Don't pull the weeds in this studio

When people ask me what I study, I do try really hard to fight the temptation to ramble on and on about physics education research, but you know how it is - sometimes I can't help but let it slip out. And it really is exciting stuff (I like to think); I get to look at the gender gap in physics, and try to work my way through the complex weave of issues that contribute to this gap, with the hope of finding some positive solutions. Specifically, I'm looking at the impacts of physics self-efficacy (which just refers to how confident you are in your ability to do physics) on the success and retention of women in physics. A lot of very fascinating research has been done in this field, and I am quite looking forward to learning more.

So yes, admittedly it just happened now; it really is so hard to mention physics education research without rambling on for at least a paragraph. This blog post, however, is about such a rambling that happened recently when I was talking with a person who teaches in the engineering department. I assumed that as a female educator in a similar field, she would be enthused to hear that such research was going on in a nearby department. But her response to my excitement about self-efficacy was:

 "Oh, well you know, in engineering, our students aren't touchy feely like that."

I didn't know what to say. How could an educator completely ignore study after study done on engineering students showing that they are touchy feely like that?

Through educators who think this way, we have created a "weed-out" system, without taking the time to think about how this affects our students' self-efficacy or the future of engineering as a whole. In this type of system, which views students as disembodied transcript numbers, professors have even been known to say,

"Look to your left. Look to your right. One of them will be gone by Christmas."

Of course, we like to think that in such a system, we are weeding out the academically "weak" students - these students would make poor engineers anyway, right? But I believe that such a system is actually hurting or even eliminating the innovative, collaborative, ethical, and diverse engineers - the very engineers who we need to discover solutions for the challenges to be faced by our changing world.

• Firstly, such a system weeds out students with a strong sense of ethics who care about their fellow student. A student who genuinely cares and tries to help their classmates succeed does poorly because this kind of cut-throat system requires that your fellow classmates to do worse than you so that you can "win". 
• Secondly, we weed out minority groups using subtle and sometimes even overt discrimination as described in Malicky's A Literature Review on the Under-representation of Women in Engineering. We make sexual jokes about women in engineering - we mean it all in fun of course, but objectification can not help but wear down a person's self-efficacy. In lab experiments, a woman can find her role in writing down the data rather than actually using the equipment because of the unspoken assumption that she is not as good at engineering as her male lab partner. Women who do persist in the sciences can find themselves acting more masculine than they might like to blend in. In my observations, the discrimination towards students with faith backgrounds in the sciences is even greater than that towards women. Students and professors toss in jokes or even overt insults directed towards people of faith, often leaving those who believe in God with a damaged self-efficacy and a strong sense that they are not welcome to study the field that they love.
• Lastly, we weed out those with new innovative perspectives. I believe that creativity needs a positive environment to flourish. Any artist will tell you that their studio space is essential in their creative process - some artists need to listen to music, some need to be in nature, some need to be in community with other artists, I need tea, chocolate and natural light - the specifics of the studio differ, but the theme is the same: artists need an environment which uplifts their soul to produce great work. I believe that creativity in engineering design requires the same uplifting environment. How can a "weed-out" atmosphere, in which the constant fear of "I'm not smart enough" plagues many students, be a studio space for engineering innovation?

I think we need to take a step back, study the literature on self-efficacy and the gender gap in engineering and science education, and re-assess the sometimes unspoken, but still prevalent "weed-out" attitude that exists in the sciences and engineering.