Sponsorship: Engineering’s Tacit Gatekeeper
Keywords: identity, sponsorship, retention, social production, intrinsic, extrinsic
Recent educational research has emphasized the centrality of identity to learning and development. In engineering
education research and in STEM fields more broadly, formation of a professional identity is increasingly viewed as
fundamental to learning, retention, and persistence, in particular with regard to historically underrepresented
groups. This paper explores the relationship between students’ interests and their decisions to persist in or
withdraw from their majors.
| We argue that students’ intrinsic interests develop into discipline-relevant intrinsic interests
only through the processes of sponsorship.
|
Implications of Findings
We argue that students’ intrinsic interests develop into discipline relevant intrinsic interests only through the
processes of sponsorship. Thus, “intrinsic interest in engineering” is always mutually constructed by the student
and sponsors within the discipline. These processes of sponsorship, furthermore, are neither natural nor neutral,
but contingent and contestable, and thus a major task of a social theory of identity is to explore how particular
kinds of persons are produced as belonging to disciplines, while other types of persons are produced as not
belonging.
Method and Background
This study is part of the Academic Pathways Study (APS), a multi-year, longitudinal study of learning and development
in undergraduate engineering students. A component of the APS is an ethnographic study of 16 students at each
participating campus. The ethnographic team uses a variety of ethnographic methods. In this paper, results are
based on two analytic case studies of students at one campus (University of West State) during the first two years
of the APS.
What We Found
The following two case studies are based on interviews conducted during the students' first two years as part of
the CAEE Academic Pathways Study (APS) at one of the CAEE partner universities.
Case Study—Adam: Adam, a white male, accepted into the mechanical engineering department after his first year,
presented several “themes” with regard to his abilities and perceptions of engineering: 1) Adam’s view of math
as “black and white” (right/wrong); 2) his identification of math with engineering; and 3) his use of his academic
ability to separate himself from, and elevate himself above, his peers. Adam’s view of engineering shifted during
his second year at the university to acknowledge that engineering is not based on black or white, or right or wrong
answers to problems, and that engineering was not the same as math.
Case Study—Bryn: Bryn, a woman of Mexican descent, speaks of herself as a "people person" and sees the ability to
interact meaningfully with people as essential to her college experience and eventual career; she also expects her
college experience to broaden her perspective to better equip her to do the socially oriented work she wants to do.
She presented the following “themes” with regard to her abilities and perspectives on engineering: 1) her view of
knowledge as not simply right or wrong, black or white; 2) her view of the importance of introducing diversity into
engineering education, specifically with respect to women and minorities; and 3) her dissatisfaction with what she
sees as the competitive, individualistic nature of the engineering curriculum. These views remained consistent
through her first two years and resulted in her choice to major in technical communication and not pursue a career
in engineering.
Both of these students are engaged in ongoing attempts to fit their own identity development with their increasing
understanding of the discipline of engineering. However, only Adam is doing so from a position within the discipline
of mechanical engineering. In our analysis, Adam’s interests have been recognized by powerful agents within the
disciplinary structure, while Bryn’s have not. We argue that this is not because Adam has more “intrinsic interest”
in engineering than does Bryn. Instead, both Adam’s interest in school math as well as his preference for individual
competition hold prestige within the discipline and are sponsored in the routine practices of engineering education.
Bryn’s interests, on the other hand, are more problematically related to routinized ways of evaluating students.
We are not questioning whether people have intrinsic interests, rather, we are arguing that students’ intrinsic
interests develop into discipline-relevant intrinsic interests only through the processes of sponsorship. Thus,
"intrinsic interest in engineering" is always mutually constructed by the student and sponsors within the discipline.
These processes of sponsorship, furthermore, are neither natural nor neutral, but contingent and contestable, and
thus a major task of social theory of identity is to explore how particular kinds of persons are produced as belonging
to certain engineering disciplines, while other types of persons are produced as not belonging.
Authors: Kevin O’Connor, Daniel Amos, Tori Bailey, Lari Garrison, Marcus Jones, Gary Lichtenstein, Heidi
Loshbaugh, Derek Seward, Lisa Perhamus, Reed Stevens
Source: Proceedings of the ASEE 2007 Annual Conference
The full paper, including references, is available via ASEE proceedings search.
For a printable pdf of this research brief, click here.
Brief created July 2007
Back to Research Briefs