departmenttransformation. While the level of engagement during this co-creation process varied across thedepartment, the majority of faculty and staff played a significant role in writing, reviewing, andmodifying it. • We envision diversity in race, gender, sexuality, ability, class, and other social identities (in all their combinations) that transcends current institutional structures. • We envision a place in which all find community, where there are support structures that connect students with their peers, that provide mentoring between faculty and students, and promote collaborative work between faculty. • We envision a place where if one encounters an unjust or arbitrary barrier, it is the system that yields. We
. Onestudent stated that, “using ChatGPT to smooth over your writing is definitely a positive”especially for students for whom “English is not their first language” (P57 White man domesticstudent). Similarly, another student used AI to translate “niche technical terms” from lecturesinto more easily understood descriptions (P55 Black woman domestic student). There wasgeneral appreciation for AI technologies and a sense that “AI is not going to replace humans. AIis just going to become a tool that humans are gonna coexist with” (P42 Asian man domesticstudent). This student described unique opportunities for “collaboration” between humans andAI. When sharing about a situation in which a professional board game player watched AlphaGo,a computer programmed
Your Intended Major?Engineering, Biomedical Engineering, Industrialand System Engineering, Computer Engineering 10%& Computer Science, Electrical Engineering, ElecEOther Engineering Major NOT Listed Above, or 10%Other Major that is Not Engineering. The last two Bi mEoptions allowed participants to write-in responses. 10% 60% Ma eE ChemEOne participant selected Electrical Engineering 10%(labeled in Figure 3 as ElecE), 1 participant MechEselected Biomedical Engineering (labeled inFigure 3 as BiomE), 1 participant selectedMechanical
wasn’t given the opportunity.Carroll mentions a “type of expertise” that is required for communicating with the men on herteam to understand where they “click.” The type of expertise she refers to is the understanding ofthe ways in which peers with shared identities operate socially and in a cohesive manner (wherethey “click”). This is the process of examining the hidden epistemologies that drive the socialinteractions she has with her team. Because of the historically white male majority inengineering and Carroll’s positionality as the only African American female on her team, sheacknowledges silently the potential her gender and race play in her exclusion from socialinteractions with others on her team.Carroll learns of the necessity of
, based in science.”Interestingly, despite our explicit prompt to discuss engineering culture, very few participants framedtheir responses in cultural terms. Instead, they spoke about the engineering-intensive work they did thatbrought them career satisfaction. The prominence of technical affinity in the responses of racializedwomen was also noteworthy. This finding challenges the implicit, and somewhat essentialistassumptions about women in general, and racialized women in particular, underlying recruitment andretention efforts that magnify the socio-emotional features of engineers’ work in order to diversify theprofession. Racialized women, just like their peers, tended to speak about “nerd