Search

For decades, American researchers have brought intellectual, financial and labor resources to understanding minority underrepresentation in engineering, including through studies of persistent racial and gender discrimination in higher engineering education. This paper considers prevailing standards for legitimate and significant research in this area and the persistent stigma associated with the study of small populations. The preference among many engineering education research producers and consumers for the 'large-n' brings with it presumptions about human differences including ideas of race, gender, disability and other categories by which subjects are customarily sorted for analytic purposes. This paper asks how such epistemic preferences enact power, showing how taxonomic inclinations may prevent incisive understanding of demographic privilege in U.S. higher technical education. We offer an illustrative contrast to such studies, describing a qualitative research project on underrepresented minorities in U.S. engineering schools, called 'Learning from Small Numbers'. This project shows the analytic value of intersectional, Queer, and Disabilities Studies theories to interrogate inequity in engineering education. We argue that the reflexivity and indeterminacy supported by these theories illuminates the ruling relations of academic social sciences overall, while also reflecting on our own research preferences. There is no feature of an investigative project, including definitions of subject populations and choice of research methodology, that is not actively chosen by researchers, and it is the profound social consequences of these choices in equity-focused engineering education research that we want to consider. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper contributes new perspectives on the underrepresentation of female faculty in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) disciplines by identifying how faculty themselves conceptualize or make sense of the problem. We conducted in-depth interviews with 19 STEM faculty members. The interviews were employed to identify discourses faculty engage in their explanations for underrepresentation. Work–family balance emerged as the leading theme, with participants identifying many challenges thereto. As participants discussed work–family balance, they engaged a discourse of choice to frame the challenges faced by female faculty members in particular. We relate the discourse of choice to the persistence of gender inequalities in STEM departments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper analyses the role that forms of documentation play in faculty members' experiences of tenure and promotion. Taking an institutional ethnography approach, it examines inconsistencies and ambiguities in documents and connects them to the experiences of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) faculty at one institution in the USA. The authors argue that the university documentation surrounding tenure and promotion does not capture the actual practices and experiences of faculty members as they prepare for their tenure or promotion and that the documentation creates a ‘flexibility bind’ of tenure and promotion. Faculty members' strategies for navigating this bind are also examined. The implications of these findings for diversity among STEM faculty are also explored. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

This article argues that interviewing is a process in which interviewees can reflect on critical decisions about their academic careers. Reflective practice is a course of action where a person ponders significant incidents in her or his life. In so doing, she or he can make critical decisions about her or his own well-being. Drawing on our experiences collecting qualitative data for ADVANCE Purdue, an NSF-funded project to increase the number and success of women faculty in STEM academic disciplines, we illustrate how interviews triggered our interviewees to think differently about accessing or interpreting promotion and tenure policies of the university. Hence, we argue that interviews can be considered as a form of reflective practice where interviewees decide to take alternative actions to enhance their well-being. In this paper, we ask: (a) How do interviews trigger new realizations among interviewees?; and (b) How do interviews act as agents of potential social change? Data are derived from semi-structured interviews with faculty members from science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and agriculture disciplines at Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana. We interpret the data qualitatively in the context of reflective practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]