Exploding Pipelines: Mythological Metaphors Structuring Diversity-Oriented Engineering Education Research Agendas

Critics have established there are major methodological flaws with using pipeline as a metaphor for structuring research studies that investigate the underrepresentation of certain groups from engineering faculty; yet pipeline remains the predominate metaphor in engineering education research on underrepresentation. We find it important to remind the engineering education research community of the theoretical and methodological limitations of homogenous reliance on one metaphor to guide research studies. This paper critically explores the discourse of “pipeline” as an aim to (re)introduce to engineering education researchers both the method of discourse analysis as well as alternative metaphorical frameworks. We use empirical data collected for ADVANCE Purdue’s Academic Career Pathways study using oral history and participatory research methods to explore the consequences of pipeline metaphor’s predominance. These data are the academic stories of STEM faculty and help us explore: 1) what theoretical or methodological advantages and disadvantages does pipeline metaphor afford researchers? and 2) how does pipeline metaphor highlight or mask the lived experiences of women working in engineering academic contexts? We find these methods more suited to women’s small numbers and lend themselves to understanding local conditions – individual departments, colleges, and universities and we suggest advantages to alternative metaphorical frameworks. We conclude that an ecosystem of metaphors would help us understand the complexity of women’s career paths in engineering academia and move engineering education research beyond the linear model of the pipeline metaphor. Introduction Over thirty years after Sue Berryman used the pipeline metaphor for understanding the underrepresentation of women and people of color in STEM disciplines, the pipeline remains the dominant theoretical framework on which diversity-oriented engineering education research is based. The use of “pipeline” is arguably the dominant metaphor used to understand the underrepresentation of certain groups and has reached almost mythological proportions in both its broad reach and in how it engenders fairly uncritical allegiance from many researchers studying women’s underrepresentation in engineering. This reliance on pipeline metaphors continues despite considerable external critique of the model argued from researchers both inside and outside the engineering education research community. In this paper, we pose and answer questions about the consequences of this metaphor’s predominance, including: 1) what theoretical or methodological advantages and disadvantages does this metaphor afford researchers? and 2) how does it highlight or mask the lived experiences of women working in engineering academic contexts? In addition, we ask perhaps more controversially how the reluctance to release pipeline theory from its hegemonic stronghold might reflect engineering education’s larger disciplinary reluctance to review their current structure and reconstruct themselves into institutions that are more egalitarian? This paper critically explores the discourse of “pipeline” as an aim to (re)introduce to engineering education research both the method of discourse analysis as well as alternative P ge 22684.2 metaphorical frameworks. We ground this paper’s theoretical discussion in the empirical data collected for ADVANCE Purdue’s Academic Career Pathways study, a research project that uses oral history methods and participatory frameworks to collect and study the academic stories of white women and faculty of color in STEM disciplines. We will begin by highlighting three notable critiques of “pipeline theory,” identifying intersections and overlaps. We then describe a set of theoretical and methodological limitations put into context with some advantages. We use data from our study to explore the second question of how the metaphor highlights or masks lived experiences, and share the metaphors our study participants used to describe their own careers. We describe future research directions with this study, and end the paper with a plea to develop an ecosystem of metaphors to understand the complexity of women’s career paths in engineering academia. Pipeline metaphor explained When explicitly cited, the pipeline metaphor is often introduced simply in the title, background section, or keywords of a paper, or as a casual aside in a magazine article, less so as an explicit theoretical construct that researchers are choosing to invoke to structure their work. However, “pipeline” remains a key metaphorical concept that helps structure thinking as well as subsequent policymaking in and around engineering education. In their landmark book Metaphors We Live By Lakoff and Johnson argue the following about the use of metaphor in normal human communication (quoted at length from p. 3): Metaphor is for most people a device of the poetic imagination and the rhetorical flourish – a matter of extraordinary rather than ordinary language. Moreover, metaphor is typically viewed as characteristic of language alone, a matter of words rather than thought or action. [...] We have found, on the contrary, that metaphor is pervasive in everyday life, not in language but in thought and action. Our ordinary conceptual system, in terms of which we both think and act, is fundamentally metaphorical in nature. The concepts that govern our thought are not just matters of the intellect. They also govern our everyday functioning, down to the most mundane details. Our concepts structure what we perceive, how we get around in the world, and how we relate to other people. Our conceptual system thus plays a central role in defining our everyday realities. Lakoff and Johnson go on to describe at length how metaphors structure and systematize conceptual ideas, noting Reddy’s argument that we (speaking English) make use of a “conduit metaphor” which can be used to see how language structures language: “The speaker puts ideas (objects) into words (containers) and sends them (along a conduit) to a hearer who takes the idea/objects out of the word/containers.” (p. 10) They provide many examples, including: “It’s hard to get that idea across to him.” (p. 11). We see this structure helpful in thinking about the pipeline metaphor – another conduit metaphor – and its limitations. We acknowledge that “pipeline” has been a powerful and helpful metaphor for thinking about women’s experiences in becoming engineers and scientists. In this context, “pipeline” models the educational and employment systems in the United States. Unmade “pre-scientists and P ge 22684.3 engineers” enter the pipe and proceed through the pipeline (spending time in educational systems) until the pipe’s outlet, where they exit as fully formed engineers and scientists and are employed in the paid workforce. If the volumetric flow rate at the pipe’s outlet is different from that at the pipe’s inlet, it is because some liquid “leaked out” along the way. This metaphor has been helpful for looking at some structural inequities in women’s education. However, we feel the majority of contemporary writers and scholars who employ this metaphor do so without explicitly noting its limitations. Although it seems obvious here, we feel it important to say women’s educational and employment experiences do not actually involve climbing through (or being swept willy-nilly through) a pipe. In other words, the metaphor is helpful for thinking about some aspects of women’s experiences, but not others. We have begun to professionally worry that the engineering education research community has largely forgotten that we need to still investigate those other experiences. Existing critiques We are far from alone in this criticism of using pipeline as a metaphor to understand women’s educational and employment experiences in STEM fields. From among many, we will highlight three notable critiques: Metcalf has done a marvelous job describing both the model and its major critiques, as well as situating it within alternative theoretical frameworks; Xie and Shauman are well recognized for their meticulous quantitative analysis that demonstrates theoretical limitations of the pipeline metaphor; and Allen and Castleman provide a perhaps less well known but equally thoughtful critique to what they call the “pipeline fallacy.” Although it is the most recent publication, we will begin with Metcalf as she provides the metaphor with a clear introduction. Metcalf argues: [the metaphor,] based on supply-side economics, flow modeling, and social engineering was designed by engineers and the National Research Council’s Committee on the Education and Utilization of the Engineer. Depicted as a balance equation, the model describes the linear sequence of steps necessary to become a scientist or engineer and shows the large numbers of scientists and engineers that would be needed to maintain national competitiveness. Over a set time period (e.g., one year), the model attempts to quantify the flow of people who move from an entry pool of secondary school students admitted to higher education institutions, to students engaged in educational preparation for STEM occupations, to employment in the STEM community, and followed by temporary or permanent departures from the STEM community. (p. 2) For those interested in the balance equation used, Metcalf quotes the National Research Council’s formula: “Q1 + ∑fi + ∑fo = Q2, Where Q1 = the number of people in stock at the beginning of the period, ∑fi = the sum of flows into the stock, ∑fo = the sum of flows out of the stock, and Q2 = the number of people at the end of period.” Metcalf spends the rest of her paper systematically reporting and expanding upon various different critiques, including those that Xie and Shauman provide (below). However, we want to point out two key ideas from this paper: first, Metcalf notes that it is not always clear what “coun