Why Women Leave: The Narrow Scope of "Engineering Identity"

No I never took apart the family toaster

Woman working at Con Edison 1975. Society of Women Engineers, Walter P. Reuther Library

I never took apart my parents’ toaster as a kid (something other adult engineers I met confessed to) or built a model airplane. However, I was fascinated with learning about how airplanes flew or why plants grew or why yeast rose. As a kid, I learned to make bread, garden, and read lots of books on a variety of subjects. However, I never watched Star Trek or Star Wars, or read comic books, hate Mountain Dew, and never played a video game in my life. In some ways, people may not have considered me to be a future “engineer”, since I didn’t like building things, the narrow stereotype of engineering often being related to constructing.

The are a lot of reasons why women leave STEM and tech fields in particular (poor culture, discrimination, not being promoted, lack of support, etc.). Here is one reason that percolates in childhood and undergrad: the development of “engineering identity” which can have deep-rooted impacts on engineering culture. My own struggles with navigating a creative and engineering identity inspired me to investigate development of engineering identity, particularly in academic spaces.

The Female Role v. Engineering Role

“Engineering identity” (what traits and characteristics are associated with engineers and how students assume this identity) is molded by complex cultural processes. The primary focus on the development of “engineering identity” is the lack of representation of female STEM scholars in popular culture and in the classroom. This representation gap has been attributed to the disconnect between society’s perceptions of the female gender role and the role of a scientist (i.e., role congruity theory) (Knobloch-Westerwick, Glynn, and Huge 2013). Throughout the world, men are still more likely to be associated with STEM than women, even in countries with high gender equity. Often, women’s contributions to STEM have been downplayed as being an extraordinary exception rather than the norm in the field (D. I. Miller, Eagly, and Linn 2015). For example, narratives about Madame Curie’s success were deliberately crafted to emphasize her extraordinary personal sacrifice and minimize broader issues regarding women in science (Rossiter 1982). Female students in STEM can perceive these examples as atypical and differing from their own experiences, thereby retaining pre-existing stereotypes (D. I. Miller, Eagly, and Linn 2015). A lack of female role models in popular culture, let alone the classroom, can ultimately decrease female student identification with STEM and decrease their enrollment in STEM majors.

Teenaged and college-aged girls are likely imbibing conflicting information about their so-called ‘feminine’ role (i.e., nurturing, emotional, soft-spoken) and realizing this does not match with the perceived “role” of scientists (i.e., independent, rational, aggressive). Male engineers too, are often treated as some glorified ‘other’, some special species to be catered to. This is very evident in the dating and relationship world, where women are being bombarded with algorithms that rank their physical features, and fearmongering about being single. An excerpt from one of many patronizing articles on how to “date” an engineer, often presumes that it is a non-engineer female dating a man. Often, they excuse toxic behavior from male engineers like ‘he doesn’t have time for you”, or ‘won’t plan dates’ or presumes he likes video games and sci-fi.

Bad Advice from Her Campus (2016):

He doesn’t have time for you during the week: Duh. He’s an engineer, what did you expect? He is always tackling physics, statics or thermo homework. Even after multiple explanations from my boyfriend, I still don’t completely know what thermo is. So as the girlfriend of an engineer forget about night talks or morning kisses. Suck it up and deal with it, because when he said he is studying, he is. But there is good news ladies, since he often pulls all-nighters to finish his mountain of homework, he obviously won’t have time to cheat on you[…] He’s probably a genius

Bad advice from a marital counselling service (2023):

One crucial aspect to grasp is that engineers possess a natural curiosity (alongside a tendency towards being determined, opinionated, and confident in their correctness). They love to understand how things work and often see the world through a unique problem-solving lens. This can make for some intriguing conversations. So, even if you're more inclined to discuss the latest fashion trends or political happenings, try to show an interest in their latest design or coding challenge. Who knows, you might find it more enjoyable than you think.

Bad Advice from Love Engineer (2013):

When it comes to gifts for an engineer you can always win by finding out what was their favorite sci-fi movie, video game, tv show as a kid and find either: Cufflinks that have a sci-fi theme, engineers often don’t own cufflinks because they don’t wear suits but at some point they will be invited to a wedding black tie event and be grateful they had some. A shirt that has their favorite sci-fi characters

Bad Advice 2025 by Sara Writtenhouse (Good Men Project):

With so few decent options, more and more women are flat-out refusing to date at all. Many are saying the same thing — there aren’t enough qualified men to put forth the effort. Ladies, I’d like to respectfully disagree […] Programmers are the smartest guys around. To become a successful software engineer, it takes brains. They spend their days solving complex problems as they crank out code. It’s like a grey matter workout every day. Their brains are ripped.

With bad advice like that, the conflict between fulfilling society’s roles of womanhood and attempting to cross in “engineering” can be disturbing. They also cement toxic cultural norms in engineering fields.

Tinkering & Problem Sets & Creativity Loss Oh MY!

However, there are deeper nuances to the development of engineering stereotypes. The development of engineering identity is typically gendered, with gendered expectations, and differences in how men and women understand themselves as engineers (Tonso 2006). Engineering consists of gendered divisions of labor, gendered symbols in engineering practice, and bias in technology development and use. Historically, the culture of engineering has a profound connection or even obsession with “tinkering” technology or machines (Faulkner 2007). This often excluded women who did not, for various reasons, typically share this interest with excessive tinkering and were discounted as not being “real” engineers (Kendall, Procter, and Patrick 2019). Moreover, “technology” has historically been coded as “masculine”, being marketed, developed, and primarily associated with male users, which negatively informs women’s relationships with technological use (Landström 2013).

Engineering education, which often includes drills of problem-solving exercises may create a mind/body split that could be distressing to marginalized identities (Faulkner 2000). The repetitiveness of problem-sets or lab work can minimize other types of thinking. There is strong emphasis on technical mastery, as opposed to understanding social context. Even though humanities and engineering majors have similar cerebral interests in high school, engineers may face more anxiety about their body image and romantic relationships than humanities majors. Multiple studies have confirmed a stagnation of critical thinking in undergraduate engineering programs and a loss in students’ creativity over a 4 year undergraduate program (Sola et al. 2017; YASEMIN TEKMEN-ARACI 2019). Most undergrad engineering majors are not trained to recognize their own cognitive biases to effectively evaluate their work (Booker, Gates, and Knights 2021).

Engineering major attrition rates are higher for women, women of color, and LGBTQ+ identities. This in-depth study of female students who left engineering majors, confirmed this role conflict between femininity and engineering identity:

“I think that as women, we are more focused on taking care and worrying about others […] There is a social norm that assumes women must take care of people: disabled, children, or even little brothers or sisters. Family care always falls on us and men can dedicate themselves to reaching success. So yes, I think it has something to do with having different aspirations.” (I29_Female OUT)

“It is true that the vast majority of men are more focused on being successful, and I think that my family and friends assumed that since I did volunteer work, I was going to choose a major related to care, such as social work, and by the time I wanted to change, I found that everyone expected me to quit Engineering.” (I32_Female OUT)

Female students are less likely than their male counterparts to persist in STEM majors, especially engineering if their grades fall:

“(…) except for the first exam, what I do is fail and even though you have to dedicate many hours to it, and you have to study a lot, I felt that I did not get ahead (…) Yes, I felt frustrated and compared to my classmates, maybe, I don’t know, I didn’t understand very well why they were getting good marks and I couldn’t.” (I17_Female OUT)

“There comes a time when you have so much pressure, so many things that something in your head tells you ‘I can’t.” (I03_Female IN)

“Sometimes you were very well prepared, and you couldn’t get it because it was a very high level, so, for me sometimes there was a feeling of impotence.” (I08_Female IN)

“in Calculus, I went to review my exam …. and professors were quite old in general … so, he saw me, a woman having failed calculus for the second time and told me that I wasn’t suitable for Engineering. And in the end it takes you down. And I even considered leaving Engineering and studying something else that has nothing to do with Engineering, because they have told me precisely that I was not suitable.” (I02_Female IN)

LEFT: Christine Darden aerospace engineers at NASA Langley. RIGHT: Hedy Lamarr, actress and inventor of an encryption system.

“Weed-out” courses, which are required, introductory course in cores subject areas such as chemistry or physics, serve as “gatekeepers”. These courses are often fast-paced and challenging, and can easily discourage students from continuing in the major. Particularly for groups who have not been nurtured or encouraged in their desires STEM. For example, one study showed that Black women who received poor grades in introductory STEM courses were more likely to switch to nonscience majors (Essien 1997). A study examining students in STEM majors at a Latinx-serving institution from 2006-2008 revealed that earning a STEM degree depended on enrollment in introductory math and science courses and first-semester GPA (Crisp, Nora, and Taggart 2006). Enrolling in Biology I or higher in the first semester was negatively associated with earning a STEM degree (Crisp, Nora, and Taggart 2006). “Gatekeeper” courses deter STEM major completion because of their lack of engaging pedagogy and highly competitive atmosphere .

Notably, I received Bs and Cs in Math, Chemistry, Physics, Biology, and Computer Coding my first 2 years of my engineering degree (But As in humanities classes). I felt awful and conflicted, since I got ‘As’ on the problem sets but did poorly on exams which were worth a large chunk of our grades. Fortunately, I did recognize that exams were deliberately made to be very difficult and that the classes were curved. Through some stubborn determination I pushed through and ended up with As in my last 2 years when I did engineering classes.

However, this creates a very hostile, atmosphere, in which the institution “insists on the importance of changing your mind and thinking like an engineer” and encourages a certain conformity to a dominant culture:

“I felt very alone, I felt that we had to know everything (…) I didn’t find any kind of support, no matter how much I asked for it.” (I21_MaleOUT)

“(…) I think that the system should change for those people who don’t fit in.” (I26_Female OUT)

This translates, of course, to fewer female TAs and faculty in engineering, fewer students, and fewer role models and support groups for women. The field consolidates to a white, male dominated space.

Engineering, a Male Refuge?

University of Florida students working on a solar-powered generator, 1977. Society of Women Engineers, Walter P. Reuther Library

Technical fields can be a “refuge” from and even source of power for men from emotional relationships. There is strong incentive for “emotional detachment” in STEM fields, particularly in “harder” fields like mathematics (Faulkner 2000). Since “emotions” are associated with feminine behavior, there is strong gendering in rationality/emotionality. Additionally, there is a distinction between manual labor and mental labor: female students, who often lacked experience with hands-on (building or coding) work, tend to excel in mental labor, while men were more likely to take a “hands-on” approach (Faulkner 2000). So, unsurprisingly, STEM spaces have been tacitly coded as a white, heterosexual, masculine space (Camacho and Lord 2011; G. Miller 2002). When there is a predominance of masculine culture, these dualities manifest themselves in practice, and result in oppressive ideologies, including homophobia and sexism (Faulkner 2000). Women are often stereotyped as “emotional” and there is the perception that there is no room for passion or emotion in engineering. Which is false.

Even worse, science has worked to “support’ these gender divisions. One of the most damaging and far-reaching abuses of “science” has been used to advance the cause of heteronormativity and gender essentialism. Heteronormativity refers to the prevalence of social and sexual “norms” that are based on presumed heterosexuality. Heteronormativity pervades all aspects of science, from how female scientists dress and act, to scientific development and research, and to how women relate to technology. Since Darwin’s Origin of Species, traits associated with the “ideal” scientist have been coded as masculine: objective, disciplined, critical, methodical, detached from political engagement, and indifferent to profit-making (Paul 2018). “Ethical” scientific research was inexorably associated with virtues and personality traits of the scientist, rather than their actions. In gender essentialism, “Masculine” and “Feminine” are two distinct entities, that are associated with anatomical biology alone, and have socially-deemed “correct” characteristics. Women who had “masculine” characteristics, such as those associated with a “scientist” were often determined to be “mal-adjusted” (Landström 2013). For decades, physicians and medical literature worked on the “optimal gender paradigm”. This “paradigm” was developed to aid physicians in selecting the “best” gender for intersex patients, essentially forcing them into the gender binary (Rubin 2017). This conflation of anatomical sex and gender in the medical establishment only served to re-enforce gender essentialism. Furthermore, as I discussed in a previous post, there have been numerous attempts to for “science” to also “prove” differences in STEM aptitude between men and women.

Yet, even in the 21^st century, there is the presumption that it is the heterosexual feminine-identifying woman participating in STEM and engaging with its technology. Studies attempting to find ways for women to better succeed in STEM, treated women as a monolith: the heterosexual feminine-identifying women (Landström 2013). I wrote about this in my previous post. “Feminizing” scientific outreach (“puffy pink feminism”) often does not work. Moreover, engineering students often feel pressure to adopt the culture of white, masculine engineering students (Pawley 2019), including wearing more masculine clothes, adjusting one’s speech and language, to even hiding one’s sexual identity.

Conclusion

Engineering Identity is Sculpted By:

• Lack of representation of women in pop culture, and in engineering spaces.

• Narratives that deliberately minimize women’s historical contributions to science.

• Gendered expectations that women can’t or won’t excel with hands-on-work, and that hands-on-work (as opposed to creativity) is the most vital skill to excel in engineering.

• Virtue-signaling that “good” scientific research is conducted by those who conform to masculine-coded personality traits

• Assuming that all women who are interested in STEM are heterosexual feminine-identifying woman

• Pseudo-science trying to support gender essentialism and differences in scientific aptitude between men and women

• Curriculum that minimizes historical and ethical contexts, and discourages creativity and critical thinking.

• Creating a culture of exclusion through weed-out courses and encouraging women whose grades are low that they just don’t have an ‘engineering brain’.

Stereotypes often avoid the complex, nuanced roles and skillsets within STEM fields. I gravitated towards getting a graduate degree in engineering and remaining in academia (though it doesn’t pay much) because I felt like there was more freedom to explore and evaluate my own work, and an appreciation of interdisciplinary analysis. I also have control over the development, execution, and completion, of my own projects and get publication credits. I can also mentor and teach, which I enjoy doing. Now I teach men to code!!

Changing stereotypes will require tackling all these issues. I would encourage anyone interested in engineering as a career path to take as many humanities classes as possible and to lean into their own creative passion. Always think of the ethical and social implications of your work and to do independent research on these things. It will make you a better engineer, no matter what anyone says!

References

Camacho, Michelle Madsen, and Susan M Lord. 2011. “‘Microaggressions’ in Engineering Education : Climate for Asian , Latina and White Women.” In 41st ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference S3H-1, Rapid City, SD

Essien, Francine. 1997. “Black Women in the Sciences.” In Black Women in the Academy: Promises and Perils, Gainsville: University Press of Florida, 91–102.

Landström, Catharina. 2013. “Queering Feminist Technology Studies.” In Women, Science, and Technology: A Reader in Feminist Science Studies, eds. M. Wyer et al. New York: Taylor & Francis Group., 385–99.

Kendall, Meagan R., Luis Miguel Procter, and Anita D. Patrick. 2019. “Assessing Methods for Developing an Engineering Identity in the Classroom.” In ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings

Rossiter, Margaret W. 1982. Women Scientists in America: Struggles and Strategies to 1940. Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Rubin, David A. 2017. “‘An Unnamed Blank That Craved a Name’: A Genealogy of Intersex as Gender.” In Queer Feminist Science Studies : A Reader, University of Washington Press, 82–96.