Background: Engineers need to be able to make robust design decisions. Because design is an ill-structured endeavor, design decisions require some combination of rationalistic, intuitive, and empathic approaches. However, engineering education remains largely oriented towards the use of rationalistic approaches. Purpose/Hypothesis: We posit that the persistent gap between the need to leverage diverse approaches to make engineering design decisions and the emphasis on primarily rationalistic approaches in engineering spaces is due, in part, to the beliefs that individuals hold about diverse approaches. Design/Method: We analyzed interview transcripts to identify the beliefs shared by students and by faculty (as individual units of analysis) about rationalistic, intuitive, and empathic approaches to making engineering design decisions, and then we compared the shared beliefs of the two groups. Results: Students and faculty similarly shared a belief that rationalistic approaches are normative in engineering. The two groups also had a common, general belief that empathic approaches are missing in engineering, but they differed in the ways in which they talked about empathic approaches. Finally, the two groups differed in their beliefs about the role of diverse approaches in practice: students believed rationalistic approaches are and should be used most in practice, but faculty believed that rationalistic approaches are inherently limited and therefore require the use of intuitive approaches. Conclusions: We interpret the pervasive belief that engineers are expected to portray their design decision making as primarily rational as a reflection of an unrealistic yet powerful social norm in engineering spaces, which can be understood as a key part of how the exclusive culture of engineering is perpetuated. We see a need to teach explicitly about this social norm in order to disrupt it, and we encourage engineering educators to reflect on how the ways in which their praxis might endorse or reinforce such unrealistic beliefs, either explicitly or implicitly.

She received her Ph.D. in Biomedical Engineering and her B.S. and M.S. in Chemical Engineering from The Ohio State University. Her research focuses on making engineering accessible to all students through the use of art-infused curriculum and integration of entrepreneurial minded learning (EML).

Well-structured, de-contextualized problems that can be solved using solely technical approaches remain a large component of the engineering education curriculum. As a result, students may mistakenly believe that all engineering work can be done the same way—without the use of other approaches. Capstone design courses are an established way of exposing undergraduate students to ill-structured design tasks that more realistically reflect engineering practice. Yet, little is known about the influence of their capstone design experiences on their beliefs about how engineering design decisions are made. Our study compared students’ beliefs about four diverse approaches (technical, empathic, guess-based, and experience-based) to making engineering design decisions at the start of their capstone to their beliefs held at the end of their capstone. We conducted and analyzed qualitative transcripts from one-on-one, semi-structured interviews with 17 capstone students. We found little evidence that students’ experience in capstone courses changed their beliefs about diverse approaches to making engineering design decisions. The minimal change that we did find in students’ beliefs was primarily about guess-based approaches, and that change was not uniform amongst the students who did demonstrate change. Our findings point to the resiliency of students’ beliefs about approaches to design decisions throughout an engineering capstone design experience. Therefore, we recommend instructors foster reflexivity within their classrooms to disrupt these limited, normative beliefs about the approaches needed to make engineering design decisions.

BackgroundEngineers are socialized to value rational approaches to problem solving. A lack of awareness of how engineers use different decision‐making approaches is problematic because it perpetuates the ongoing development of inequitable engineering designs and contributes to a lack of inclusion in the field. Although researchers have explored how engineering students are socialized, further work is needed to understand students' beliefs about different decision‐making approaches.Purpose/HypothesisWe explored the espoused beliefs of undergraduate students about technical, empathic, experience‐based, and guess‐based approaches to engineering design decisions.Design/MethodWe conducted semistructured one‐on‐one interviews with 20 senior engineering students at the conclusion of their capstone design experience. We used a combination of deductive and inductive data condensation approaches to generate categories of beliefs.ResultsWe identified a total of nine categories of beliefs, organized by approach. Although students' espoused beliefs did reflect the emphasis on technical approaches present in their socialization, they also described technical approaches as limited and overvalued.ConclusionThe landscape of beliefs presented make explicit both the challenges and the opportunities that students' beliefs play as the backdrop for any efforts of engineering educators to develop engineers as effective and equitable engineering designers.