Am I Smart Enough to Be an Engineer? How Undergraduate Engineering Students Articulate Their Identities
Saved in:
| Title: | Am I Smart Enough to Be an Engineer? How Undergraduate Engineering Students Articulate Their Identities |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Rachel Kajfez (ORCID |
| Source: | Journal of Engineering Education. 2025 114(3). |
| Availability: | Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us |
| Peer Reviewed: | Y |
| Page Count: | 33 |
| Publication Date: | 2025 |
| Sponsoring Agency: | National Science Foundation (NSF) |
| Contract Number: | 1920421 |
| Document Type: | Journal Articles Reports - Research |
| Education Level: | Higher Education Postsecondary Education |
| Descriptors: | Engineering Education, Undergraduate Students, Self Concept, Ability, Student Attitudes, Job Skills, Experience, Grades (Scholastic) |
| DOI: | 10.1002/jee.70005 |
| ISSN: | 1069-4730 2168-9830 |
| Abstract: | Background: Students' identification with engineering is intertwined culturally with being smart. Broadly, engineering students are often considered to be smart by others and by themselves, and these beliefs about smartness--what it is and who has enough of it to be an engineer--are a fundamental and limiting aspect of students' experiences. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to explore how undergraduate engineering students describe themselves as smart enough to be engineers. We aimed to develop rich descriptions of the complex ways they articulate their identities as smart before coming to college and during the first two years of their undergraduate degrees. Design/Method: We collected data through a series of interviews with 25 participants. We iteratively and collaboratively analyzed the data to determine the predominant ways the participants articulated their identities as smart enough to be engineers. We generated a qualitative data display to check for patterns related to pathways into engineering programs and privileged social identities. Results: We found that engineering students have three different ways to articulate that they are smart enough to be engineers: (1) they have innate abilities, (2) they are hardworking and dedicated to learning, and (3) they have skills and experience related to engineering. Additionally, we provide qualitative evidence that the innate abilities articulation relates to privilege. Discussion/Conclusion: The study participants engaged in identity work that produced the three articulations. As engineering educators, we need to take responsibility for the ways in which our participation in the cultural practice of smartness reproduces inequity. |
| Abstractor: | As Provided |
| Entry Date: | 2025 |
| Accession Number: | EJ1478415 |
| Database: | ERIC |
| Abstract: | Background: Students' identification with engineering is intertwined culturally with being smart. Broadly, engineering students are often considered to be smart by others and by themselves, and these beliefs about smartness--what it is and who has enough of it to be an engineer--are a fundamental and limiting aspect of students' experiences. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to explore how undergraduate engineering students describe themselves as smart enough to be engineers. We aimed to develop rich descriptions of the complex ways they articulate their identities as smart before coming to college and during the first two years of their undergraduate degrees. Design/Method: We collected data through a series of interviews with 25 participants. We iteratively and collaboratively analyzed the data to determine the predominant ways the participants articulated their identities as smart enough to be engineers. We generated a qualitative data display to check for patterns related to pathways into engineering programs and privileged social identities. Results: We found that engineering students have three different ways to articulate that they are smart enough to be engineers: (1) they have innate abilities, (2) they are hardworking and dedicated to learning, and (3) they have skills and experience related to engineering. Additionally, we provide qualitative evidence that the innate abilities articulation relates to privilege. Discussion/Conclusion: The study participants engaged in identity work that produced the three articulations. As engineering educators, we need to take responsibility for the ways in which our participation in the cultural practice of smartness reproduces inequity. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1069-4730 2168-9830 |
| DOI: | 10.1002/jee.70005 |
