Inequity in graduate engineering identity: Disciplinary differences and opportunity structures

Bahnson, Matthew; Perkins, Heather; Tsugawa, Marissa; Satterfield, Derrick; Parker, Mackenzie; Cass, Cheryl; Kirn, Adam

doi:10.1002/jee.20427

Cited by 17 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 62 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The result indicated statistically significant differences between minoritized students and nonminoritized students, and on average, the REI measured minoritized students as having fewer opportunities in their research experiences. These results and the prior research from Bahnson et al (2021) provide insight on why differences are sometimes measured between some groups and not in others: it depends on what construct is being measured.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 62%

“…Borrego et al (2017) surveyed engineering master's and PhD students and found no significant gender differences in students' satisfaction in their research experiences between women and men. Bahnson et al (2021) studied opportunity structures in engineering PhD students' experiences and conducted a survey with 1754 participants and found no significant gender differences in students' identity as a researcher between women and men.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Specifically, the report recommended that “many respondents recommended that institutions and departments be more proactive in providing research and professional development opportunities” (Sowell et al, 2015, p. 48) for minoritized PhD students. As previously mentioned, Bahnson et al (2021) studied opportunity structures in engineering PhD students' experiences and conducted a survey with 1754 participants, and found significant race/ethnicity differences in students' identity as an engineer between minoritized students and nonminoritized students.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Bahnson et al (2021) T A B L E 1 5 Mean factor scores for gender, race/ethnicity, and engineering discipline subgroups See TableA1in Appendix A for all scores by race/ethnicity. See TableB1in Appendix B for all scores by engineering discipline.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Research experiences instrument: Validation evidence for an instrument to assess the research experiences of engineering PhD students' professional practice opportunities

Holloway

Douglas

Radcliffe

et al. 2022

J of Engineering Edu

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background There are long‐held concerns about how graduate research programs prepare engineering PhD students for professional practice. Suitable instruments are lacking to effectively assess how research experiences contribute to the success of graduate students becoming professionals. Purpose The purpose of this work is to examine evidence of internal reliability and validity of using the research experiences instrument (REI) scores as a measure of engineering PhD students' professional practice opportunities in their research experiences. Method REI was constructed using an ontological framework. REI was administered twice to engineering PhD students, once to a single university (n = 236) and once to multiuniversities (n = 215). Psychometric analyses were conducted related to validity and reliability evidence, including exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, and group score comparisons between genders, race/ethnicity, and engineering disciplines. Results Results of both factor analyses aligned with the theoretical five‐factor structure, with a second‐order Opportunity factor. Mean scores were the same between women and men, and for three engineering disciplines, but significantly lower for racially/ethnically minoritized groups. Factor scores indicate that students often lack opportunities to engage with professionals, a likely cause of students' professional practice struggles. Conclusions Evidence of validity has been provided to justify the use of REI to assess the unique research experiences of engineering PhD students as these relate to preparedness for professional practice. REI scores can be used for gender and race/ethnicity comparisons and are generalizable across engineering disciplines. Where students' REI scores show a lack of opportunities, remedial strategies can be implemented.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 62%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Research experiences instrument: Validation evidence for an instrument to assess the research experiences of engineering PhD students' professional practice opportunities

Holloway

Douglas

Radcliffe

et al. 2022

J of Engineering Edu

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The experiences described by our participants point to ways policy and practice have failed to make engineering doctoral education equitable (Bahnson et al, 2021;Bancroft, 2018;Burt, Williams & Smith, 2018;Burt, Williams & Palmer, 2019;McGee, 2016;McGee & Martin, 2011;Perkins et al, 2020;Ramirez, 2014). The ruling relations of doctoral education function as intended to support to traditional students; while limiting success and generating differential educational experiences for TUSs (Pawley, 2019).…”

Section: Studies In Engineering Educationmentioning

confidence: 91%

Interacting with Ruling Relations: Engineering Graduate Student Experiences of Discrimination

Bahnson

Satterfield

Wyer

et al. 2022

Studies in Engineering Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background:The retention of traditionally underserved students remains a problem across graduate engineering programs. Women and men of color and white women leave graduate programs without their intended degree at higher rates than their white male peers. Experiences of discrimination may hinder degree progress for students with marginalized identities.Purpose/Hypothesis: This study investigated women and men of color and white women's experiences of discrimination in graduate engineering programs through the lens of ruling relations.Design/Methods: Semi-structured qualitative individual interviews explored the experiences of doctoral engineering students. Comparative analysis methods uncovered themes derived from participants' experiences of discrimination in engineering graduate education.Results: Women and men of color and white women experienced discrimination from peers, faculty, and advisors in settings such as classrooms, offices, and labs. Based on the themes and ruling relations identified, three significant findings can be distilled: (1) marginalized students recognize some of the norms and systems that marginalize them;(2) interactions that marginalize students are set into the social fabric of engineering and include excluding some students while including others; and (3) everyday interactions sustain and reproduce the oppressive norms. Conclusions:This study offers perspectives that can help graduate program directors and graduate advisors and faculty cultivate equitable environments and assist peer graduate students in understanding their marginalized peers. The implications of this work point to steps necessary to improve the graduate engineering environment for marginalized students.*Author affiliations can be found in the back matter of this article 54 Bahnson et al. Studies in Engineering Education 56 Bahnson et al. Studies in Engineering Education 57 Bahnson et al. Studies in Engineering Education 65 Bahnson et al.

show abstract

Peripheral vision

Benson

2021

J of Engineering Edu

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In many of my editorials over the past few years, I have discussed looking ahead, keying in on where we want to go and not being distracted by what might be in our way. This laser-like focus is important for achieving our goals, but we also need to be aware of what is around us. Things on the periphery of our awareness are often discounted. To justify focusing only on what is in our consciousness, we deem other things as unimportant, or worse, "soft" (as in the dreaded term "soft skills"). But if we simply stay in our lane and do not stop to consider our surroundings, there is much that we will miss. And much of what we are ignoring truly needs our attention.Who and what are on the periphery of the engineering education community? What contexts and issues are we not paying attention to? JEE is the voice of the engineering education community. We make choices about what is important or relevant, and we let those things into our consciousness-we publish them. How do we make those choices? Speaking on behalf of JEE, I can point to a scope, a mission, author guidelines, review criteria, and editorial processes (Journal of Engineering Education, 2021a, 2021b, 2021c) we use to evaluate scholarship that is submitted to the journal. As a community, we are bound to upholding these criteria and processes, but we are not bound by them. It is up to us as a community of peers to communicate what we identify as important and to decide how to include voices, topics, and methods that have historically been on the periphery.The idea of peripheral vision captures much of the content of this issue of JEE, starting with a guest editorial by James Holly, Jr., and Stephanie Masta on how critical race theory (CRT) can bring into focus what has historically been on the periphery of our consciousness: Whiteness in engineering education. These authors highlight the relevance of CRT for engineering education as we move beyond just documenting and understanding the reality of racism in engineering education and take action to dismantle White supremacy in our midst.The work included in this issue-the guest editorial, original articles, and research reviews-can open conversations about populations and topics on the periphery in different ways. Populations in focus in this issue include children with disabilities (Gold et al., 2021), female high school students (Carnemolla & Galea, 2021), makers in the Navajo Nation (Frank et al., 2021), diverse engineering students in a mentoring program (Washington & Mondisa, 2021), traditionally underserved graduate students (Kirn et al., 2021), and Black children (London et al., 2021). Topics that pull the margins in toward the center include professional shame (Secules et al., 2021) and assessing programs designed to broaden participation in engineering (Holloman et al., 2021). Other important works presented in this issue provide insight on processes that shape experiences within our community: assessing engineering identity formation (Li et al., 2021), students' leadership development (Wolfinbarger et a...

show abstract

Inequity in graduate engineering identity: Disciplinary differences and opportunity structures

Cited by 17 publications

References 62 publications

Research experiences instrument: Validation evidence for an instrument to assess the research experiences of engineering PhD students' professional practice opportunities

Research experiences instrument: Validation evidence for an instrument to assess the research experiences of engineering PhD students' professional practice opportunities

Interacting with Ruling Relations: Engineering Graduate Student Experiences of Discrimination

Peripheral vision

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About