No universal constants: Journeys of women in engineering and computer science

Journal of Engineering Education, Oct 1998 by Ambrose, Susan, Lazarus, Barbara, Nair, Indira

ABSTRACT

This paper describes lessons from stories of thirty-six women in engineering and six women in computer science narrated in our book on journeys of women in science and engineering.1 These stories underscore the various factors that have been described in the literature as reasons women choose and stay in engineering. This paper discusses several of these factors.

Students who reach college are a select group who have overcome the early barriers and are set on a potential track to becoming engineers. The experiences of these women as narrated in the book point to some ofthe positive and negative factors in the formative stages of their lives. Albert Bandura's model of perceived self-efficacy is a theoretical frame work that may be useful in exploring ways of teaching and advising in engineering schools to better meet the needs of the increasingly diverse student population. This framework is discussed briefly, and its components illustrated by examples from the stories. As college advisors and teachers, we need to reaffirm the methods and thinking students have evolved, but which may be challenged by the system based on a "normative student" model.

I. INTRODUCTION: WHY SO FEW?

Despite the progress of recent decades, a relatively small number of women pursue careers in technical fields. Many scholars have attempted to explain the discrepancy in science since Alice Rossi first posed the question "Women in science: why so few?",2 and a considerable body of literature has evolved that discusses the factors influencing girls' and women's decisions to leave mathematics, science, and engineering. Statistics have been compiled and are generally described in a pipeline analogy to describe the progressive attrition of women from science and engineering as they advance through the stages of education.3,4

However, each element of the statistical data has a story behind it. If we are to use data for effecting change, we must understand the stories that provide the ecology of the data. There are few analyses, and hardly any synthesis, of the composite characteristics of the social milieu of engineering that result in fewer women working in engineering. To better understand why American women choose and persist in engineering, science, and technical fields, a group of five faculty and staff at Carnegie Mellon University undertook a project to explore the lives of contemporary women in science and engineering through a series of focused, in-depth interviews. Over a four-year period (1992-1996), our team conducted interviews with more than ninety women. The stories of eighty-eight women are profiled in our book, Journeys of Women in Science and Engineering: No Universal Constants.1 In this paper, we analyze a few of the results of the observations from the profiles of the forty-two engineers and computer scientists in this group of women. We use a broad-brush view of the stories to explore what lessons may emerge for making higher education institutions a place that supports growth and flourishing of all students in engineering.

Part of the objective of this analysis is to draw lessons from these conversations. In doing this, we need to draw distinctions between what we believe statistics of trends of participation or retention can and cannot do. Statistics can give us the warning - or encouraging - signs, but it is the individual story that provides the context and gives us clues about which interventions might effect change. Statistics abstract numbers from stories: they help us to decide when policies are needed or if they are working. Images and frameworks such as the "leaky pipeline" merely indicate the symptoms. But to learn what to do, to really complete the data, we need the ecology of the data and the stories that go with each of the individuals who make up the data. The group of women engineers in our book is not a statistically representative sample of all women engineers, but among them they represent diverse backgrounds and points of view and fields of work. In capturing the lives of women who are happy working in engineering, we have missed some of the lessons failure can teach us. Yet, common aspects about the features of the women and their journeys emerge that can provide guidance for advising and mentoring in colleges and universities, and reveal that a critical person at the right time can often set a child or young person on her way.

The 36 engineers and 6 computer scientists from the book represent a group diverse in the types of engineering and the types of work they do. They are university or college faculty, engineers or managers in private industry, in government or consulting; one is co-owner of a consulting firm, and one is an astronaut. Their ages range from 28 to 90. While our group looks as though it is a broad and representative sample, each woman had a unique story of how she discovered, studied, and stayed in engineering.

Below we highlight relevant features of their choices, examine common features of their journeys, and explore what lessons may be drawn particularly for educational institutions from high school onward.