Written evidence submitted by Dr Diane Harris, Manchester Institute of Education, The University of Manchester

(DIV0011)

 

Introduction

 

  1. I am a Research Fellow at The University of Manchester. My research focuses on science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education, with particular reference to engineering education.  My interest is that engineering is not viewed as a twenty-first century occupation because the innovative and life-changing work of today’s engineers is not appropriately assigned to the world of engineering.

 

  1. I am submitting evidence based on a range of research that I have been involved in, which focuses on: equality, diversity and inclusion, gender stereotypes, parental and teacher influence on subject choice and the teaching of engineering in HE.

 

  1. Since 2018, I have been working with Dr Maria Pampaka as lead investigators on a joint initiative ‘Researching Futures in Engineering’ (REFINE) which has involved dissemination of research findings to industry, academia and schools.

The nature or extent to which women, ethnic minorities and those from disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds are underrepresented in STEM in academia and industry

Gender

  1. At a time when there is a shortage of students (especially female students) in engineering disciplines in the UK, research shows that women are engaged with science but the subject areas that they choose are not necessarily the ones that are of strategic importance to policymakers and employers, for example engineering.1

 

  1. In 2018/19, women accounted for more than half (57%) of the student population and 51% of the applicants for STEM subjects in HE were women2 but only 19.1% of first year engineering students were women.3 This is likely to be attributable to a lack of visibility of the opportunities in engineering as a career rather than academic achievement. 4

 

  1. Currently, only 14.5% of the engineering workforce in the UK are women5 which contrasts sharply with 50% and 53% respectively in Oman and Malaysia.6

 

Ethnicity

 

  1. In 2021, just 7.8% of engineering professionals came from black and minority ethnic (BAME) backgrounds, compared to 12% of the UK working age population.7 These students also have poorer employment prospects after graduating, with just 51% of BAME engineering graduates finding full-time jobs after six months compared with 71% of white engineering graduates.8

 

  1. Some ethnic minority students tend to have limited aspirations to take up careers in science and remain underrepresented in post-16 science courses and careers.9

 

  1. This varies by ethnic group and is dependent on a range of factors – some minority ethnic groups exhibit much higher aspirations (both young people and parents) and progression into STEM than might otherwise be expected. However, students from black backgrounds in the UK who study STEM subjects have poorer degree outcomes and lower rates of academic career progression than other ethnic groups. 10

 

  1. Many ethnic minority pupils feel they need to insure themselves against the discrimination they anticipate that they will face in the labour market. To future proof themselves, these students have a heightened drive for formal qualifications.11

 

Socioeconomic background

 

  1. Only 9% of students studying engineering come from the most deprived areas (POLAR quintile 1). Students from black and Afro-Caribbean families are also under-represented due to a significant intersection with disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds.12

 

  1. My research has found that entry into engineering is dominated by those with an existing connection (such as having an engineer in the family) or guidance at school.13, 14

 

  1. I have also found that students from lower socio-economic backgrounds tend not to choose science post-16.  This is to some extent driven by the lower average attainment of students from poorer backgrounds.15

The reasons why these groups are underrepresented

  1. These begin in early childhood with lower expectations of female competence (and interest) in science and mathematics16 so there are already fewer women who might take up engineering and research.

 

  1. Numbers are further reduced because women’s interest in engineering is the result of a strong interest in science subjects at school, whereas men are motivated by their interest in technically-advanced products and machinery.17

 

  1. Women’s interest in engineering focuses on rational choice whereas men take up engineering due to their passion for all things technical.18

 

  1. Whether it is because women approach their work differently to men, but some do experience imposter syndrome i.e. the feeling of not being good enough or being a fraud which in turn can lead to lower efficacy.19

 

  1. Women may become aware that engineering in male–dominated university programmes is neither open nor welcoming to them.16  This ‘chilly climate’ results in women experiencing lower levels of self-esteem and academic engagement20 and  higher levels of emotional exhaustion and cynicism leading to academic burnout.21

 

  1. The evolutionary need to ‘fit in’ with ones’ peers may be driving women scientists and engineers to modify their own behaviour.  Women may adopt stereotypically male qualities and behaviours, although the authors caution that this may cause other problems because they are ‘violating gender-normative expectations’ and so it seems that no matter how women conduct themselves, they can find that they are in a ‘no-win’ situation.22

 

  1. For those who choose to study engineering, there can be problems if he or she does not fit the ‘norm’ i.e. is judged to have non-desirable/alienating characteristics by the other students.23, 24

 

  1. The culture of masculinity and hierarchy within a school of engineering may be so apparent to prospective students that it may result in problems with the recruitment of more diverse cohorts.25

 

  1. As part of a heteronormative culture, the term ‘bullying’ has now been replaced by ‘banter’ and this seems to be acceptable (and even celebrated)26 but this raises issues about whether unacceptable comments both in and out of lectures and tutorials should be repositioned as ‘only joking’.27

 

  1. My research has found that first year engineering in HE is predominantly mathematics. The pedagogical practice of teaching non-contextualized mathematics and the lack of transparency regarding the significance of mathematics to engineering means that there is a mismatch between first-year students’ expectations of studying engineering and the realities of the course.28

 

  1. If there is a lack of identification with engineering, students may leave engineering altogether.29

 

  1. The students who persevere with engineering develop particular attitudes or coping strategies which fit in with other people’s unconscious bias about engineering students i.e. it perpetuates a cultural norm in engineering in HE.30

 

  1. The non-continuation rate in engineering (7.0%) in 2018/19 which was only slightly higher than the all-subject average of 6.7%, although the rate for male students was higher than for female students (e.g. electronic and electrical engineering: men 6.9%, women 3.9%).2  The reason for this difference may be that self-efficacy in men and women develops in different ways; for men it derives from achievements e.g. passing examinations whereas women’s self-efficacy relies on ‘vicarious experiences and verbal persuasions’. 31 p11 This supports the idea that female students need to have much higher levels of confidence to join an engineering degree programme with men, perhaps, overconfident when they join.

The implications of these groups being underrepresented in STEM roles in academia and industry

  1. These implications are set to transform society and the way we live our everyday lives, but it is engineers who will play a significant role in designing the solutions.

 

  1. There is therefore a compelling business case for women engineers to be involved in research and development to ensure that both male and female perspectives are taken into account, thus allowing for diversity of thought and better outcomes being realised.

 

  1. Women are more likely to appreciate the value of non-technical knowledge and draw on a range of diverse perspectives to find solutions to engineering problems.32

 

  1. There is a similar argument for engineers from BAME backgrounds and from disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds so that these perspectives are also considered.

What has been done to address underrepresentation of particular groups in STEM roles?

  1. The Royal Academy of Engineering mapped the STEM education landscape in 2016. They identified over 600 organisations that are involved in supporting engineering education in some way and a wide range of ‘interventions’ that have been designed specifically to encourage women into engineering, yet the percentage of female recruitment into HE remains stubbornly low.33

 

  1. Many researchers have proposed ways in which interest in studying STEM subjects can be increased. These include having supportive families, 34, 35 focusing interventions to increase interest in STEM for primary and middle school pupils 36 and providing access to supportive advisors. 37, 38

 

  1. Role models were found to be supportive; particularly women role models were found to inspire young women to consider futures in STEM. 39, 40

 

What could and should be done by the UK Government, UK Research and Innovation, other funding bodies, industry and academia to address the issues identified.

  1. Allow more teenagers to study more subjects for longer before having to make irreversible career decisions. Youngsters who are not obviously academically ‘high flying’ are discouraged from continuing the subjects (like maths and physics) that would be useful for practical, vocational careers, including engineering.41

 

  1. Engineering will encourage more diverse participation if it is able to promote a more heterogeneous image i.e. ‘challenge the gendering of “the social” as feminine and “the technical” as masculine – and thus promote new “co-constructions” of gender and engineering simultaneously’. 42 p351

 

  1. I have found that it would significantly improve students’ perceptions of engineering in higher education if the curriculum included discipline-appropriate engineering examples within the mathematics so that students did not feel that they had signed up for a mathematics degree.28

 

  1. The influence of positive role models can be significant and advocates the need for good role models who can be both honest and realistic about engineering in university and the workplace.43 However, there are dangers in role model selection; it can be the case that only attractive female engineers are presented as role models which gives girls the message that to be an engineer you not only have to be highly skilled at mathematics but also have supermodel good looks.44

 

  1. Role models should reflect the particular groups i.e. gender, ethnicity and socioeconomic backgrounds. 45

 

  1. More could be done to eliminate the banter or ‘playful conversations’ that persist in engineering by proactive engagement in active bystander training.46 Although only occasionally followed up, this was developed to follow-on from unconscious bias training to facilitate the development of an inclusive culture.47

 

  1. In order to support the students who do not conform to the engineering stereotype (e.g. students from BAME backgrounds, those from socially disadvantaged backgrounds and women) a non-tolerance approach should be adopted towards the gendered cultures, epistemes and social practices that characterize engineering. Academic staff and students must share responsibility for ensuring that banter and unconscious bias have no place in engineering.48

 

  1. Continuing professional development for teachers and careers advisors so that they are aware of and can advise on the diverse and exciting opportunities in engineering. This may be achieved with support from the various STEM groups and engineering institutions.49

 

  1. Promote engineers and engineering in the media by avoiding negative stereotypical portrayal and increasing awareness of current engineering applications (potential for large-scale change, social responsibility, the relevance to one’s own interests/ concerns).49                

January 2022

References

  1. Smith, E. (2011). “Women into science and engineering? Gendered participation in higher education STEM subjects.” British Educational Research Journal, 37 (6): 993-1014. doi:10.1080/01411926.2010.515019
  2. EngineeringUK (2020). EngineeringUK 2020: The State of Engineering.  London: EngineeringUK.
  3. Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) (2020). Operational Survey Information. https://www.hesa.ac.uk/definitions/operational-surveyinformation#response-rate-targets
  4. EngineeringUK (2020). Our careers, our future: STEM careers provision and young people. https://www.engineeringuk.com/media/232354/our-future-our-careers-2020.pdf
  5. EngineeringUK (2021). Gender Disparity in Engineering. https://www.engineeringuk.com/research/briefings/gender-disparity-in-engineering/
  6. UNESCO (2017). Women still a minority in engineering and computer science 2017. http://www.unesco.org/new/en/media-services/single-view/news/women_still_a_minority_in_engineering_and_computer_science/
  7. Royal Academy of Engineering (2021). Celebrating leading minority ethnic engineers. https://www.raeng.org.uk/diversity-in-engineering/diversity-and-inclusion-at-the-academy/celebrating-leading-ethnic-minorities-in-engineer
  8. Sillem, H. (2017). Driving diversity in engineering. The Engineer. https://www.theengineer.co.uk/comment-driving-diversity-in-engineering/
  9. Archer, L., Dewitt, J., & Osborne, J. (2015). Is science for us? Black students' and parents' views of science and science careers. Science Education, 99(2), 199-237. doi:10.1002/sce.21146
  10. The Royal Society (2021). STEM sector must step up and end unacceptable disparities in Black staff and students academic progression and success. https://royalsociety.org/news/2021/03/stem-ethnicity-report/
  11. Fernández-Reino. M. (2017). Immigrant optimism or anticipated discrimination? Explaining the first educational transition of ethnic minorities in England. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility 46:141-156.
  12. Rich, J. & Fowler, S. (2021). What does Engineering tell us about social mobility? https://www.hepi.ac.uk/2021/05/25/how-far-does-engineering-support-social-mobility/
  13. Harris, D. & Pampaka, M. (2018). Engineering and learning gain: teaching and learning at university.  Engineering Education Systems that are fit for the Future. The Royal Academy of Engineering Conference, 24 and 25 September 2018, Prince Philip House, London. https://www.raeng.org.uk/publications/other/hep-ssa-scp-2-dr-maria-pampaka-dr-diane-harris,-un
  14. Harris, D & Pampaka, M. (2018). Why engineering in the UK must embrace change. http://blog.policy.manchester.ac.uk/posts/2018/07/why-engineering-in-the-uk-must-embrace-change/
  15. Gorard, S., & See, B. H. (2009). The impact of socio‐economic status on participation and attainment in science. Studies in Science Education, 45(1), 93-129.
  16. Burke, R.J. & Mattis, M.C. (2007).  Women and Minorities in Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths: Upping the Numbers.  Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
  17. Casad, B.J., Z.W. Petzel, and E.A. Ingalls (2019). A model of threatening academic environments predicts women STEM majors’ self-esteem and engagement in STEM. Sex Roles 80(7/8): 469.
  18. Burge, S. W. (2013). Cohort changes in the relationship between adolescents’ family attitudes, STEM intentions and attainment. Sociological Perspectives 56 (1):49–73.
  19. Holth, L. (2014). Passionate men and rational women: gender contradictions in engineering. NORMA: International Journal for Masculinity Studies, 9(2), 97-110.
  20. Tao, K. W., & Gloria, A. M. (2019). Should I stay or should I go? The role of impostorism in STEM persistence. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 43(2), 151-164.
  21. Jensen, L.E. & Deemer, E.D. (2019). Identity, campus climate, and burnout among undergraduate women in STEM fields. The Career Development Quarterly 67(2): 96–109.
  22. Caleo, S. & Heilman, M. E. (2014). Is this a man’s world? Obstacles to women’s success in male-typed domains. In R.J. Burke, & D.A. Major (Eds.) Gender in Organizations: Are Men Allies or Adversaries to Women’s Career Advancement. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 217-233.
  23. Tonso, K.L. (2007). On the outskirts of engineering: Learning identity, gender, and power via engineering practice. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
  24. Godfrey, E. & Parker, L. (2010). Mapping the cultural landscape in engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education 99: 5-22. doi: 10.1002/j.2168-9830.2010.tb01038.x
  25. de Pillis, E. & de Pillis, L. (2008). Are engineering schools masculine and authoritarian? The mission statements say yes.  Journal of Diversity in Higher Education 1 (1): 33-44. doi: 10.1037/1938-8926.1.1.33
  26. Pascoe, C. J. (2007). Dude, you're a fag: Masculinity and sexuality in high school. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
  27. Rawlings, V. (2016). Gender Regulation, Violence and Social Hierarchies in School: 'Sluts', 'Gays’ and ‘Scrubs’.  London: Palgrave Macmillan UK.
  28. Harris, D., Black, L., Hernandez-Martinez, P., Pepin, B. & Williams, J. (2015). Mathematics and its value for engineering students: what are the implications for teaching?  International Journal of Mathematics Education in Science and Technology 46 (3): 321-336.  doi: 10.1080/0020739X.2014.979893
  29. Tonso, K. L. (2014). Engineering identity. In A. Johri & B. M. Olds (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Engineering Education Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 267-282.
  30. Seymour, E. & Hewitt, N.M. (1997). Talking about Leaving: Why Undergraduates leave the Sciences. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
  31. Mamaril, N.J. & Royal, K.D. (2008). Women and minorities in engineering: a review of the literature. Paper presented at the 2008 Mid-western Educational Research Association, Columbus, OH. Available at: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ ED506512.pdf
  32. Schwarz, N. (2000). Emotion, cognition, and decision making. Cognition and Emotion 14(4): 433–440.
  33. Royal Academy of Engineering (2016). The UK STEM Education Landscape. London: Royal Academy of Engineering.  http://www.raeng.org.uk/publications/reports/uk-stem-education-landscape
  34. Burge, S. W. (2013). Cohort changes in the relationship between adolescents’ family attitudes, STEM intentions and attainment. Sociological Perspectives 56 (1):49–73.
  35. Lee, E. 2016. Raising STEM daughters. Working Mother 39 (1):48–52.
  36. Valla, J. M., & Williams, W. (2012). Increasing achievement and higher-education representation of under-represented groups in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields: A review of current K-12 intervention programs. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 18(1).21–53.
  37. Byars-Winston, A. (2014). Toward a framework for multicultural STEM-focused career interventions. The Career Development Quarterly 62 (4):340–57. doi:10.1002/cdq.2014.62.issue-4.
  38. Bystydzienski, J. M., Eisenhart, M. & Bruning, M. (2015). High school is not too late: Developing girls’ interest and engagement in engineering careers. The Career Development Quarterly 63 (1):88–95. doi:10.1002/j.2161-0045.2015.00097.x.
  39. Cheryan, S., Siy, J.O., Vichayapai, M., Drury, B.J. and& Kim, S. (2011). Do female and male role models who embody STEM stereotypes hinder women’s anticipated success in STEM? Social Psychological and Personality Science 2 (6):656–64. doi:10.1177/1948550611405218.
  40. Corbett, C. & Hill, C. (2015). Solving the Equation: The Variables for Women’s Success in Engineering and Computing. Washington, DC: American Association of University Women.
  41. Institution of Mechanical Engineers (2015). Social Mobility and the Engineering Profession. https://www.imeche.org/policy-and-press/reports/detail/social-mobility-and-the-engineering-profession
  42. Faulkner, W. (2007). “Nuts and bolts and people”: Gender-troubled engineering identities. Social Studies of Science, 37(3), 331–356.
  43. Schäfer, A.I. (2006). A new approach to increasing diversity in engineering at the example of women in engineering. European Journal of Engineering Education 31 (6): 661-671. doi:10.1080/03043790600911738
  44. Rich, J. (2016). How do students choose? Engineering Professors’ Council Recruitment and Admissions Forum, 9 November 2016, Birdcage Walk, London.
  45. Cummins, J., Beddoes, D., Copestak, P. & Mclean, C. (2004). Taking a Leading Role.  London: The Royal Society. https://royalsociety.org/~/media/Royal_Society_Content/Education/2011-06-07-Taking_a_leading_role_guide.pdf
  46. Peters, J. (2018). Designing Inclusion into engineering education: A fresh, practical look at how diversity impacts on engineering and strategies for change. Royal Academy of Engineering. https://www.raeng.org.uk/publications/reports/designing-inclusion-into-engineering-education
  47. Ashburn-Nardo, L., Morris, K. A., & Goodwin, S. A. (2008). The confronting prejudiced responses (CPR) model: Applying CPR in organizations. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 7(3), 332-342.
  48. Harris, D. (under review). Becoming Engineers: The Role of Gender, Unconscious Bias and Banter during Engineering Students’ First Year in Higher Education.
  49. Harris, D., Pampaka, M., Quinn, J., Kopsidas, K. & Harris, G. (2019). Choosing engineering: what may work and why? [Symposium: What worked (or not): Synthesising evidence in the interplay of theory, policy, practice and research agendas]. BERA Annual Conference, September 2019, University of Manchester.

 

7