1
Introduction

Despite calls to increase diversity throughout the engineering education enterprise and years of efforts by and collaborations between universities, K-12 schools, and professional societies and other education- or equity-related organizations, Black or African-American individuals, American Indian or Alaska Native individuals, and Hispanic or Latine individuals of any race¹ do not participate in engineering education and occupations at parity, defined as the same proportions as their representation in the US population (NCSES 2019). Table 1-1 shows changes in the percentage of engineering bachelors’ degrees earned in 2011 and 2020, compared to the percentage of individuals from different racial groups in the US population. Although the percentages of Latine individuals earning engineering degrees has increased since 2011, it has not reached parity, and the percentages of American Indian or Alaska Native, Black or African American, and Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander individuals earning engineering degrees over that period has remained static or decreased.

This persistent underrepresentation raises concerns about both equity of opportunity and the value of engineering solutions that do not adequately account for the rich and diverse experiential and cultural knowledge held by the US population (Chubin et al. 2005; Corbett and

___________________

¹ In the science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) fields, these individuals have historically been called “underrepresented minorities” (URMs) in federal datasets and much of the literature (e.g., Fleming and McPhail 2019; NAE 2018), although some researchers and practitioners have suggested other terms to describe this population (e.g., Walden et al. 2018). As the language used to describe these individuals continues to evolve, these proceedings will use the term “historically minoritized and marginalized racial and ethnic groups” except in direct quotes.

Hill 2015). Organizations with inclusive environments that encourage engineers from all backgrounds to contribute on diverse teams are better at solving problems (Hong and Page 2004), are more innovative, and can better anticipate unintended consequences of engineered solutions on vulnerable communities (Chubin et al. 2005). As the US population diversifies, the engineering enterprise cannot continue to rely on White males to fill jobs and address societal needs. It is time to review current and past efforts and explore ways to progress to a more diverse engineering profession and reach parity in comparison to the US population.

Considerable resources² over decades have been spent on initiatives to build awareness and interest in the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields among young people from historically minoritized and marginalized racial and ethnic groups, support their success in K-12 schools, recruit them to and matriculate them in 2- and 4-year engineering programs, reduce their attrition from these programs, and facilitate their pursuit of further academic studies and/or employment in academia and industry. While some of these efforts have demonstrated success, their impact on diversity in engineering has been disappointing (Carnevale et al. 2021; Lichtenstein et al. 2014) due to structural, systemic, and institutional racism (NASEM 2023), and if efforts were to remain static, parity would not be reached for Black and Latine engineers for almost 80 years (Carnevale et al. 2014).

Furthermore, efforts to increase the numbers of students from these populations earning engineering degrees have traditionally assumed a straight path for students from K-12 schools to a 4-year undergraduate education and degree and finally into an engineering-related career or graduate education. In reality, there are many pathways to and through engineering education (Lord et al. 2019; NAE 2018), and programs exist to provide support to students as they follow their pathway. However, many organizations work independently at the K-12, undergraduate, or graduate level, so students leaving one sector have to find their own way to the next. Universities may not be able to target students who are likely to apply, enroll, and succeed in undergraduate engineering, and programs designed to prepare students for the next step of their education may not have good information about where prior students ended up and thus may not be able to evaluate the success of their program or provide advice or connections to current students.

Lack of coordination results in fragmented pathways to and through engineering education for students of color and hampers efforts to increase racial and ethnic diversity in engineering. In addition, duplicative and uncoordinated efforts waste time, money, and other resources that could be used to reach and support more students and faculty of color in engineering education pathways.

To address this lack of coordination among efforts throughout the United States, the National Academy of Engineering (NAE) convened a virtual 3-day workshop series on March 18, March 30, and April 20, 2022. Planned by a committee of experts,³ the workshop provided

___________________

² Funding for these efforts has been provided by foundations, companies, and government agencies. As just one example, the National Science Foundation’s INCLUDES program will award $5.5 million per year for programs aimed at “ensuring accessibility and inclusivity in STEM fields” (https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2022/nsf22622/nsf22622.htm). Another example is NACME, which awards over $5 million in scholarships yearly to students from traditionally marginalized populations (https://www.nacme.org/nacme-scholarships).

³ National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine planning committees are solely responsible for organizing the workshop, identifying topics, and choosing speakers. The responsibility for the published workshop summary rests with the workshop rapporteurs and the institution. Statements, recommendations, and opinions expressed are those of individual presenters and participants and are not necessarily endorsed or verified by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, and they should not be construed as reflecting any group consensus.

actionable insights to the engineering education community about existing and potential new approaches for enhancing coordination among the various levels of the engineering education system to reach parity of engineering undergraduate, graduate, and postgraduate students and faculty from historically minoritized populations. Specifically, the workshop explored existing and potential collaborations between extramural initiatives that support engineering student success and universities seeking to recruit and retain these students in undergraduate and advanced engineering education, including as faculty.⁴ As part of the workshop breakout discussions, attendees were encouraged to consider how they might use the information presented by the speakers in their own programs, to develop new collaborations with other attendees, and to consider how their work fits into the larger system of diversifying engineering education.

CONDUCT OF THE WORKSHOP

The 3-day workshop (see appendix A for the agenda) was organized by an independent planning committee in accordance with the procedures of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The planning committee members were Eric Ducharme (cochair), Gary S. May (cochair), Shayna Begay, Isabel Cardenas-Navia, Gabriel Najera, Pamela Holland Obiomon, Percy A. Pierre, and Adrienne Y. Smith.⁵ The workshop was conducted virtually using ePosterBoards platform, which allows questions to be asked via a chat function that the moderator then reads aloud, and workshop presentations were subsequently posted to the web along with links to the videos of the talks.⁶

This publication summarizes the discussions that occurred throughout the workshop. In accordance with policies of the National Academies, the workshop did not attempt to establish any conclusions or recommendations about needs and future directions, focusing instead on issues identified by individual speakers and workshop participants. The workshop summary was drafted by rapporteur and NAE staff member Komal Syed, in collaboration with colleagues Elizabeth T. Cady and Cameron H. Fletcher, as a factual summary of what occurred at the workshop. Statements in these pages are not endorsed or verified by the National Academies.

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS

In his introductory remarks to the workshop, NAE president John L. Anderson told attendees that the NAE’s mission is, in part, to promote the engineering profession and that “recruiting more talent into engineering is a key element of this mission.” He elaborated that “equity requires leveling the playing field with mentoring, addressing gaps in education, and

___________________

⁴ Although the diversity of the nonacademic engineering workforce is also not at parity, the statement of task for this workshop focused on engineering education pathways, including the academic workforce.

⁵ Biographies of the workshop planning committee members and workshop speakers are in appendix B.

⁶ Available at https://www.nae.edu/269754/Connecting-Efforts-to-Support-Minorities-in-Engineering-Education-Workshop.

allowing for socioeconomic situations that limit a young person’s choices after graduating from high school.” He noted that the NAE’s Racial Justice & Equity (RJ&E) Committee,⁷ chaired by NAE member Percy Pierre, was established in 2020 “to address challenges to racial justice and equity in engineering.”

After Anderson’s welcoming remarks, Lorelle Espinosa (Alfred P. Sloan Foundation) spoke about how this workshop and other meaningful activities to advance diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) can “galvanize [the] community, catalyze change, and ensure action.” She then cited the reasons behind Sloan Foundation’s commitment to such projects: “our focus on racial equity and justice, (2) our focus on systemic change, and (3) our focus on STEM environments and the impact of those environments on trainees and faculty of color, their access to these environments,…[and] their experiences once there.” She highlighted the importance of accountability in the community of individuals committed to advancing DEI goals.

Percy Pierre (University of Maryland, College Park) spoke about the role of the RJ&E Committee in providing impetus for this workshop and thanked the Sloan Foundation, adding that it “has been the leader among foundations” working to engage, retain, and advance individuals from historically minoritized and marginalized racial and ethnic groups in STEM “for the last 50 years and more.” He affirmed the importance of transitioning to a better connected ecosystem of support for historically minoritized and marginalized students and the challenges associated with forming these connections, and encouraged attendees “to share information about our programs and our students. That will allow each of us to optimize our individual programs while better contributing to the solution.”

Gary May (University of California, Davis), cochair of the workshop planning committee, made the point that “diversity is at the root of innovation and technical advancement,” that greater diversity in academic research and in technology development in industry supports making discoveries and finding solutions—and that resources and funding are critical to the implementation of programs focused on increasing diversity in engineering. “To reach potential students early and support them throughout their academic journey and into the workforce requires collaboration and coordination among many organizations and institutions working to create change,” he said, as he described the motivation for this workshop.

___________________

⁷ Information about the NAE Racial Justice & Equity committee is here: https://www.nae.edu/238548/NAE-Presidents-Racial-Justice-and-Equity-Committee.