Hidden Curriculum: An Image Holder of Engineering
Perspectives
By guest contributor Idalis Villanueva Alarcón
Last update February 13, 2023
National Academy of Engineering (NAE)
NAE Perspectives offer practitioners, scholars, and policy leaders a platform to comment on developments and issues relating to engineering.
Idalis Villanueva Alarcón (FOE 2022) is an associate professor and associate chair for research and graduate studies in the Department of Engineering Education at the University of Florida.
Experiences shape the values and norms of everyone and they occur at individual, social, structural, and systemic levels.
At the individual level, a person’s social environment guides how they view their future life and profession. During childhood, factors such as socioeconomic conditions affect whether and how a person’s community provides resources, access to activities and hobbies, and school programs. Access to a community’s resources influences how people engage with other groups in adulthood. For some people, engaging in different social groups ensures that the individual can maintain a certain societal, political, and/or economic status; for others, these statuses are not as important compared to the collective good of their communities.
People are educated and/or work either in silos or as part of a larger social group, where they interact in varying structures such as schools, companies, firms, and others. These structures are governed by the policies of a larger system, such as education, justice, society, or government. How a system influences the structure and how the structure informs the system will influence how individuals respond and react. More specifically, their motivations will shift or maintain the structures and systems. Informed by their interactions with a society's structures and systems, individuals’ implicit beliefs and values guide how norms are reinforced or changed. A status quo, for example, represents a systemic belief that things should not change—people within the structure or system perceive no need to change the policies and rules of daily operation.
Perceptions of the system, its impacts, and other people may differ according to the beholder and who is in the dominant group(s).[1] An analogy would be a carnival house of mirrors (figure 1): If an individual walks into a room of mirrors that reflect different shapes, distortions, and dimensions, their image is distorted: in some mirrors, the person will seem slim and tall, in others they will look short and horizontally expanded. The person is the same, of course, but the mirror put in front of them by the carnival organizers (i.e., society) distorts the image reflected. In this analogy, the mirrors represent different social structures and systems that shape how an individual is represented and seen by others.
The Status Quo in Engineering
A status quo emerges when systems and structures absorb repetitive patterns of values and beliefs that are informed by dominant individual and collective experiences. Once a status quo is created, its associated hidden curriculum holds and perpetuates the images of what society expects.
For engineering, the status quo and its hidden curriculum can be found in multiple layers of dichotomies such as technical versus sociotechnical implications, “rigor” versus flexibility, individualism versus community, access versus lack of access, heteronormativity versus nonheteronormativity, ableism versus disability rights, and performative versus authentic approaches to diversity, equity, access, and inclusion (ASEE 2020; National Academies 2019, 2020, 2022; NCSES 2020).
In engineering, diverse individuals include those who have historically not been represented, supported, or acknowledged in the field, such as women and people who are sexually and/or gender-diverse, neurodiverse, disabled, veterans, racialized, ethnic, Indigenous, and less affluent (ASEE 2020; National Academies 2019, 2020, 2022; NCSES 2020).
It is important to note that demographic categorizations themselves are a hidden curriculum, as they agglomerate individuals based on a perceived common trait, an image, rather than recognizing that a person’s individuality may differ via visible and not-so-visible elements. For engineering, hidden curriculum is an image holder, like a mirror, for what the field stands for, represents, and (re)produces.
What Is Hidden Curriculum and How Does It Impact Engineering?
Hidden curriculum (HC) is not a new concept, although it is just starting to be discussed in engineering (Villanueva et al. 2018, 2020). It was described more than 100 years ago by learning theorist John Dewey, the architect of what is now known as experiential learning (Ord 2012). But it was not until the 1960s that sociologist Philip Jackson (1990, rev. ed.), in his book Life in Classrooms, coined the term hidden curriculum. Jackson explained that students undergo a socialization process in schools in which teachers and principals play an integral part in training students in societal expectations by inculcating an image of what society is and will demand of them.
Research in hidden curriculum shows that processes like schooling and professionalization provide “hidden” messages that propagate structurally and systemically through social networks and relationships (Baker 2000; Bourdieu and Passeron 1977; Collins 1971; Holland et al. 2001), conveying important information about dominant norms, values, and beliefs of a field (Villanueva et al. 2018, 2020). In many ways, these pervasive messages may distort how students see themselves, experience their education, and navigate society as a result. But when hidden curriculum is addressed for positive outcomes, creating positive hidden curriculum, it results in higher persistence and retention in students (Villanueva et al. 2020).
Hidden curriculum represents messages that are unrecognized, unacknowledged, unchallenged, or unchanged over time (Villanueva et al. 2018, 2020). An example of an HC message in engineering is its emphasis on technological innovation without considering sociotechnical implications (Villanueva et al. 2020). Another example is required access to resources for entry to engineering programs: affluent school districts are more likely to offer advanced placement courses, SAT preparation, and pre-engineering curriculum than poorer school districts.
Multiple national reports show a stagnated diversity, equity, access, and inclusion landscape for historically marginalized groups in engineering (e.g., women, sexual- and gender-diverse, racial, ethnic, disabled) (ASEE 2020; National Academies 2019, 2020, 2022; NCSES 2020). Unattended HC messages remain at the root of the dire state of diversification in engineering, a state recently referred to as the 15th NAE Grand Challenge for engineering (May 2022). Solutions beyond performative actions have yet to be introduced in engineering.
It is not enough to simply know about the existence and impacts of HC in engineering. Critical questions need to be addressed: Given that hidden curriculum can negatively affect all in engineering but disproportionately affects historically marginalized groups, why has it not been attended to or even challenged? What is the role of existing systems and structures in silencing nondominant voices? How can multiple voices be included in engineering spaces?
What Is the Role of the NAE in Mitigating Engineering’s Negative Hidden Curriculum?
In the wake of George Floyd’s murder in 2020, NAE president John L. Anderson publicly stated that “the National Academy of Engineering requires and values the diversity of its members, staff, volunteers, and others who seek to contribute.… [The NAE] recognizes that inclusion and equity are vital to ensure that all viewpoints, perspectives, and talents are brought to bear in addressing our nation’s critical engineering and technology challenges and promoting a vibrant engineering profession” (NAE 2020).
To ensure a vibrant engineering profession that truly—rather than performatively—values diversity, equity, access, and inclusion, engineers must (i) acknowledge the existence and impacts of negative hidden curriculum (typically sold under the guise of norms, professionalism, standards, and best practices, all of which are defined by the dominant group) (Villanueva et al. 2018, 2020) and (ii) address it. Following are three steps toward doing so:
Consider who is present at the table and how policies and procedures benefit some groups over others in structures and systems of higher education, industry, government, and other organizations.
Respect and accommodate individuals by acknowledging both visible and not-so-visible elements that determine individual identity.
Perhaps most importantly, take stock personally and ask why and how engineering’s innate tendencies—e.g., hierarchy, rigor, individualism, technocentrism, exclusion, “meritocracy,” heteronormativity—distort the real-world image of engineers and engineering.
Consider who is present at the table and how policies and procedures benefit some groups over others in structures and systems of higher education, industry, government, and other organizations.
Respect and accommodate individuals by acknowledging both visible and not-so-visible elements that determine individual identity.
Perhaps most importantly, take stock personally and ask why and how engineering’s innate tendencies—e.g., hierarchy, rigor, individualism, technocentrism, exclusion, “meritocracy,” heteronormativity—distort the real-world image of engineers and engineering.
Once hidden curriculum in engineering has been made visible, it is the responsibility of all who identify it to take action to dismantle it.
In engineering, individuals enter systemic and structural spaces that rarely include a diversity of experiences and voices. Engineering actions and solutions are thus defined and limited by the lens of those present.
The NAE can play an integral role beyond the traditional tokenizing performative approaches of inviting historically marginalized voices to speak about how negative hidden curriculum impacts them. If the NAE invites historically marginalized individuals, it must not just listen but also respond by taking intentional, positive, and strategic steps to include historically marginalized bodies, voices, and experiences at every level of engineering—in the classroom, workforce, and society.
Take steps to include the people most affected by negative hidden curriculum and make them equal partners in the process of uncovering and dismantling HC.
Invite outsider (nonengineering) experts, such as social scientists or policy analysts, to NAE-sponsored engineering events, as they are typically trained to identify exclusionary policies and procedures.
Ask these outside experts to help devise strategies or plans to expose and reframe HC messaging in engineering.
Use the strategies proposed by the outside experts and work on implementing them. After all, it is the responsibility of engineers to solve engineering’s negative HC challenges.
Take steps to include the people most affected by negative hidden curriculum and make them equal partners in the process of uncovering and dismantling HC.
Invite outsider (nonengineering) experts, such as social scientists or policy analysts, to NAE-sponsored engineering events, as they are typically trained to identify exclusionary policies and procedures.
Ask these outside experts to help devise strategies or plans to expose and reframe HC messaging in engineering.
Use the strategies proposed by the outside experts and work on implementing them. After all, it is the responsibility of engineers to solve engineering’s negative HC challenges.
The NAE serves the engineering profession, which in turn serves society. If society is not involved, then efforts to challenge and change engineering’s image will be limited. What new guidelines are needed to ensure that systems and structures respect all participants, and to promote accountability for the images propagated in schools and industry around engineering? Ask individuals in nondominant groups if the resulting changes are positive or negative for them and use the information to make refinements. Iterative steps are an important problem-solving strategy in engineering.
Conclusion
Whatever the strategy, it must be intentional about creating positive hidden curriculum to establish a counternarrative, in which diverse ideas, contexts, and experiences are truly valued and not performatively communicated.
The public face of engineering should not be only a façade of inclusion. Rather, it must recognize and permanently remove negative hidden curriculum. It is only then that engineering can create a new image, one where everyone is equitably welcomed, valued, invested in, and sustained for generations to come.
Acknowledgments
Some of this material is based on work supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) No. EEC-1653140 and 2123016. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material do not necessarily reflect those of the NSF. Special thanks to Drs. Brooke Coley and Khalid Kadir, coordinators of the FOE 2022 symposium session on Technology and Racial Justice & Equity, and to my fellow FOE 2022 speakers Drs. James Holly Jr., Monique Ross, and Regan Patterson. My gratitude to Drs. Jeremy Waisome, Janice Mejia, Alex Mejia, Sindia Rivera-Jimenez, Jamaal Downey, Victoria Sellers, and Amie Baisley as well as the editor, Cameron Fletcher, and the reviewers of this perspective for their incredible insights. Finally, I thank the National Academy of Engineering for its support and opening of this platform.
Disclaimer
The views expressed in this perspective are those of the author and not necessarily of the author’s organization, the National Academy of Engineering (NAE), or the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (the National Academies). This perspective is intended to help inform and stimulate discussion. It is not a report of the NAE or the National Academies. © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Notes
[1] A dominant group is the one that controls a society’s norms and values.
References
ASEE [American Society for Engineering Education]. 2020. Engineering and Engineering Technology by the Numbers 2019. Washington.
Baker W. 2000. Achieving Success Through Social Capital: Tapping Hidden Resources in Your Personal and Business Networks. Jossey-Bass.
Bourdieu P, Passeron J. 1977. Reproduction in Education, Society, and Culture. Sage.
Collins R. 1971. Functional and conflict theories of educational stratification. American Sociological Review 1002–19.
Holland D, Lachicotte W Jr, Skinner D, Cain C. 2001. Identity and Agency in Cultural Worlds. Harvard University Press.
Jackson PW. 1990 (rev. ed.). Life in Classrooms. Teachers College Press.
May GS. 2022. Engineering and the diversity imperative: The 15th Grand Challenge. NAE Perspectives, Oct 17.
NAE [National Academy of Engineering]. 2020. President’s statement on the NAE’s commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion, Jun 19. Washington.
National Academies [National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine]. 2019. The Science of Effective Mentorship in STEMM (A. Byars-Winston & M. Lund Dahlberg, Eds.). National Academies Press.
National Academies. 2020. Understanding the Well-being of LGBTQI+ Populations. National Academies Press.
