pipeline” (Pell, 1996; Wickware, 1997) and a “chilly climate” (Flam, 1991) in thephysical sciences more generally. For LGBTQ+ individuals, however, claims about underrepresentation inengineering cannot be made because there is no baseline with which to compare. This study providesone small window into the underrepresentation of LGBTQ+ individuals in engineering by investigatingthe following research questions: 1. Are LGBTQ+ students underrepresented in engineering within a large, public, Midwestern university system context based on campus climate survey response rates? 2. How do LGBTQ+ engineering students’ experiences within that university system inform our understanding of their relative representation?MethodThis study
priority of achieving diversity of sexual identity came later to nationalconsciousness and has been more difficult to promote. Only four years ago, ASEE drewbitter criticism when its official magazine, Prism, published a letter expressing anti-gayopinions. The incident prompted not just criticism of the editorial staff but alsoobservations that the community of engineering educators remains timid about discussingthese most difficult topics of difference and inclusion.1 Such timidity, some engineeringeducators argued, discourages necessary change to support greater inclusivity within theengineering profession. In recent years, however, ASEE has dramatically altered itsstance on issues pertaining to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and
general, her relationship was not a topic of discussion with her colleagues because shetypically did not discuss non-work-related topics at work. Even when commiserating with otherfaculty members, the discussions typically focused on the lack of time each of them had to meetthe standard expectations of a faculty position. So, even though she worked to integrate heridentities as a wife and mother into her professional environment, her colleagues did not engagewith her in discussing those roles. As far as her colleagues were concerned, she was simplyanother engineering faculty member who specialized in a particular, technical topic and waswilling to take on more administrative roles than other colleagues. Even though she did notintentionally
Figure10.SRTISummaryStatisticsandComparisonsStudent surveys and instructor impressions both indicate that the second iteration of the course was moreeffective at integrating the LGBTQ+ and “Tech” aspects of the course. Indeed, none of the kinds of negativestudent comments from the first course instance were seen in the Fall 2016 surveys in this connection.However, the number of hours available in a 1-credit seminar was still limiting the degree to which the courseobjectives could be achieved. This is borne out both in the student comments and in the instructors’observations of project completion.4. Design of new four-credit General Education CourseThe two instances of a one-credit Queer Lights seminar both indicate there is student demand for a