Gender and Modes of Collaboration in a Chemical Engineering Design Course

Abstract

Modes of collaboration are gendered in the sense that they define power relationships among members of a group. In this study, the authors define three collaborative modes: dialogic, asymmetrical, and hierarchical. Dialogic and asymmetrical modes are emancipating and characterized by flexibility, open-ended inquiry, and concern for the growth and development of the individuals involved. Hierarchical modes are oppressive and are characterized by rigidity and suppression of the voices of others in the group. Two collaborative writing groups in a chemical engineering design course exemplify these modes. The first, composed of two women and two men, was primarily dialogic, and the second, composed of two women and three men, exhibited characteristics of all three modes.

Group work experiences of women students in a Scottish chemical engineering programme

“…Secondly, the assessment of the 'Renewable Energies' project happens at 425 the end of the first semester, while all other assessments are undertaken in semester two. As 426 indicated by the previous discussion, and supported by the open literature [11], there is a tendency for 427 women students to rebel against their assumed roles but only once they have identified that 'pigeon-428 holing' has occurred. It could, therefore, be that women students' awareness of being assigned 429 specific tasks happens during semester one, during which time they have assumed greater 430 responsibility for these tasks, such as the report presentation and group organisation required in the 431 'Renewable Energies' project, correlated to an increase in marks for women-dominated groups.…”

“…36 The role of women in team activities has been evaluated as cooperative, as opposed to the 37 competitive nature associated with men students: this has, in turn, suggested that women students 38 are more suited to collaborative working than their male colleagues [9,10]. Despite their natural 39 cooperation in group situations, it has also been reported that women students often face negative 40 attitudes from their men peers [11,12], and may be allocated group roles, such as secretarial tasks, 41 based on gender related assumptions. It is notable and encouraging, however, that University 42 teaching staff offer fair treatment to all students regardless of gender [11] [12].…”

“…Despite their natural 39 cooperation in group situations, it has also been reported that women students often face negative 40 attitudes from their men peers [11,12], and may be allocated group roles, such as secretarial tasks, 41 based on gender related assumptions. It is notable and encouraging, however, that University 42 teaching staff offer fair treatment to all students regardless of gender [11] [12]. The assignment of 43 office based tasks may result from women students' inherent feelings towards contributing to the 44 nurturing and people oriented areas of group dynamics [11].…”

“…It is notable and encouraging, however, that University 42 teaching staff offer fair treatment to all students regardless of gender [11] [12]. The assignment of 43 office based tasks may result from women students' inherent feelings towards contributing to the 44 nurturing and people oriented areas of group dynamics [11]. It has also been postulated that such 45 submissive behaviour may be related to the established but, more importantly, latent male dominance 46 evoked by the cultural system of reproduction [13] or instilled definition of role via gender associated 47…”

“Bring the Newbie Into the Fold”: Politeness Strategies of Newcomers and Existing Group Members Within Workplace Meetings

“…Allison and Terry would also preview work that the team would be completing in the future and would attempt to ascertain which group member or members would be best suited for the upcoming portion of the project. Even though the team members discussed the pros and cons of each solution, Allison or Terry (or, on a few occasions, Allison and Terry jointly) made the ultimate decisions regarding a solution, making this group more hierarchical than the group of designers who met face to face (Flynn, Savage, Penti, Brown, & Watke, 1991). Much of the meeting was dedicated to sorting the individuals' tasks and allotting the time to be committed to each task.…”