Guest Editorial – Exclusion and Inclusion in U.S. Engineering Education

Abstract

In 2019, Engineering Studies published our first special issue on men and masculinities in engineering.1 With this year’s special issueonexclusionand inclusion inengineeringeducation, we continue to highlight scholarship that presents innovative insights on the cultures and norms of engineering (education). The three articles in this issue take up questions of who is excluded, who is included, and how those processes happen. Using ethnography, interviews, and document analysis, this collection of articles examines current discourses, policies, and practices that (re)produce exclusion and inclusion in engineering education programs in the United States. The first two articles identify exclusionary mechanisms and norms in the imaginary of who can do engineering and who the ideal engineer is. In ‘Anyone, But Not Everyone: Undergraduate Engineering Students’ Claims ofWho Can Do Engineering’, Jacqueline Rohde, Derrick J. Satterfield, Miguel Rodriguez, Allison Godwin, Geoff Potvin, Lisa Benson, and Adam Kirn examine ‘students’ claims about who can become an engineer and what it takes in engineering culture to be successful.’ In their interviewswith engineering students from four universities, they identified a paradox. The students espoused a belief that anyone could do engineering, but only if they possessed particular traits, such as a passion for engineering and an engineering mindset. The authors connect the students’ responses to the discursive resources of the American Dream and engineering meritocracy, concluding that although the students’ discourses aboutwhocandoengineeringmayappear inclusive, they are actually exclusionary for those without particular traits. In ‘The Making of “Ideal” Electrical and Computer Engineers: A Departmental Document Analysis’, Rachel E. Friedensen, Sarah Rodriguez, and Erin Doran used document analysis methods to examine departmental messaging about the normative identity of electrical and computer engineering students at one university. They found that the departmental texts and images, such as strategic plans, newsletters, andABET self-study reports, paint the picture of an ideal electrical and computer engineer who performs technical competence, is publicly recognized for that, andwhose interest is taken for granted.While other abilities, such as understanding societal and environmental impacts of engineering, arementioned, they are not given space in the curriculum. Additionally, the ideal engineer featured in the documents is a member of a dominant group who can manage individuals from diverse backgrounds. This narrow image of the ideal engineer is problematic because it may serve to exclude students who do not see themselves reflected in that imaginary. The authors identify recommendations for how departments canmake their messagingmore inclusive. The third article, ‘Transformation and Stasis: An Exploration of LGBTQA Students Prefiguring the Social Practices of Engineering for Greater Inclusivity’ looks instead at how exclusionary norms are being challenged by one group of students. Yet it also identifies norms that seem more resistant to change than others. Through the lens of prefiguration,