers thought leaders? Here are some tips on how you can become one. Provide great value, put awesome content out there on a regular basis, and help others.
Nelson, Lindsey and Alice L. Pawley. “Using the Emergent Methodology of Domain Analysis to Answer Complex Research Questions.” Presented at the 2010 American Society for Engineering Education National Conference and Exposition, Louisville KY, June 20-23 2010.
The Computer Scientist and the Cleaner v4turingfan
This document summarizes a talk given by Ian Gent about gender balance in computer science. It discusses how unconscious biases can negatively impact women in the field. Through examples and images, it illustrates common stereotypes associated with gender roles. It also shares statistics demonstrating the lack of gender diversity among computer science faculty and professors. Finally, it provides recommendations for creating a more inclusive environment, such as avoiding biased language and disrespecting others. The overall message is that computer science would benefit from embracing people from all backgrounds.
This document discusses sexism and discrimination that discourages women from pursuing careers in STEM. It summarizes research showing that women face barriers even after obtaining STEM degrees, such as being less likely to be hired than equally or less qualified men. Stereotypes persist that women are not suited for STEM or that an intelligent woman is somehow threatening. The document reviews historical attitudes that limited women's education and how some of those same attitudes continue today. Statistics are presented showing men outnumber women in obtaining STEM degrees, especially at higher levels. More work is needed to foster interest in STEM among girls and create welcoming environments free of hostility.
This document presents a thesis exploring mentorship and retention of women in STEM fields. The introduction provides background on the underrepresentation of women in STEM jobs and degrees despite making up half the college-educated workforce. Key factors contributing to this discrepancy include lack of role models, gender stereotyping, and inflexible work environments. The purpose is to understand women's experiences in STEM and potential solutions. A literature review covers topics like gender stereotypes, career pathways, and the benefits of mentoring. The methodology section outlines a narrative study approach involving interviews with one woman in STEM. Overall, the thesis aims to gain insights into supporting greater participation of women in STEM.
This document provides an overview of Alice Pawley's work on gender in engineering education. She discusses several of her research projects including investigating how engineering education researchers conceptualize gender, examining student definitions of engineering, and exploring academic career pathways for women in STEM fields. Her research uses feminist frameworks and methods such as viewing gender as complex and intersectional, emphasizing participant power, and considering institutions as gendered. She also discusses her efforts to incorporate feminist teaching practices and provide community service through a gender and STEM research symposium.
This document summarizes a presentation given by Dr. Rachel Morgain on International Women's Day about gender equity in astronomy. It discusses research showing implicit biases that associate science with masculinity. It also analyzes the naming of exoplanets, finding most were named for male mythical or historical figures from European traditions. Two exceptions are planets in the Thai Crocodile constellation named for sisters in a folktale. The single female historical figure honored was Hypatia, an influential astronomer and philosopher murdered in 415 AD. The document concludes by summarizing research on gender depictions of scientist characters in the long-running TV series Doctor Who.
This document summarizes the research projects and methods of the Research in Feminist Engineering (RIFE) group. The group investigates four main projects using both quantitative and qualitative methods: 1) the career pathways of women faculty in STEM using oral histories and participatory research, 2) the impact of policies on work-life balance using policy texts and interviews, 3) understanding institutional climate through robust survey instruments, and 4) assessing sustainability knowledge in engineering students through interviews and expert workshops. The group aims to broaden conversations about engineering using feminist lenses even when not obvious and argues for social change through applied research.
The document discusses gender differences in preferences toward technology education. It summarizes four articles on the topic. The first article discusses how gender stereotypes from a young age influence greater male than female interest in technology. The second article examines how portrayals of technology as masculine discourage women and calls for making courses appeal to female ways of knowing. The third article details a study showing female students felt they received insufficient guidance about technology courses. The fourth provides an overview of the articles' findings that gender differences in technology education should be addressed to engage all students.
Women in Science: numbers, challenges and ways forward. Presentation designed for the Young Women's Leadership Conference at City College of New York, March 20, 2015
Making connections - Women in STEM - a wicked problemMary Loftus
The document discusses the lack of women in STEM fields as a "wicked problem" with no single solution. It notes that the problem is interconnected with many other issues like childcare, culture, and confidence. While there is no definitive answer, the document advocates connecting with others to identify approaches and build models to help integrate tensions and reduce trade-offs. It provides examples of initiatives aimed at advancing women's participation in areas like academia, business, film, and technology. The document emphasizes the importance of connections between women in overcoming unconscious biases and advancing equality.
This document advertises an event to empower women in STEM fields. It provides details about a social mixer and forum on using STEM to advance women's representation. Attendees will meet an expert STEM panel and learn how to apply STEM skills. The proceeds will benefit a STEM expo to empower girls in rural Africa. The event is on July 29 from 6-9 pm at Liliesleaf in Johannesburg.
In this talk I apply a product thinking approach to think through the problems at the intersection of STEM and gender. In addition, I share my thoughts and discoveries on reimagining and transforming math education.
There is a global discrepancy between the number of men and women working in STEM fields. This is a problem because it means that STEM fields are lacking diverse perspectives. While this issue has existed for a long time, it is being more widely recognized and efforts are underway in many countries to address it, though no easy solutions have emerged. Encouraging girls in STEM at a young age through toys and activities may help address cultural and social factors contributing to the imbalance between men and women in these fields over time.
This document discusses the history and current state of women in STEM fields in higher education. It notes that while women now make up over half of all college students, they remain underrepresented in STEM fields and leadership positions. The document examines various barriers that women face, from cultural stereotypes and unconscious biases among faculty and students to difficulties balancing family and career demands. It concludes by discussing strategies to improve women's representation and success in STEM, such as modifying secondary education, increasing family support programs, and providing more female role models.
Three theoretical approaches to gender: Implications for creating effective p...ADVANCE-Purdue
In recent decades, there have been increasing national, state, local and institutional efforts to increase the representation of women in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) disciplines and careers. For example, many Colleges and Universities have established programs to recruit female students, and increase female students’ persistence in STEM majors. While some of these programs have been successful in their efforts, a major limitation is that most of the programs do not address the underlying socio-psychological factors that may inhibit the representation of women in STEM disciplines. This presentation provides a discussion of three socio-psychological theoretical perspectives of gender and how these theories highlight some misleading societal explanations for the gender disparity in STEM majors and careers. Specifically, this presentation will discuss the essentialist approach, socialization approach and social constructionist approach, and their implications for creating effective programs to increase the participation of women in the STEM pipeline.
Essentialist perspective holds that behavioral differences between men and women result from innate biological differences that are culturally stable, and not susceptible to the influences of socio-cultural factors. Sex and gender are thought to be “isomorphic” and “conceptualized as stable, innate, bipolar property of individuals” (Howard and Hollander, p. 27). Although the essentialist perspective is no longer considered valid in recent social psychological research, this presentation will highlight some of its underlying assumptions that still prevail in the explanation of gender disparities in STEM. For example, the gender gap in STEM is often explained as a result of the biological and psychological differences between men and women. Men are thought of as “wired” for STEM disciplines while women are viewed as lacking the “intelligent capacity” needed to be successful scientists and engineers.
Socialization perspective holds that gendered behaviors are not biologically determined, but, are learned through a myriad of social learning processes. That is, children learn to be ‘male’ or ‘female’ by observing and imitating their parents and other members of the society, and by internalizing the gender norms of the society. This approach argues that children, through the process of socialization, learn and fulfill the gender stereotypes and role expectations (e.g., career choices) embedded in the norms of their societies. For example, parents are likely to encourage and stir their sons to engineering careers and girls to education and liberal arts. Similarly, boys are viewed as capable of succeeding in STEM careers because the requirements and qualities associated with these professions (e.g., strength and confidence) are consistent with societal views of male roles. This presentation will discuss how gender focused STEM programs can effectively address the effects of the socialization process on the participation of women in STEM careers.
Social constructionist perspective views gendered behaviors as the result of complex and dynamic processes, external to the individual. The basic argument of the social constructionist approach is that gendered behaviors are created by the daily lived experiences of people, the complex interactions between people and by the discourse of a culture. Social constructionists opine that men and women often act in gender-defined ways because they face different societal constraints and expectations. For example, women may not choose full time research careers in STEM disciplines because of other time demanding roles (e.g., parenting and other family responsibilities.) This presentation will provide some insights to how effective programs can address the societal constraints that hinder women’s participation in STEM careers.
In summary, this presentation will examine the impact of each of these
The document discusses reasons for the underrepresentation of women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields. It identifies three key areas that shape girls' and women's achievement and interest in these fields: social and environmental factors, the climate of university STEM departments, and the influence of implicit bias. The document provides research findings on how stereotypes, mindsets, spatial skills training, and work-life balance policies can impact gender disparities in STEM.
Why are we still failing to attract and retain Women in STEM? why aren't girls learning STEM subjects at school? or entering STEM careers?
This presentation focuses on 3 things we can all do to effect change in the Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics fields. Men and women alike - we all have a role to play in creating opportunities and balance.
Brandemix Employer Branding, Marketing and CommunicationsJody Ordioni
Brandemix is a branding, advertising, and marketing firm established in 2005. They offer end-to-end branding and marketing programs through a team of strategists, creative specialists, and digital experts. Their process involves extensive research, defining the brand identity and vision, developing strategic and creative plans, and implementing multi-channel campaigns. They provide services including branding, advertising, public relations, corporate communications, social media marketing, and employer branding.
The document discusses women empowerment, defining it as challenging patriarchal ideology and male dominance. It is the process of changing systematic forces that marginalize women. Empowerment involves decision-making power, access to resources, options/choices, assertiveness, positive thinking, skill development, changing others' perceptions, involvement in growth/changes, and positive self-image. It discusses crimes against women, pre-requisites for empowerment, facilitating/constraining factors, advantages, rights of women, and legislative acts supporting empowerment in India like quotas and laws against violence and discrimination. It also outlines government programs and policies aimed at economic, social, political, cultural, and educational empowerment of women.
How to Become a Thought Leader in Your NicheLeslie Samuel
Are bloggers thought leaders? Here are some tips on how you can become one. Provide great value, put awesome content out there on a regular basis, and help others.
Nelson, Lindsey and Alice L. Pawley. “Using the Emergent Methodology of Domain Analysis to Answer Complex Research Questions.” Presented at the 2010 American Society for Engineering Education National Conference and Exposition, Louisville KY, June 20-23 2010.
The Computer Scientist and the Cleaner v4turingfan
This document summarizes a talk given by Ian Gent about gender balance in computer science. It discusses how unconscious biases can negatively impact women in the field. Through examples and images, it illustrates common stereotypes associated with gender roles. It also shares statistics demonstrating the lack of gender diversity among computer science faculty and professors. Finally, it provides recommendations for creating a more inclusive environment, such as avoiding biased language and disrespecting others. The overall message is that computer science would benefit from embracing people from all backgrounds.
This document discusses sexism and discrimination that discourages women from pursuing careers in STEM. It summarizes research showing that women face barriers even after obtaining STEM degrees, such as being less likely to be hired than equally or less qualified men. Stereotypes persist that women are not suited for STEM or that an intelligent woman is somehow threatening. The document reviews historical attitudes that limited women's education and how some of those same attitudes continue today. Statistics are presented showing men outnumber women in obtaining STEM degrees, especially at higher levels. More work is needed to foster interest in STEM among girls and create welcoming environments free of hostility.
This document presents a thesis exploring mentorship and retention of women in STEM fields. The introduction provides background on the underrepresentation of women in STEM jobs and degrees despite making up half the college-educated workforce. Key factors contributing to this discrepancy include lack of role models, gender stereotyping, and inflexible work environments. The purpose is to understand women's experiences in STEM and potential solutions. A literature review covers topics like gender stereotypes, career pathways, and the benefits of mentoring. The methodology section outlines a narrative study approach involving interviews with one woman in STEM. Overall, the thesis aims to gain insights into supporting greater participation of women in STEM.
This document provides an overview of Alice Pawley's work on gender in engineering education. She discusses several of her research projects including investigating how engineering education researchers conceptualize gender, examining student definitions of engineering, and exploring academic career pathways for women in STEM fields. Her research uses feminist frameworks and methods such as viewing gender as complex and intersectional, emphasizing participant power, and considering institutions as gendered. She also discusses her efforts to incorporate feminist teaching practices and provide community service through a gender and STEM research symposium.
This document summarizes a presentation given by Dr. Rachel Morgain on International Women's Day about gender equity in astronomy. It discusses research showing implicit biases that associate science with masculinity. It also analyzes the naming of exoplanets, finding most were named for male mythical or historical figures from European traditions. Two exceptions are planets in the Thai Crocodile constellation named for sisters in a folktale. The single female historical figure honored was Hypatia, an influential astronomer and philosopher murdered in 415 AD. The document concludes by summarizing research on gender depictions of scientist characters in the long-running TV series Doctor Who.
This document summarizes the research projects and methods of the Research in Feminist Engineering (RIFE) group. The group investigates four main projects using both quantitative and qualitative methods: 1) the career pathways of women faculty in STEM using oral histories and participatory research, 2) the impact of policies on work-life balance using policy texts and interviews, 3) understanding institutional climate through robust survey instruments, and 4) assessing sustainability knowledge in engineering students through interviews and expert workshops. The group aims to broaden conversations about engineering using feminist lenses even when not obvious and argues for social change through applied research.
The document discusses gender differences in preferences toward technology education. It summarizes four articles on the topic. The first article discusses how gender stereotypes from a young age influence greater male than female interest in technology. The second article examines how portrayals of technology as masculine discourage women and calls for making courses appeal to female ways of knowing. The third article details a study showing female students felt they received insufficient guidance about technology courses. The fourth provides an overview of the articles' findings that gender differences in technology education should be addressed to engage all students.
Women in Science: numbers, challenges and ways forward. Presentation designed for the Young Women's Leadership Conference at City College of New York, March 20, 2015
This document summarizes efforts in the United States to improve recruitment and retention of women in physics. It provides data on the low percentage of women currently in physics fields and programs that have been established, including conferences, mentoring programs, professional development workshops, media coverage, and government initiatives, to encourage more women to enter and remain in physics careers.
Stella - aftershow discussion about nebulae and women in astronomyKaren Masters
Slides prepared for an aftershow discussion about nebulae and women in astronomy to accompany the performance of STELLA: a play about women, their men, and astronomy (by Take the Space) which happened in Portsmouth, UK on 29th October 2013
Implicit bias in higher ed - for undergraduatesKim Cobb
A brief overview of the concept of implicit bias as it relates to a campus setting, specifically designed for an undergraduate audience. Discussion-oriented slide set.
Study on gender misattributions in citations of scientific papers - female-turned-male errors are more common than the reverse, but there is not a lot of mistakes in general
The Computer Scientist and the Cleaner v5turingfan
This document is a draft talk by Ian Gent about gender balance in computer science. It discusses how subtle biases can negatively impact women in the field. It presents an experiment that showed science faculty viewed identical resumes of male and female students differently, rating the male students as more competent and hireable. The document advocates for increasing gender diversity in computing, noting that subtle biases still exist today and excluding women deprives the field of valuable talent. It uses an analogy of difficulty settings in games to illustrate how gender and racial biases can compound, making success harder for women and minorities.
Similar to Women in STEM Disciplines: Walking boundaries (15)
This document outlines a study using institutional ethnography to understand the experiences of STEM faculty members with career and parental leave policies. It introduces the research methodology, which examines how social relations and policies shape peoples' experiences within institutions. Interviews were conducted with 25 STEM faculty and administrators to identify disconnects between peoples' experiences of the parental leave policy and its actual structures. Preliminary themes and recommendations from the interviews are presented. The study aims to improve leave policies and demonstrate how this research method can help administrators enhance faculty work conditions.
The document analyzes published sustainability principles and engineering courses to define "sustainable engineering" knowledge for students. It codes 160 principles from 15 sustainability documents into 59 codes organized into 6 themes. Themes include traditional environmental goals, specific things to protect/improve, systems thinking, social equity/justice, intergenerational responsibility, and economic viability. Comparing the principles and course descriptions may help determine necessary sustainability knowledge for students.
This document describes ongoing research to develop a framework for assessing undergraduate engineering students' knowledge of sustainability concepts. The researchers are analyzing published literature, conducting interviews with students, and consulting experts to synthesize key sustainability principles. Their goal is to help engineering faculty incorporate sustainability into traditional courses by providing a method to evaluate student understanding without extensive content additions. Preliminary findings suggest the framework may focus more on shifting student mindsets than teaching specific technical skills. The researchers plan to disseminate their work through publications and conferences to influence sustainability education.
This project uses personal narratives from underrepresented undergraduate engineering students to examine how gender and racial structures within engineering education institutions affect students' experiences and persistence. The researcher will collect narratives and analyze them to identify specific institutional characteristics that strongly support or challenge student academic success. Rather than focusing on statistical generalizations, this approach aims to learn from small numbers of individual stories and examine institutions as the unit of analysis. The goal is to provide leadership within engineering education insights into lived experiences of marginalized students that could promote institutional change.
This project uses personal narratives from underrepresented undergraduate engineering students to examine how gender and racial structures within engineering education institutions affect students' experiences and persistence. The researcher will collect narratives and analyze them to identify specific institutional factors that strongly influence student academic success or present challenges. In contrast to prior research relying on large data sets, this approach focuses on learning from small numbers of individual stories to illuminate institutional barriers and how policies could support greater diversity and inclusion. Educational workshops will share narrative personas with engineering leaders to provide insight they may lack into marginalized students' lived experiences and how institutional changes could better support all groups.
This document describes ongoing research to develop a framework for assessing undergraduate engineering students' knowledge of sustainability concepts. The researchers are analyzing published literature, conducting interviews with students, and consulting experts to synthesize key sustainability principles. Their goal is to help engineering faculty incorporate sustainability into traditional courses by providing a method to evaluate student understanding without extensive content additions. Preliminary findings suggest the framework may focus more on shifting student mindsets than teaching specific technical skills. The researchers plan to disseminate their work through publications and conferences to influence sustainability education.
This document outlines the plan for an unconventional conference session on developing a course reader about gender and engineering. The session will use an "unconference" model where attendees actively participate in discussions rather than passively listening to presentations. The session is divided into two conversations - the first to discuss definitions of gender and engineering, and the second to identify important questions the reader should answer. Attendees will report out key ideas to inform revising the reader prospectus, with the goal of continuing the conversation in future years.
This document outlines a project to develop a framework to assess sustainability knowledge in engineering undergraduate students. The project has three major phases: 1) coding of literature on sustainability principles, 2) interviews with undergraduate engineers, and 3) a workshop with experts from engineering and other fields. Initial findings include mapping statements of sustainability principles and coding themes from journal literature. Next steps include analyzing interview data and planning the expert workshop to help develop the assessment framework. The overall goal is to provide a tool to help integrate relevant sustainability content into engineering coursework.
The Society of Women Engineers’ National Collection is an archive with rich potential for investigating the historical story of women’s identities as engineers. Filled with newspaper and magazine clippings, oral histories of pioneer women engineers, and SWE’s own institutional history, these archives allow us to see how women engineers were skillfully positioned as acceptably feminine, despite their peculiar profession. Noting women’s body measurements, hair color, dressing habits, and even home address, in addition to their usual marker of age, such newspaper reports pointed out the unusualness of individual women’s participation in engineering against a backdrop of national discussions on white women’s suitability for the paid workforce and their cultural roles as wives and mothers. Embedded in these historical data are additional threads of race – of note to the newspapers are the white women who choose to work until marriage, rather than women of color colleagues, even sparser to find, and who have never questioned their need to work in the paid workforce.
In this paper we describe the content analysis method by which we processed these historical data, and some of the conclusions we have drawn about women’s identities as engineers as portrayed through historical public sources drawn from 1900-1980 with a focus on the 1950s and 1960s.
More from Research in Feminist Engineering Group (9)
How Barcodes Can Be Leveraged Within Odoo 17Celine George
In this presentation, we will explore how barcodes can be leveraged within Odoo 17 to streamline our manufacturing processes. We will cover the configuration steps, how to utilize barcodes in different manufacturing scenarios, and the overall benefits of implementing this technology.
THE SACRIFICE HOW PRO-PALESTINE PROTESTS STUDENTS ARE SACRIFICING TO CHANGE T...indexPub
The recent surge in pro-Palestine student activism has prompted significant responses from universities, ranging from negotiations and divestment commitments to increased transparency about investments in companies supporting the war on Gaza. This activism has led to the cessation of student encampments but also highlighted the substantial sacrifices made by students, including academic disruptions and personal risks. The primary drivers of these protests are poor university administration, lack of transparency, and inadequate communication between officials and students. This study examines the profound emotional, psychological, and professional impacts on students engaged in pro-Palestine protests, focusing on Generation Z's (Gen-Z) activism dynamics. This paper explores the significant sacrifices made by these students and even the professors supporting the pro-Palestine movement, with a focus on recent global movements. Through an in-depth analysis of printed and electronic media, the study examines the impacts of these sacrifices on the academic and personal lives of those involved. The paper highlights examples from various universities, demonstrating student activism's long-term and short-term effects, including disciplinary actions, social backlash, and career implications. The researchers also explore the broader implications of student sacrifices. The findings reveal that these sacrifices are driven by a profound commitment to justice and human rights, and are influenced by the increasing availability of information, peer interactions, and personal convictions. The study also discusses the broader implications of this activism, comparing it to historical precedents and assessing its potential to influence policy and public opinion. The emotional and psychological toll on student activists is significant, but their sense of purpose and community support mitigates some of these challenges. However, the researchers call for acknowledging the broader Impact of these sacrifices on the future global movement of FreePalestine.
Leveraging Generative AI to Drive Nonprofit InnovationTechSoup
In this webinar, participants learned how to utilize Generative AI to streamline operations and elevate member engagement. Amazon Web Service experts provided a customer specific use cases and dived into low/no-code tools that are quick and easy to deploy through Amazon Web Service (AWS.)
Beyond Degrees - Empowering the Workforce in the Context of Skills-First.pptxEduSkills OECD
Iván Bornacelly, Policy Analyst at the OECD Centre for Skills, OECD, presents at the webinar 'Tackling job market gaps with a skills-first approach' on 12 June 2024
A Visual Guide to 1 Samuel | A Tale of Two HeartsSteve Thomason
These slides walk through the story of 1 Samuel. Samuel is the last judge of Israel. The people reject God and want a king. Saul is anointed as the first king, but he is not a good king. David, the shepherd boy is anointed and Saul is envious of him. David shows honor while Saul continues to self destruct.
Chapter wise All Notes of First year Basic Civil Engineering.pptxDenish Jangid
Chapter wise All Notes of First year Basic Civil Engineering
Syllabus
Chapter-1
Introduction to objective, scope and outcome the subject
Chapter 2
Introduction: Scope and Specialization of Civil Engineering, Role of civil Engineer in Society, Impact of infrastructural development on economy of country.
Chapter 3
Surveying: Object Principles & Types of Surveying; Site Plans, Plans & Maps; Scales & Unit of different Measurements.
Linear Measurements: Instruments used. Linear Measurement by Tape, Ranging out Survey Lines and overcoming Obstructions; Measurements on sloping ground; Tape corrections, conventional symbols. Angular Measurements: Instruments used; Introduction to Compass Surveying, Bearings and Longitude & Latitude of a Line, Introduction to total station.
Levelling: Instrument used Object of levelling, Methods of levelling in brief, and Contour maps.
Chapter 4
Buildings: Selection of site for Buildings, Layout of Building Plan, Types of buildings, Plinth area, carpet area, floor space index, Introduction to building byelaws, concept of sun light & ventilation. Components of Buildings & their functions, Basic concept of R.C.C., Introduction to types of foundation
Chapter 5
Transportation: Introduction to Transportation Engineering; Traffic and Road Safety: Types and Characteristics of Various Modes of Transportation; Various Road Traffic Signs, Causes of Accidents and Road Safety Measures.
Chapter 6
Environmental Engineering: Environmental Pollution, Environmental Acts and Regulations, Functional Concepts of Ecology, Basics of Species, Biodiversity, Ecosystem, Hydrological Cycle; Chemical Cycles: Carbon, Nitrogen & Phosphorus; Energy Flow in Ecosystems.
Water Pollution: Water Quality standards, Introduction to Treatment & Disposal of Waste Water. Reuse and Saving of Water, Rain Water Harvesting. Solid Waste Management: Classification of Solid Waste, Collection, Transportation and Disposal of Solid. Recycling of Solid Waste: Energy Recovery, Sanitary Landfill, On-Site Sanitation. Air & Noise Pollution: Primary and Secondary air pollutants, Harmful effects of Air Pollution, Control of Air Pollution. . Noise Pollution Harmful Effects of noise pollution, control of noise pollution, Global warming & Climate Change, Ozone depletion, Greenhouse effect
Text Books:
1. Palancharmy, Basic Civil Engineering, McGraw Hill publishers.
2. Satheesh Gopi, Basic Civil Engineering, Pearson Publishers.
3. Ketki Rangwala Dalal, Essentials of Civil Engineering, Charotar Publishing House.
4. BCP, Surveying volume 1
Temple of Asclepius in Thrace. Excavation resultsKrassimira Luka
The temple and the sanctuary around were dedicated to Asklepios Zmidrenus. This name has been known since 1875 when an inscription dedicated to him was discovered in Rome. The inscription is dated in 227 AD and was left by soldiers originating from the city of Philippopolis (modern Plovdiv).
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
!"#$%&'#()*+,-.-,/01, &,2,&,
3#)),1020,
!"!#$%&#'()*+,-#./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
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
!"#$%&'#()*+,-.-,/01, &,2,&,
3#)),1020,
!"!#$%&#'()*+,-#./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
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
!"#$%&'#()*+,-.-,/01, &,2,&,
3#)),1020,
!"!#$%&#'()*+,-#./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
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
!"#$%&'#()*+,-.-,/01, &,2,&,
3#)),1020,
!"!#$%&#'()*+,-#./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
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
!"#$%&'#()*+,-.-,/01, &,2,&,
3#)),1020,
!"!#$%&#'()*+,-#./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
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
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
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