Expanding engineering limits - culture, diversity, and gender
This guide supports the Stanford University course, "Expanding Engineering Limits: Culture, Diversity, and Gender" (ENGR/FEMGEN 311). It serves as a starting point for research on how engineers use theories of intersectionality, design thinking, and workflows to cultivate inclusive, flexible work cultures that produce sustainable and ethical solutions to engineering problems.
Table of Contents
In this guide, the term workforce is used to categorize resources that relate to the education, the management, and the cultures of the people who are training for and work in engineering and technology fields. Resources under this heading include a broad array of topics that expand perspectives on diversity, intersectionality and gender dynamics in engineering workplaces, ecucational settings and institutions. Subtopics include: human relations, management sectors, race, gender, gender identity and institutional change that fosters cultures of inclusion and workplace atmospheres that attend to human dignity.
Keywords for searching
bias, belonging, ethnicity, gender, gender identity, LGBTQ, opportunities, organizational culture, personhood, preparation/education, race, stereotype/ depiction of..,socioeconomic class, workforce dynamics.
Select journal articles
Ayre, Mary, Julie Mills, and Judith Gill. 2013. "'Yes, I Do Belong’: The Women Who Stay in Engineering." Engineering Studies 5 (3): 216–32. doi:10.1080/19378629.2013.855781.
Buzzanell, Patrice M., Ziyu Long, Lindsey B. Anderson, Klod Kokini, and Jennifer C. Batra. 2015. "Mentoring in Academe A Feminist Poststructural Lens on Stories of Women Engineering Faculty of Color." Management Communication Quarterly 29 (3): 440–57. doi:10.1177/0893318915574311.
Correll, Shelley J., Stephen Benard, and In Paik. 2007. "Getting a Job: Is There a Motherhood Penalty?" American Journal of Sociology 112 (5): 1297–1338. doi:10.1086/511799.
Dobbin, Frank, and Alexandra Kalev. 2016. "Why Diversity Programs Fail." Harvard Business Review. July 1. https://hbr.org/2016/07/why-diversity-programs-fail.
Faulkner, Wendy. 2009. "Doing Gender in Engineering Workplace Cultures. I. Observations from the Field." Engineering Studies 1 (1): 3–18. doi:10.1080/19378620902721322.
Hughes, Roxanne M. 2012. "The Process of Choosing Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Careers by Undergraduate Women: A Narrative Life History Analysis." ProQuest Information & Learning (US). http://search.proquest.com/docview/941026627/abstract/744D0C3C7A1B4553PQ/28.
Kanny, M. A., L. J. Sax, and T. A. Riggers-Pieh. 2014. "Investigating Forty Years of Stem Research: How Explanations for the Gender Gap Have Evolved over Time." Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering 20 (2). doi:10.1615/JWomenMinorScienEng.2014007246.
Mihaljević-Brandt, Helena, Lucía Santamaría, and Marco Tullney. 2016. "The Effect of Gender in the Publication Patterns in Mathematics." PLOS ONE 11 (10): e0165367. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0165367.
Nathan, Max, and Neil Lee. 2013. "Cultural Diversity, Innovation, and Entrepreneurship: Firm-Level Evidence from London." Economic Geography 89 (4): 367–94. doi:10.1111/ecge.12016.
Newcomer, Jason M., Patti J. Clark, Dixie K. Button, and Linda V. Weiland. 2016. “Gender Diversity in Aircraft Maintenance: A Cross-Sectional Triangulation of Male Perspectives.” Journal of Gender Studies 0 (0): 1–13. doi:10.1080/09589236.2016.1243046.
Rivera, Lauren A., and András Tilcsik. 2016. “Class Advantage, Commitment Penalty: The Gendered Effect of Social Class Signals in an Elite Labor Market.” American Sociological Review 81 (6): 1097–1131. doi:10.1177/0003122416668154.
Sax, Linda J., M. Allison Kanny, Jerry A. Jacobs, Hannah Whang, Dayna S. Weintraub, and Amber Hroch. 2016. “Understanding the Changing Dynamics of the Gender Gap in Undergraduate Engineering Majors: 1971-2011.” Research in Higher Education 57 (5): 570–600. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11162-015-9396-5.
Stachowiak, Dana M. 2016. “Queering It Up, Strutting Our Threads, and Baring Our Souls: Genderqueer Individuals Negotiating Social and Felt Sense of Gender.” Journal of Gender Studies 0 (0): 1–12. doi:10.1080/09589236.2016.1150817.
Williams, Joan C. 2014. “Hacking Tech’s Diversity Problem.” Harvard Business Review. October 1. https://hbr.org/2014/10/hacking-techs-diversity-problem.
“Women in Science: Quarterly Thematic Publication, Issue I, March 2015; 2015.” 2016. Accessed December 9. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/Ulis/cgi-bin/ulis.pl?catno=235155&set=005633CC2A_1_89&gp=0&lin=1&ll=3.
This section includes resources that point to concepts of inclusion within design theory that unpack conscious considerations for diverse poplutions, including race, ethnicity, gender, gender identity, cultures, and abilities as an integral part of the design process. These sources point to the methodologies that intend to solve engineering problems through the utilitzation of desgin thinking and social science methods. It includes resources on ethnographic field work for understanding the communities of creators and users of an engineering solution as an integrated part of the innovation and production process.
Keywords for searching
critical thinking, design process, design thinking, engineering design- socal aspects, iterative process, interactive process, problem solving, teams-teamwork, usability - use, usefulness, versioning, visualization.
Bairaktarova, Diana, William Z. Bernstein, Tahira Reid, and Karthik Ramani. 2016. “Beyond Surface Knowledge: An Exploration of How Empathic Design Techniques Enhances Engineers Understanding of Users’ Needs.” International Journal of Engineering Education 32 (1): 111–22.
de, Andrade Romualdo. 2016. "Team Igniter an Adaptive Toolkit to Guide and Leverage Collaboration in Teams Seeking to Problem-Solve and Innovate." Order No. 10117700, Rochester Institute of Technology. https://search.proquest.com/docview/1802850242?accountid=14026.
Kaygan, Pınar. 2016. “Gender, Technology, and the Designer’s Work: A Feminist Review.” Design and Culture 8 (2): 235–52. doi:10.1080/17547075.2016.1172862.
Owen, Charles. 2007. “Design Thinking: Notes on ins nature and Use”. Design Research Quarterly, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 16-27.
Razzouk, Rim, and Valerie Shute. 2012. “What Is Design Thinking and Why Is It Important?” Review of Educational Research 82 (3): 330–48. doi:10.3102/0034654312457429.
Walton, Gregory M., Christine Logel, Jennifer M. Peach, Steven J. Spencer, and Mark P. Zanna. 2015. “Two Brief Interventions to Mitigate a ‘chilly Climate’ Transform Women’s Experience, Relationships, and Achievement in Engineering.” Journal of Educational Psychology 107 (2): 468–85. doi:10.1037/a0037461.
Methods & Theory
This section has resources on social science methods and theory. This section is intended to be of use to engineers and engineering students who want to include social science methodologies and theories into their research projects for problem solving.
Keywords for searching
diversity (race & gender identities, socioeconomic status),empathy, ethnography, evaluation, feminism, inclusion, intersectionality, observation, participant observation, quality assessments, survey(s).
Gerdes, Anne. 2014. “What and Whose Values in Design?: The Challenge of Incorporating Ethics into Collaborative Prototyping.” Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society 12 (1): 18–20. doi:10.1108/JICES-11-2013-0054.
Heilbroner, Robert L. 1967. “Do Machines Make History?” Technology and Culture 8 (3): 335–45. doi:10.2307/3101719.
Joerges, Bernward. 1999. “Do Politics Have Artefacts?” Social Studies of Science 29 (3): 411–31. doi:10.1177/030631299029003004.
Rosser, Sue Vilhauer. 2005. “Through the Lenses of Feminist Theory: Focus on Women and Information Technology.” Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies 26 (1): 1–23. doi:10.1353/fro.2005.0015.
Vaughan, Diane. 1990. “Autonomy, Interdependence, and Social Control: NASA and the Space Shuttle Challenger.” Administrative Science Quarterly 35 (2): 225–57. doi:10.2307/2393390.
Westbrook, Laurel, and Aliya Saperstein. 2015. “New Categories Are Not Enough Rethinking the Measurement of Sex and Gender in Social Surveys.” Gender & Society 29 (4): 534–60. doi:10.1177/0891243215584758.
Winner, Langdon. 1980. “Do Artifacts Have Politics?” Daedalus 109 (1): 121–36. Accessed at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20024652
Woolgar, Steve, and Geoff Cooper. 1999. “Do Artefacts Have Ambivalence? Moses’ Bridges, Winner’s Bridges and Other Urban Legends in S&TS.” Social Studies of Science 29 (3): 433–49. Accessed at http://www.jstor.org/stable/285412
Human subject research & IRB
Human subject research and IRB (Institutional Review Board)
In the webpage you will find information about the guidelines for using human subjects for non-medical research.
This is a mixture of selected research databases that cover social science and science & engineering related disciplines with content on gender and diversity topics.
- Volume 1. Women in science and technology
- Volume 2. Body Politics : science and medicine define sex and gender
- Volume 3. Gender bias in science and technology
- Volume 4. Gendered innovations : creating science and technology