P7: Implementation of gender equality, diversity, and equal treatment modules by engineering educators
Background and purpose
KTH has had, for more than 10 years, institution-wide objectives and approaches for integrating sustainable development in engineering education. Gender perspectives must be integrated into all study and research programs at KTH [1], and equality is highlighted as an integral part of sustainable development in KTH’s new sustainability objectives for education. Engineering programs at KTH have made substantial progress integrating environmental aspects into the curriculum, but integration of social sustainability aspects is generally considered to be more challenging, especially gender equality and diversity issues [2].
This presentation provides case studies about how to integrate elements of gender equality, diversity, and equal conditions (GDE) in two courses on master’s level [3], [4]. The focus is on demonstrating successful examples of how teachers from engineering disciplines have created and implemented a GDE module specifically tailored for technical master programs.
Finished work/ongoing work
The GDE module includes learning activities and examination, and the courses have specific Intended Learning Outcomes aligned with these. The teachers have a background in Mechanical Engineering and do not have formal education in Diversity, except for standalone seminars.
The lectures have been designed to highlight two aspects of GDE integral to engineering and research:
Research results dimension: demonstrate that research methodologies are not inherently neutral or unbiased by showcasing research and innovations that failed for not considering diversity in their research methodologies.
Research context dimension: showcasing how research planning and funding allocation processes can be biased, highlighting peer-review processes that have evident biases in their results, and introducing techniques like double-blind peer review that have shown to reduce this [5].
The lecture specifically avoids discussing consequences of inequality like harassment, salary differences, and similar topics; and concentrates in the areas closer to research and technology.
In one of the courses a mandatory individual assignment is included, where students read the report “Gendered Innovations” [6], choose one of the case studies in the report, and write a critical reflection of at least 500 words with the following indications: “reflect upon (i.e., discuss and build on arguments from the text to illustrate) how consideration of equality, gender equality, diversity and inclusion among engineers can influence and/or contribute to research, innovation, and societal development. Identify two examples of such influence/contribution.”
The main objective with this design was to enable a single technical lecturer to take care of the whole GDE module, including evaluation and grading. The assignment was strategically developed targeting high-level critical reflections [7] and removing the evaluation focus from theoretical GDE concepts where the lecturer is not an expert.
Results/observations/lessons learned
The teacher’s background in Mechanical Engineering makes the students accept the social aspects of the lecture with less resistance, as the knowledge is imparted by a role figure closer to their expertise and the language used is not very specialized. The main risk is that students ask questions that the teacher is unable to answer due to their weaker theoretical basis, but this has only happened once, the first year this lecture was implemented.
The review and grading process was, from the teacher’s point of view, a smooth process with few problematic cases. The grading criteria are written so that they explicitly do not evaluate the student’s knowledge about GDE, which avoids the lack of confidence when evaluating GDE assignments.
Take-home message
This implementation example showcases how the resistance from technical educators to integrate and teach GDE takes time, practice, and experience to overcome, requiring continuous self-updating in GDE-technical topics, discussions with colleagues, and starting pilot modules to test-run them first; but is absolutely viable to create and run a GDE module in the short term.
References
- KTH, “A leading KTH: Development plan 2018–2023,” KTH, Stockholm, 2018.
- A. Rosén, et al. “Experiences from Applying the CDIO Standard for Sustainable Development in Institution-Wide Program Evaluations,” 17th International CDIO Conference, 2021, p. 13.
- “KTH course SA2001.” https://www.kth.se/student/kurser/kurs/SA2001
- “KTH course SA2002.” https://www.kth.se/student/kurser/kurs/SA2002
- N. Science Mission Directorate, “Dual-Anonymous Peer Review (DAPR).”
- Directorate-General for Research and Innovation (European Commission), Gendered innovations 2: how inclusive analysis contributes to research and innovation : policy review, 2020.
- M. Magnell, et al. “Integrating Gender Equality, Diversity, and Equal Conditions, in Engineering Education,” 18th International CDIO Conference, Reykjavik Iceland, June 13-15, 2022
