Low-SES First-generation Students’ Decision to Pursue Engineering

“The ability of this nation to provide a growing economy, strong health and human services, and a secure and safe nation depends upon a vibrant, creative, and diverse engineering and science workforce”. 1 To contribute to technological advancements, engage in global collaboration, solve complex problems, encourage a more socially just profession, and respond to the predicted shortage of American engineers, it is necessary for this nation’s engineering workforce and university student bodies to be more diverse in its racial, gender, and socioeconomic (SES) representation. The lack of representation in SES is the focus of this research. The purpose of this qualitative study was to give low-SES students an opportunity to share their stories about the influences that prompted them to choose to study engineering. The research question this study addresses was: What are the influences on the lived experiences of low-SES first-generation students who pursue engineering study? This study used a phenomenological inquiry approach, purposive criterion sampling, and descriptive and topical coding. Interviews were semi-structured, and consisted of open-ended questions. Transcripts were coded to identify general and unique themes that resulted in four assertions. These low-SES first-generation students were influenced to pursue engineering study by 1) elements of engineering experienced in informal learning settings; 2) their self-identified attributes and interests and their advanced skills; 3) their understanding of the image of the field of engineering; and 4) STEM-knowledgeable individuals who offered encouragement, support, and perspective. These assertions led the first author to conclude that low-SES first-generation students who make it to college to study engineering are similar to their higher-SES peers, but low-SES students cannot have any other setback besides being low-SES and still be successful in engineering. The first author also observed that these four assertions seem to be related to forms of capital. All of these participants were eager to spend time sharing their story with the first author. They expressed appreciation that the first author cared about the influences that affected their journey to engineering and that the first author wanted to research their lived experiences. The first author felt honored to act as the phenomenologist in understanding the influences on these students in their pursuit of engineering study. Introduction and Literature Review Including socioeconomic status in the diversity discussion “The ability of this nation to provide a growing economy, strong health and human services, and a secure and safe nation depends upon a vibrant, creative, and diverse engineering and science workforce”. 1 To contribute to technological advancements, engage in global collaboration, solve complex problems, encourage a more socially just profession, and respond to the predicted shortage of American engineers, it is necessary for this nation’s engineering workforce and P ge 25907.2 university student bodies to be more diverse in its racial, gender, and socioeconomic (SES) representation. The U.S. cannot claim a diverse engineering workforce, and its engineering student bodies are certainly not diverse despite the legislation and programs put in place to increase racial, gender, and socioeconomic (SES) representation. Programs and resources that increase gender and racial diversity in engineering have the advantage of creating an environment for the social interaction of people who have some shared experience as well as an interest in engineering. As a result, women and students of color in engineering have a variety of local and national programs from which they might seek support. Low-socioeconomic and first-generation status are both less visible and more likely to be concealed, so there are few formal programs to support or mentor low-SES first-generation students who want to pursue engineering. With an estimated projection of 1.67 million engineers needed to support the U.S. job market by 2016, there is some urgency to better understand how to encourage socioeconomic diversity in the engineering workforce and student bodies. Improving diversity in engineering to include low-SES first-generation students – not to meet an ‘increasing diversity’ quota, not to ‘play the diversity card’, but to give them a fair chance to be engineers too – will affect engineering positively because of their unique perspective based on their socioeconomic experiences. Stanley et al. report the benefits of diversity in both classrooms and in the work place. Students demonstrate the “greatest engagement in active thinking processes, growth in intellectual engagement and motivation, and growth in intellectual and academic skills” 2 in classrooms with highly diverse student populations. David Swain, Boeing CTO, adds that workforce diversity amplifies the “likelihood of developing the best ideas”. 3 Wulf states that “Diverse engineering teams will build a better quality product” 4 and “We will engineer better with a diverse workforce”. 4 Despite the documented challenges of low-SES first-generation students, there are a number of these students who are studying engineering and doing well. Understanding the lived experiences of these students is key to learn about their journey to engineering. One element of their lived experiences is the influences that prompted these students to want to study engineering. These influences are not well-researched, yet the findings from their rich descriptive stories may provide insights that could help key stakeholders in guidance counseling offices, classrooms, families, mentoring programs, engineering, politics, and government funding programs. They may also be helpful to other low-SES first-generation students who want to pursue engineering. Making career decisions Some theorists believe that making career decisions is a developmental process that lasts a lifetime. 5 Super’s Career Development model is based on a life-long process where individuals reflect on their changing self concepts as they pass through stages of growth, exploration, establishment, maintenance, and disengagement with each career decision and transition. 6, 7 Super used the “growth” and “exploration” stages to develop a children’s model that he believed “contribute[s] to career awareness and decision making”. 8 This model includes stages of Page 25907.3 curiosity, exploration, using occupational information, identifying helpful people, naming likes and dislikes, recognizing locus of control, and understanding one’s self-concept. 8 Identifying helpful people for career guidance