The Influence of Climate, Social Networks, and Cultural Models on the Retention of Women and Racially/Ethnically Marginalized Engineers in Graduate School and the Workforce

这个项目以工程专业的研究生、教授和工业界人士为研究对象，旨在了解他们在工程领域所面临的环境以及与他们坚持不懈相关的因素。特别是，这项研究涉及多个解释角度来理解坚持性，包括工程师拥有的知识和信念，他们向谁寻求建议和资源，以及他们在工程中经历的环境。当谈到工程劳动力(工业和学术界)在人口统计学上如何不代表更广泛的美国人口时，这促进了对塑造社会趋势的多重交叉现象的科学认识。这些知识可以帮助创造更具包容性的工程环境，并扩大对该领域的参与。更具代表性的工程劳动力可以通过多种方式改善社会，例如通过支持工程实践和教育的进步，使不同的观点成为可能，从而使人们在学术内外的生活变得更好。这项研究建立在现有数据集的基础上，遵循之前的队列。该项目回顾了来自11所大学的约2100名参与者，他们是2014年进入工程学学位课程的第一年入学的。前一个项目对他们进行了五年的跟踪调查，对55名妇女和代表性不足的学生进行了年度调查和两轮访谈。在新的项目中，我们通过另外两次调查再次跟踪了大队列，并进行了访谈，这次访谈扩大到总共120名受访者。总而言之，这个新项目将数据集扩展为一个为期12年的纵向项目，从学生反思他们的高中最后一年开始，然后跟踪他们进入研究生院或工程专业的头几年。新项目还为第一次研究的许多受访者提供了结果信息，他们在第五年仍在攻读工程学课程。此外，新项目引入了身份测量的额外维度(超越性别和性取向)，以进一步捕捉多样性随后可能与气候和持久性联系在一起的情况。使用EGO网络分析、逻辑回归和反思主题分析，这项工作的结果可以显示制度环境如何与文化模型和社会网络相交，以影响具有不同身份的工程师的持久性，包括种族/民族、双性别性、性别多样性和性。该项目由NSF的EDU核心研究(ECR)计划支持。ECR计划强调基础STEM教育研究，以产生该领域的基础知识。这一奖项反映了NSF的法定使命，并通过使用基金会的智力优势和更广泛的影响审查标准进行评估，认为值得支持。

This project follows engineering graduate students, professors, and those in industry to learn about their experiences when it comes to the climate they face in engineering and the factors that relate to their persistence. Specially, this research involves multiple explanatory angles to understand persistence, including the knowledge and beliefs engineers have, the people whom they go to for advice and resources, and the climate they experience in engineering. This advances scientific knowledge about the multiple intersecting phenomena that shape social trends when it comes to how the engineering workforce (industry and academia) does not represent the broader U.S. population demographically. This knowledge can help craft more inclusive engineering environments and broaden participation in the field. A more representative engineering workforce can improve society in multiple ways, such as by supporting advancements in engineering practice and education made possible by diverse perspectives therefore making peoples’ lives better both inside and outside of the academy.This study builds upon an existing dataset, following a previous cohort. The project revisits approximately 2,100 participants from 11 universities who were enrolled in their first year in an engineering degree program in 2014. The previous project followed them for five years through annual surveys and two rounds of interviews with a subsample of 55 women and underrepresented students. In the new project, we follow the large cohort again using two more surveys, and also conduct interviews this time expanded to a total of 120 interviewees. Altogether, the new project expands the dataset into what will become a 12-year longitudinal project that began with students reflecting on their last year of high school to then following them into their first few years of graduate school or engineering occupations. The new project additionally provides outcome information for many respondents from the first study who were still enrolled in their engineering program at their fifth year. Further, the new project introduces added dimensions of identity measures (beyond binary gender as well as sexuality) to further capture how diversity is likely subsequently tied to climate and persistence. Using Ego Network Analysis, Logistic Regression, and Reflective Thematic Analysis, findings from this work can show how institutional climate intersects with cultural models and social networks to impact persistence in ways that likely vary for engineers with a range of identities, including those of race/ethnicity, binary gender, gender diverse, and sexuality.This project is supported by NSF's EDU Core Research (ECR) program. The ECR program emphasizes fundamental STEM education research that generates foundational knowledge in the field. Investments are made in critical areas that are essential, broad and enduring: STEM learning and STEM learning environments, broadening participation in STEM, and STEM workforce development.This award reflects NSF's statutory mission and has been deemed worthy of support through evaluation using the Foundation's intellectual merit and broader impacts review criteria.