ASEE Prism

Welcome to Prism Online

Blog Page

On the Shelf

Leaves of Absence

For millennia, forests have migrated to survive. Will climate change outpace their ability to adapt?

Review by Robin Tatu

The Journeys of Trees: A Story about Forests, People, and the Future
By Zach St. George.
W. W. Norton, 2021.
256 pages.

Woodlands are restless entities. While individual trees remain rooted, their collective copses retreat from hostile environments—be they Holocene ice sheets or fire-prone modern California—toward more nurturing habitats, one dropped seed and hardy sprout at a time. Studying fossils, researchers now can track tree-range migration, work that anchors science journalist Zach St. George’s absorbing portrait of resilience, climate change, and conservation. Since their beginnings, he writes, trees have “shuffled back and forth across continents,” sometimes following the same route more than once. Yet today, they may not be moving fast enough to survive. Should they fail, ecosystems across the globe could follow, imperiling the survival of our own species.

The Journeys of Trees takes readers on treks to Alaska, Michigan, and New Zealand, tracing the evolving paths of ancient forests from fossil remains and exploring modern groves of dying ash trees, stressed sequoias, and delicate hybrid saplings intended to revive the near-extinct American cedar. This lively blend of travelogue and science is informed by deep research. As St. George interviews academic, government, and industry experts who study the world’s forests, it becomes clear that warming temperatures, multiplying fires, and rising activity of beetles and borers are all taking a heavy toll. Even the fire-resistant California sequoias are now succumbing to wildfires while failing to produce enough new seedlings for successive generations. Given the prospects, St. George asks, what are the possibilities of human-assisted tree evolution? Who is doing the research, and what are the potential dangers?

The narrative opens with the historical sweep of human-assisted arboreal movement from 1500 BCE, when Egyptians imported frankincense trees for their valuable fragrant resin. Another significant effort dates from the late 1800s, when the New Zealand government, alarmed at the loss of timber sources after English settlers cleared local forests for sheep and cattle farms, began experimenting with tree imports from around the world. California’s Monterey pine, Pinus radiata, proved ideal, hardy and quick to reach maturity for commercial harvest. New Zealand’s success inspired radiata pine plantations in Australia, Spain, and Chile. Today, Monterey pine transplants cover an area 500 times greater than that of wild trees.

Imports can harm local ecosystems, however. Indeed, American tree species have fallen prey to fungus carried by beetles on Chinese chestnuts, while Dutch elms and East Asian ash devastated their native counterparts. Gene modification could offer these endangered indigenous tree species a potential lifeline. In New Hampshire, for instance, the US Forest Service currently is cultivating blight-resistant chestnuts—the result of several decades of crossbreeding the hard-hit American tree with hardier Chinese varieties. In California, Sierra Pacific Industries oversees the Giant Sequoia Genetic Conservation Plan to collect, plant, and monitor seeds from 70 genetically distinct sequoia groves, some located hundreds of miles north of the originals. St. George calls the program a textbook example of carefully planned and orchestrated assisted migration.

While investigations into assisted evolution are increasing—including by the National Park Service, which in 2019 began a set of risk-assessment guidelines for movement of species such as the bull trout, blue butterfly, and giant sequoia—actual projects remain small and few and the concerns significant. Ecologists interviewed in this book express appreciation for the passion of activists planting or moving trees. But they stressed the need for great caution. A tree placed in the wrong spot can become invasive and overwhelm local populations or harbor destructive pests. In monoculture plantations, imports can reduce rather than increase biodiversity.

While St. George acknowledges the risks and shortcomings of intervention, he believes that bold measures are required if forests are to have a future. Trees have served humans well, providing “raw materials, fuel, fruit, shade, and habitats for other species,” he writes. “They slow erosion, dull the wind, produce oxygen, and store carbon.” Trees also offer beauty and solace. For the author, this is timber worth fighting to preserve.

 

Robin Tatu is Prism‘s book editor.
© Amazon/Getty Images

Advances from AEE

Building Sustainability Into Humanitarian Programs

Adding two elements can help plans succeed and connections last.

By Kirsten Heikkinen Dodson

Engineering educators are tasked with lofty objectives: teach engineering fundamentals and also develop students who can solve complex socio-technical problems. Many programs have found success by incorporating humanitarian engineering topics or employing service learning. In taking on such complicated problems, however, these programs have encountered obstacles including failed partnerships, student turnover, and a lack of commitment from communities and professionals. Over the past seventeen years, Lipscomb University has built a unique model to ensure sustainable projects.

The work of the university’s Peugeot Center for Engineering Service in Developing Communities can be described through a case study of a potable water system designed and built in partnership with ADICAY, a Guatemalan nongovernmental organization. The model reflects the cyclical design process with two important additions: mentoring, which serves as the foundation of the model, and building trust, which connects the cycle.

Students receive technical mentoring from engineering professionals; communities provide cross-cultural mentoring for both students and professionals. The Peugeot Center staff and partnering organization participate in collaborative mentoring in which healthy exchange of feedback and guidance create a level and trusting relationship.

Longterm trusting relationships with partners allow for maximum effectiveness and impact. These relationships start with a mutual vetting process between the Peugeot Center and potential partner. Center staff meet with the organization to ensure a shared commitment to serve and empower the community. For instance, in 2014, the Peugeot Center met with ADICAY to discuss a partnership, review each other’s practices, and agree on mutual goals. ADICAY’s continued trust with Mayan communities was a major factor in solidifying the partnership.

Following a need-based project request, the Peugeot Center staff lean heavily on the expertise of professionals and the partner to examine the project’s risk, cost, impact, and scope. It is also important that the projects are challenging for students but simple enough that professionals can feasibly delegate tasks. In May 2017, ADICAY and the Peugeot Center sent a small team to visit Guatemalan communities with high levels of water-borne illness to assess project feasibility and scope. Setzimaaj was the first community to make a formal request for a potable water system, which was then approved by ADICAY and the Peugeot Center.

Each Peugeot Center team includes a technical mentor (focused on project tasks), team leader (focused on logistical tasks), and six to eight students. Before stepping into these roles, technical mentors and team leaders are required to shadow and be mentored by an existing leader as well as complete training led by the Peugeot Center. For the Setzimaaj water project, ten students (across two teams), one technical mentor (a professional water engineer), two team leaders, and one leader-in-training supported the design and installation alongside ADICAY.

Each project’s completion is the responsibility of the technical mentor and team leader with support from Peugeot Center staff. Students participate in the technical design and hands-on implementation alongside the partner and community. This approach provides combined technical and cross-cultural mentoring as well as critical-thinking practice as students consider complex socio-technical factors. For the Setzimaaj water project, students supported site surveys, hydraulic modeling, and onsite construction with guidance from the technical mentor and ADICAY.

After project completion, the Peugeot Center continues site visits and communication with the partner. Engineering projects can have long-term effects on business, education, environment, and health in the community. A medical clinic held before and after installation of the water system in Setzimaaj showed a drop in water-borne illness diagnoses from 40% in 2018 to 11% in 2019. The community members also noted increased school attendance.

To provide meaningful and sustainable impact, service learning and humanitarian engineering programs must focus on trusting partnerships, mentoring relationships, and responsible project selection and completion.

 

Kirsten Heikkinen Dodson is an assistant professor of mechanical engineering in Lipscomb University’s College of Engineering. Her research interests focus on the connections between humanitarian engineering, engineering education, and equity and inclusion topics. This article was adapted from “The Peugeot Center Model and Mentoring Explored Through a Case Study of the Design and Installation of a Potable Water System in Guatemala with ADICAY,” in Advances in Engineering Education.
© Getty Images

ASEE Today

Letter from the President

Strategizing Our Future

Systems-level perspectives can both help resolve 2022 problems and generate sustainable solutions for 2050 and beyond.

By Adrienne Minerick

Dear ASEE members,

As the fall flew by and I fell behind on my ambitious ASEE agenda, it became apparent that hopes of gaining superwoman efficiency to make up for two years of COVID-19 career disruptions were unrealistic. But what our leadership team did accomplish is still significant. For instance, our Board recently voted to recommend to the membership the creation of a new vice president of scholarship position. If the position is approved by members, this person will focus on a system-wide integration and optimization of scholarly work for ASEE.

Like past Presidents, I gave invited talks (five!) at international and regional conferences. Unlike past Presidents, I delivered all of them from the (now snowy) edge of Lake Superior. I’ve focused each talk on the important challenge of re-strategizing engineering curricula and engineering practice to incorporate healthy respect and appreciation for synergistic disciplines using a systems-thinking construct.

Systems thinking is the incorporation of multiple contexts into engineering problem-solving. This approach embraces that the societal context (for example, attitudes and behaviors during each new wave of the pandemic) impacts the success or failure of our engineered solutions (a stellar air-filtering head bubble is ineffective if people will not wear one). Systems thinking accepts that current crises (such as global climate change with record-breaking temperatures, fires, tornados, ice storms, floods, and droughts) are a cumulative consequence of our past engineering feats upsetting the balance of the natural world and that the power of natural events can tear apart some of the greatest engineered infrastructure. The method also incorporates historical pattern analysis. Consider the once-great Mayan Empire; engineering accomplishments were insufficient to counter natural and social forces that caused its decline. Systems thinking is thus consideration of multiple contexts, but also the life cycle of those contexts over time.

You are likely to think that this is an overwhelming amount of additional knowledge to expect our engineering students to gain in four years. That is a valid perspective, but it is confining—to our detriment. To engineer for the future, to envision, to test, and to build solutions that solve our 2022 problems in a manner that is both sustainable and just into 2050 (and later), we need to strategically rethink the foundational paradigms of our profession.

Let me start with the attitude of disdain for other fields, even other engineering disciplines. Pause and think about what is considered rigorous and thus framed as more valuable: the mathematical proofs, the theory, the designs. We front-load math in our curriculum and dismiss those who don’t excel (with the way it is taught) as unworthy of our esteemed profession. What material is treated as less valuable or even dismissed? “Soft” skills, including analyses of resource utilization, social justice, and environmental sustainability.

What pains me about engineering are the pervasive behavior patterns that dismiss or disregard alternative views and approaches. I’m becoming more convinced that this exclusionary engineering culture will be our downfall. So, why did we develop this type of behavior and what forces encourage the behavior to persist? I have a theory. At the mathematical level, the approach developed over centuries is to make assumptions to simplify equations in order to obtain analytical solutions (which are viewed as more robust than discrete ones). Assumptions are strategically selected based on what physical forces are smaller and “can be safely neglected.” Possibly this mathematical approach is what has driven social behavior to disregard what, at a single glance, is perceived as having a small influence.

However, we have also all learned cumulative sums and exponential growth. Small perturbations in flow can cause eddies and turbulence; these perturbations can accumulate and grow into large, even catastrophic, disruptions. A single outbreak from a SARS mutation progressed into 5.7 million (and counting) SARS-CoV-2 deaths globally. Pollution from fossil fuel combustion was imperceptible in the early 1900s, but with population increases and scale, chemical byproducts such as carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are influencing climate patterns on a global scale. Items deemed negligible can still accumulate and grow, so they should not be ignored.

If grappling with systems thinking is too large a task to tackle today—and it is for the vast majority of us who are worn down by the COVID-19 pandemic—let’s just start with small and consistent acts of kindness. (See this essay by the former president of the Society for Freshwater Science: https://bit.ly/3GqULlh.) Kindness and collegiality can be the motivators for fully hearing that different perspective or idea, pausing to look for valid nuggets and understanding instead of just listening long enough to formulate a counterargument. Kindness can be the inspiration to focus on why a different kind of learner could be great at engineering instead of fixating on how their skill set differs from those of students we know will do well. Collegiality can be the reason to seek out colleagues in other disciplines to equitably collaborate on projects, demonstrating appreciation and respect for their field, ways of knowing or framing their expertise, data collection methodologies, analysis techniques, interpretations, logic processes, and conclusions.

Kindness can be the impetus to value all contributions from our academic community. As Executive Director Norman Fortenberry likes to say, “ASEE is the American Society for Engineering Education, not the American Society for Engineering Teaching,” which is a poignant way to articulate that the Society encompasses all aspects of the educational enterprise. This is a systems-thinking framing that brings the separate components of the educational endeavor together into a community of scholars from all different disciplines of engineering and career paths in industry and academe. We join together around the core of engineering, learning and adapting new skills to serve our society and our planet.

Collegiality and kindness can also be at the root of revisiting academia’s entrenched assumptions about what engineering skills and knowledge are valuable. Our built, natural, digital, and social worlds desperately need engineers to leverage our depth of knowledge in our subfields of engineering while simultaneously engaging in systems-level thinking and implementation.

If tackling the big task of incorporating systems thinking into engineering education seems too daunting right now, I hope you will start by shifting engineering culture toward openness to diverse ideas and collegial respect of individuals from partner disciplines. This paradigm shift in what we say and how we approach engineering will help overcome barriers to systems thinking and enable coordination between disciplines. Such coordination is the key to fully utilizing the talent available to sustainably and justly address the problems of 2022 such that solutions remain viable well into the future.

A few words on progress at ASEE. Kindness and good intentions to support members of ASEE are motivating factors for all of the volunteers serving on the Board of Directors; we partner with headquarters staff to provide our members the highest quality networking connections, knowledge sharing, and venues for your valuable scholarly work! In this issue of Prism, you can read about all the Society’s great efforts over the 2020–21 year in our annual report.

ASEE has increased its advocacy for policy that impacts the field of engineering. We partner with a respected government relations firm, Lewis-Burke Associates, and STEM-focused coalitions to make members’ voices heard. The Public Policy Colloquium of engineering deans (February 7–9) and the Engineering Technology Leaders Institute (September 2022) both include visits with representatives in Congress.

Thank you to each of you for your daily good intentions, efforts to infuse kindness into engineering, and engagement in ways to incorporate systems thinking into engineering practice. I hope you and yours maintain, or recover to, good health so that we all can sustainably thrive in our rapidly evolving world.

 

Adrienne Minerick is President of ASEE.

 

Norman’s Notes

New Year, New Normal

By Norman Fortenberry

ASEE members,

Welcome to 2022. I wish you all a happy, healthy, and prosperous New Year!

We greatly look forward to resuming in-person meetings this year! We are giddy at the prospect of the increased networking, camaraderie, collaboration, knowledge sharing, and serendipity that physical events allow. But to get back to our “new normal” will require some adjustments to the realities of the continuing COVID-19 pandemic. ASEE will require attendees at all Society-sponsored meetings to be fully vaccinated and boosted. Some events may also require proof of a negative COVID test. We will be using a vendor to collect and verify the status of all attendees prior to arrival. Masks will also be required at ASEE-sponsored meetings, except for meal functions. Your safety remains our top priority.

The new year brings many excellent events:

  • The Public Policy Colloquium (PPC), February 7–9, is a window into political Washington for engineering deans and government relations professionals.
  • The Conference for Industry and Education Collaboration (CIEC), February 9–11, connects academe and industry.
  • The Collaborative Network for Engineering and Computing Diversity (CoNECD), February 20–23, is a forum showcasing research-based practices to enhance diversity, equity, and inclusion across a variety of under-participating populations.
  • The Engineering Deans Institute (EDI), March 7–10, convenes engineering deans to share best practices in research, education, and public service while advocating for the interests of engineering education.
  • The Research Leadership Institute (RLI), March 21–23, brings together research leaders to discuss topics critical to their success.
  • The Industry 4.0 Workforce Summit, April 25–26, will spark conversations among industry, academia, government, professional society, and accrediting body representatives on preparing graduates of engineering, engineering technology, and engineering technician programs for Industry 4.0 and beyond.
  • The ASEE Annual Conference, June 26–29, enables members to gather and share best practices, innovations, and education research at the premier event dedicated to all disciplines of engineering and engineering technology.

In addition, the various Board task forces are hard at work and making progress toward their goals. The Scholarly Publications Task Force (cochaired by Cindy Finelli of the University of Michigan and Nadia Kellam of Arizona State) has been converted into a standing committee of ASEE. The Curriculum Task Force (chaired by Gary Bertoline of Purdue) and the Faculty Teaching Excellence Task Force (chaired by Donald Visco of the University of Akron) are seeking support from the National Science Foundation to advance their efforts.

At ASEE, we are always searching for better ways to serve our members. With approval from the ASEE Board of Directors, last year we began phasing out Monolith, our old and homegrown association management software (AMS) that served as a combined abstract/paper management system, web application system, and website back end. We are replacing Monolith with three separate systems. Unfortunately, this transition has not gone as smoothly as we had hoped. We apologize for the growing pains and disruptions associated with implementing the new systems. Please know that your ASEE headquarters team is working diligently to fix these issues and make our technology fully functional as soon as possible within the coming months.

This year, we also plan to launch a member survey that will explore how ASEE can improve current offerings, identify new services members find valuable, and sunset activities that are less useful. We plan to survey current and former members as well as people who have never been ASEE members. The goal is to learn how we can adapt to fast-changing times and provide members with meaningful services that vigorously promote engineering education for 2022 and into the unforeseeable future.

 

Norman Fortenberry is the executive director of ASEE.

 

Learn More

Access more information about these 2022 ASEE events:

 

Society Leader Awarded NAE’s Gordon Prize

ASEE President-Elect Jenna Carpenter has been named a 2022 recipient of the Bernard M. Gordon Prize for Innovation in Engineering and Technology Education. The prestigious award from the National Academy of Engineering (NAE) recognizes recipients who have “transformed engineering education.”

Carpenter is being recognized for her work with the Grand Challenges Scholars Program (GCSP), which develops students into engineering leaders who can help solve society’s most pressing engineering problems. Since its inception in 2009, GCSP has spread to more than 90 engineering schools across the United States as well as to several international institutions.

Grand Challenges Scholars add to their degree requirements a portfolio including such components as a hands-on project or research related to one of the NAE Grand Challenges, general education (including behavior, economics, and policy), and service learning.

GCSP founders Thomas Katsouleas, Richard Miller, and Yannis Yortsos are co-recipients of the $500,000 annual Gordon Prize, which spotlights innovative educational approaches that develop engineering student leaders.

The three pioneered the Grand Challenges Scholars program at Duke University, Olin College, and the University of Southern California, respectively. Carpenter later joined the initiative, making “valuable contributions, drawing on her research on integrating STEM curricula” according to a news item from Campbell University, where she serves as School of Engineering founding dean. Carpenter spent seven years as chair of the GCSP steering committee and deems her work to advance the program nationally and internationally a “tremendous privilege.”

The ASEE President-Elect has been active in the Society since 1998 and has filled numerous roles within the organization, including vice president of Professional Interest Councils (PICs), director for the Educational Research and Methods Division, and director-at-large for the Women in Engineering Division. Carpenter was named an ASEE Fellow in 2013, and in 2019 she received both the Society’s Outstanding Campus Representative Award and the Sharon Keillor Award for Women in Engineering Education. A national expert on innovative STEM curricula and factors affecting the success of women in STEM, Campbell has also served as the president of the Women in Engineering ProActive Network.

 

New Workshops Will Aid in Publishing Process

ASEE is launching two workshops to help engineering professors convert their educational research into manuscripts for peer-reviewed journals, underwritten by a $650,000 grant from the Kern Family Foundation. The first workshop is scheduled to take place April 20–22, and the second is slated for later this year.

The free workshop series, entitled Archival Publications Authors in Engineering (APA-ENG), aims to help professors promote an entrepreneurial mindset in engineering education. The Kern Family Foundation oversees the Kern Entrepreneurial Engineering Network (KEEN), a partnership of 50 colleges and universities across the United States whose mission is to graduate engineers with an entrepreneurial mindset.

The series will be open to professors across engineering disciplines at four-year schools. The only requirement is that participants focus their manuscript research on the scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL), emphasizing creativity, an entrepreneurial mindset, and teaching innovations within engineering education.

ASEE’s workshops will also help professors find potential collaborators, submit drafts that are reviewed by workshop mentors, and learn about the review process used by archival journals. After completing the series, participants will have a complete understanding of the manuscript process and feel empowered to publish their research in peer-reviewed journals. The workshops will also help professors’ research reach new audiences in academia and among the public.

The first workshop will focus on how to generate manuscript ideas as well as how to identify and effectively collaborate with research partners. The second will guide participants in writing and updating manuscript drafts based on feedback from experts. It is planned to begin in summer or fall 2022.

Participants must register to attend the free workshops. For more information, visit http://apa-eng.asee.org or contact apa-eng@asee.org.

 

Call for Board Candidates

The ASEE Nominating Committee, chaired by Immediate Past President Sheryl Sorby, requests member participation in nominating candidates for the 2023 ASEE Board election. Board positions to be nominated are: President-Elect; Vice President, External Relations; Chairs of Professional Interest Councils II and III; Chairs of Council of Sections for Zones II and III.
  • All nominees must be individual members or institutional member representatives of ASEE at the time of nomination and must maintain ASEE membership during their term of office. Nominating Committee members are not eligible for nomination.
  • Candidates for President-Elect and for Vice President of External Relations must be active members who have served or are serving on the Board of Directors. Because ASEE is a Department of Defense contractor, candidates for President-Elect must currently be US citizens and undergo a security clearance. Candidates for Chairs of Council of Sections for Zones II and III will be selected by the members of their respective sections, as the ASEE Constitution stipulates.
  • Each proposed candidate for a Society-wide office should submit a first-person biographical sketch of fewer than 400 words that documents career contributions, ASEE offices held, awards and recognitions received, and educational background. Include comments on leadership qualities, ability to collaborate with others to achieve objectives, and willingness to serve if elected. Self-nominations are accepted. For nominations for the office of President-Elect, please include a statement summarizing why you think your nominee is a good candidate for the position. A listing of members who meet constitutional eligibility requirements for the offices of President-Elect and Vice President, External Relations is available from the executive director’s office at ASEE headquarters.
Nominations will be accepted electronically at s.nguyen-fawley@asee.org. Please include a subject line that begins with the words “2023 Nomination” so that it can be forwarded to the Nominating Committee. Please be assured that your nominations are confidential and will be seen only by the senior assistant board secretary and members of the Nominating Committee. The deadline to submit nominations is June 1, 2022.
Nominations postmarked by June 1, 2022, will also be accepted by mail. Please mark the envelope CONFIDENTIAL and address it to Sylvie Nguyen-Fawley, Elections Coordinator, ASEE, 1818 N Street, N.W., Suite 600, Washington, DC 20036.

Last Word

Human Resources

In the climate crisis, we can’t forget the who.

Opinion by Shannon Gilmartin, Angela Harris, Christina Martin-Ebosele, and Sheri Sheppard

Fires raged in California during our study of undergraduate environmental engineering students’ career plans. For several days, the San Francisco Bay Area was blanketed in unbreathable orange air. The effects of environmental decline are not equally distributed: some communities face severe long-term consequences while others are buffered by regional wealth against environmental hazards [See “Toxic Legacy,” November/December 2021 Prism.]

Solutions to the global climate crisis tend to focus on the how and with what, examining technical innovations and societal policies for substantive change. Our study looked at the who—who will design technological solutions and synergistic policy to transform people’s attitudes and behaviors around environmental degradation? Who among those disproportionately affected by environmental decline will lead the solutions? We saw an urgent need for attention to this “people space.”

Our findings suggest a need to focus more on gender and racial inequality in environmental engineering education. Systems-based approaches in curricula and growing undergraduate student interest in the major are positive signs. However, three interrelated areas merit the attention of educators in order to realize substantive change: student recruitment, stereotypes in the field, and professional development.

Environmental engineering sees a relatively high proportion of women degree-earners, but racial diversity among them is limited. In the US, women earn half of all environmental engineering bachelor’s degrees—a far greater share than in most other engineering fields. However, White women compose the majority of that fifty percent. In contrast, Asian and Latina women make up just five and six percent, respectively. Black women (at 1 percent) and Indigenous women (at <1 percent) represent even tinier percentages. Environmental engineering must amp up recruitment efforts to build racial and ethnic diversity.

In addition, environmental discourse is deeply gendered and racialized. Environmental policy and climate science have excluded women from leadership—particularly women of color living on the front lines of environmental degradation. In a 2019 New York Times article, political and civic leader Heather McTeer Toney emphasized that while Black communities in the US face severe and disproportionate environmental risks every day, their voices are unheard or tokenized in decision-making about solutions. We see these disparities as at least partly the result of entrenched racialized gender stereotypes in environmental activism and climate communications. Drawing from White and western constructions of gender, men are associated with the business and science of the environment, “battling” decline, while women are seen as “naturally” responsible caretakers of earth and community. Such a binary understanding leaves the experiences of people of color on the margin. Environmental engineering educators need to foster conversations about how widely held gender and race beliefs net only a small White male elite seen as fit for environmental leadership.

Finally, career readiness builds from meaningful interactions, networks, mentorship, and curricular and cocurricular resources, but data suggest that these interactions don’t occur at the same rate for women and men in environmental engineering majors. Among undergraduate respondents to our national survey, women reported less-frequent conversations about their professional options with faculty and classmates than men did. Yet, among all other engineering majors, women reported more-frequent conversations about professional options than men. Why, in a newer, younger, smaller field positioned to transform how we live sustainably and reduce environmental risk, are women not talking as much about their careers as men? Why do we see hints in our data that women from underrepresented racial/ethnic minority backgrounds are talking with faculty about professional options more than men are, but these women are talking with their classmates less?

Educators must engage more deeply with gender and racial inequality not only as they relate to environmental risk but also in the lived experiences and leadership pathways of students. Which groups have strong interest in environmental problem-solving but perceive no substantive support for a pathway upwards and thus pursue other majors or jobs that do not fully leverage their expertise and experience? How can environmental engineering curricula be reframed to bring more students into and to the top of the field, equipped with public leadership skills? Our raging fires, toxic wastewater, and sinking cities demand rethinking not just how to solve problems but also who will do so, with what support from our educational system.

 

Shannon Gilmartin is a senior research scholar at the Stanford VMware Women’s Leadership Innovation Lab and an adjunct professor in mechanical engineering at Stanford University. Angela Harris is an assistant professor at North Carolina State University in the Civil, Construction, and Environmental Engineering Department and a member of the university’s Global Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene (WaSH) research cluster. Christina Martin-Ebosele is a product design engineer and recent mechanical engineering graduate of Stanford University, where Sheri Sheppard is a professor of mechanical engineering.

This article is based on the authors’ 2021 ASEE Annual Conference paper “Who Will Lead Us Out of Climate Crisis? Gender, Race, and Early Career Pathways in Environmental Engineering.”

Pin It on Pinterest