2026 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

This work-in-progress empirical research paper explores discipline-specific engineering role identity development in upper-division undergraduate students. While numerous studies have demonstrated that engineering role identity development is a key contributor to belonging and retention in the field, much of this work has focused on general engineering role identity in first- and second-year students. Though the first years of college represent a critical transition point in students’ education where general engineering identities are important, upper-division students may possess a more nuanced understanding of engineering as a whole, their discipline within the context of the broader field, and their personal sense of place within that discipline. This study seeks to better elucidate the relationship between broad and discipline-specific engineering identity measures and to determine the impact of disciplinary identity on belonging in upper-division engineering students.

This study employs an explanatory mixed-methods approach to capture upper-division students’ sense of identity and belonging in engineering. A national survey will be deployed to multiple institutions across the United States (target n = 2000), measuring students’ general and discipline-specific identity. The survey will leverage Godwin’s (2016) engineering role identity framework, which includes established measures of performance/competence, recognition, and interest. Given that prior work has shown a strong correlation between engineering role identity and belonging, general and discipline-specific belonging will also be measured. To better contextualize survey responses, semi-structured interviews will be conducted with a subset of volunteers to gain deeper insight into the nuances of identity development and belonging across engineering disciplines.

We expect to see a strong correlation between general and discipline-specific engineering role identity for high-consensus disciplines, such as electrical, mechanical, and chemical engineering, which have established a strong presence in the social narrative and perceptions surrounding engineering. For low-consensus disciplines, such as biomedical, biological, and environmental engineering, there may be a greater discrepancy between these measures, which could have an impact on students’ sense of belonging within the field of engineering. Prior work has shown students in certain engineering disciplines, such as biomedical engineering, report a lower sense of engineering identity relative to science identity than the general engineering student population, highlighting a potential tension between individual identity development and disciplinary perceptions of what it means to be an engineer. Importantly, we hope to isolate the strength of discipline-specific engineering role identity as a determinant of sense of belonging. A strong positive correlation between these measures, which will be explored in greater depth through interviews, may contextualize previous engineering role identity work by offering a more nuanced view of what types of experiences and interventions might have the greatest impact on belonging within each engineering discipline. The results of this work can inform both identity theory and educational practice in supporting student identity development and belonging throughout undergraduate education.