![Sample our Engineering & Technology journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5933/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Engineering-Tech.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
While many early-career engineers in the United States leave the field of engineering in the first few years of their careers, we know little of their early professional experiences and reasoning for career plans. We conducted 33 semi-structured interviews with early-career engineers, comparing the experiences of engineers across intersections of gender and race. In particular, we examine meaningful early-career experiences and how these connect to the innate needs of autonomy, competence, and relatedness, as well as career intentions. Top moments on the job were often first-time experiences and milestones that enhanced the engineers’ sense of competence. Meaningful moments connected to relatedness were more often positive than negative experiences for White men, whereas experiences undermining relatedness were more common for people of color and/or women. Connections to autonomy emerged more in bottom moments, especially for White engineers. Across different intended career pathways, early-career engineers often evaluated their experiences regarding their ability to work effectively and through social validation from peers and managers (or undermined by a lack thereof). The results indicate the need for a greater understanding of early-career affordances in supporting entry and retention in the engineering workforce by promoting individual effectiveness and social validation.
Acknowledgments
We also wish to thank the interviewed engineers for their time, Mathias Klenk for contributing to the data collection, and the members of the Designing Education Lab for their feedback throughout the course of the study.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Ethics statement
Ethics approval was obtained through Stanford University Human Subjects Research Institutional Review Board (#35539), and participants were informed of their rights and the voluntary nature of the study.
Data availability statement
The data are not shared due to privacy or ethical restrictions.
Notes
1 Sheppard et al., “Career Pathways,” 304.
2 Lowell et al., “Engineering Pipeline,” 30.
3 Trevelyan and Tilli, “Perceptions of Working Time,” 13; Hess et al., “Empathy and Care,” 212–42; Petersen and Buch, “Engineering Practices,” 93–115; Lutz and Paretti, “Recent Engineering Graduates,” 145.
4 E.g., Ferguson et al., “Engineering Innovativeness,” 45–73; Trevelyan, “Reconstructing Engineering,” 175–95.
5 Ibid., 32; Anderson et al., “Understanding Identity,” 171; Trevelyan and Tilli, “Perceptions of Working Time,” 13; Jesiek et al., “Early Career Narratives,” 87.
6 Woodrow and Guest, “Pathways,” 127–28.
7 Brunhaver et al., “Early Career Engineering.”
8 Buckley et al., “Perspectives on Engineering Education.”
9 Beddoes, “Engineering Socialization”; Beddoes, “Gender as Structure”; Ross et al., “Identity Development.”
10 Beddoes, “Engineering Socialization,” 160.
11 Ibid., 159.
12 Ross et al., “Identity Development,” 93.
13 Soenens and Vansteenkiste, “Identity and Self,” 5.
14 Deci et al., “Self-determination Theory,” 38–39.
15 Soenens and Vansteenkiste, “Identity and Self,” 6.
16 Deci et al., “Self-determination Theory,” 38–39.
17 Beddoes, “Engineering Socialization”; Beddoes, “Gender as Structure”; Beddoes, “Attrition of Engineers.”
18 Ryan and Deci, “Self-Determination Theory.”
19 Soenens and Vansteenkiste, “Identity and Self,” 7–8.
20 Ryan and Deci, “Self-determination Theory.”
21 Gilmartin et al., “Engineering Majors Survey.”
22 Ibid.
23 Magliozzi, Saperstein and Westbrook, “Gender in Surveys.”
24 Gilmartin et al., “Engineering Majors Survey.”
25 Roth, “Measuring Race.”
26 NCSES, “Minorities in Science and Engineering.”
27 Gilmartin et al., “Engineering Majors Survey.”
28 Including both meaningful moments, the topic of this study, as well as early innovation experiences, covered in Björklund, Shannon, and Sheppard, “The Dynamics of Innovation Efforts in the Early Career.”
29 Chell, “Critical Incident Technique,” 45–60.
30 Ibid., 47.
31 Braun and Clarke, “Thematic Analysis,” 77–101.
32 Björklund and van der Marel, “Meaningful Moments,” 758.
33 Deci et al., “Self-Determination Theory,” 38–39.
34 Beddoes, “Engineering Socialization,” 159; Ross et al., “Identity Development.”
35 Trevelyan and Williams, “Value Creation,” 467.
36 E.g. Trevelyan and Tilli, “Perception of Working Time,” 11.
37 E.g. Brunhaver et al., “Different Sub-Occupations,” 15; Jesiek et al., “Early Career Narratives,” 102; Lutz and Paretti, “Recent Engineering Graduates,” 149.
38 Anderson et al., “Understanding Identity,” 155.
39 Faems and Subramanian, “Demographic Diversity,” 1625–26.
40 Ibid.
41 Jehn et al., “Diversity and Performance,” 742.
42 Schubert and Tavassoli, “Diversity in Teams,” 4.
43 Ibarra, “Race and Opportunity,” 673–703; Zhang et al., “Newcomer Race/Ethnicity,” 780–81.
44 Hofstra et al., “Diversity-Innovation Paradox,” 9287–88.
45 Godwin and Kirn, “Engineering Role Identities,” 362–83.
46 Beddoes, “Engineering Socialization,” 167; Naukkarinen and Bairoh, “Gender Differences,” 97.
47 Frehill, “Retention Study,” 3.
48 Sheppard et al., “Career Pathways,” 304.
49 Ross, “Examining Black Women,” 304.
50 Anderson et al., “Understanding Identity,” 153–74, Ross, “Examining Black Women,” 305.
51 Wang and Zatzick, “Organizational Innovation,” 99–116.
52 Woodrow and Guest, “Pathways.”
53 Ibid.; Naukkarinen and Bairoh, “Gender Differences,” 97.
54 Wang and Zatzick, “Organizational Innovation,” 99–116.
55 Beddoes, “Engineering Socialization.”
56 Woodrow and Guest, “Pathways.”