2023 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

The call for papers notes that minoritization in engineering education can stem from the “discriminatory disciplinary chauvinism such as the categorization of ‘rigor’ or ‘soft skills.’” This delineation of technical versus non-technical work affects what counts as knowledge which of course leads to which types of work and expertise count for advancement. In this paper, I show how this sort of disciplinary chauvinism is visible by spotlighting work in a professional organization that aims to make engineering fields more diverse and socially responsible. Through interviews with leaders and review of the committee’s reports from their programs and research, I have observed how the hierarchy of knowledges within structural engineering affects the efforts of an initiative within structural engineering called SE3, Structural Engineering, Engagement and Equity. In review of the materials, the aspects I focus on are dependent on my positioning as a former practicing structural engineer, my analytic lens enhanced by familiarity with other engineering studies scholarship and my academic background. This paper shows through spotlighting SE3 specifically how the hierarchy of types of knowledge and values within structural engineering put an increased burden on engineers who work on issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion. This is because the work goes unrecognized and does not explicitly count for advancement. This can be broken down as follows: First, there is a hierarchy at play in the commonly recognized bifurcation within engineering of technical work (‘real’ engineering) vs. non-technical work (not ‘real’ engineering) (e.g. Faulkner 2007; Cech and Waidzunas 2011; Hatmaker 2013). SE3 does not count as technical work and so time dedicated to this committee does not count in performance reviews the way professional service work in technical committees does. Second, billable work is valued over non-billable work. Because there is no existing calculus for determining the monetary value of the work of SE3, it is not valued in the same way as directly billable work or labor that is indirectly profit generating (like developing relationships with clients). Because it is not adequately valued, engineers who give time to SE3 to work toward social equity, in and through engineering, experience negative repercussions, which also hinders the goals of the initiative. In order to achieve goals of improved diversity, equity, and inclusion in the field and social equity through design, this work must be recognized through translation to existing values or through reconsideration and reestablishment of foundational values.