A Multi-Institution Comparison of Students’ Development of an Identity as an Engineer

Engineering identity research was conducted looking at both traditional engineering students and students enrolled at a military academy. As much of the prior research has applied multiple identities as the theoretical framework, the current study also applied this approach towards its goals of understanding the commonalities and differences among students within these two groups. This research aims to fill a gap in the collective knowledge as to the factors that contribute to the development of a student’s professional identity and more specifically identification with engineering. We hypothesized that students associated with military routines would have a stronger professional identification within their chosen academic major than students not associated with these routines. The results of this work can be used to guide administrative / curricular structures for engineering education to support students’ identification with engineering, which is believed to increase a student’s likelihood for educational and professional persistence post-graduation. Semi-structured interviews were performed at three universities to gain a better understanding of how students develop their professional identities. Specifically, the student participants were from a cross-section of levels toward degree completion and were from two departments of engineering (civil and mechanical), as well as history for reference. Two universities served as the main research sites; the first a military university in the northeastern United States and the second a private university in the midwestern region. The third university was a large public university in the southeastern United States that served as an expansion of the study. The results of our study show some distinct similarities and differences in the identity development of students. Identifying as a family member or with a geographic region seemed universal, and there was a more distinct professional identity for engineering students than history students. One clear difference was the approach to how students selected their institution of higher education. Also, it was clear that organized activities that contributed to a shared / common developmental experience was useful in identity development. These initial findings spark many more questions relating to identity development, which could be further explored looking at student’s development over time.