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.
This PowerPoint helps students to consider the concept of infinity.
Women in STEM Disciplines: Walking boundaries
1. Women in STEM Disciplines
Alice L. Pawley
School of Engineering Education
Purdue University
November 9, 2010
Walking boundaries...
Women’s Studies Noon Lecture
:
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
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