Work in Progress: Developing Methods from Feminist Standpoint Perspectives to Analyze a Panel Discussion and Promote Enduring Impact

Full text

Paper ID #39227
Work in Progress: Developing Methods from Feminist Standpoint
Perspectives to Analyze a Panel Discussion and Promote Enduring Impact
Dr. Renee M. Desing, Oregon State University
Dr. Renee Desing is a postdoctoral scholar at Oregon State University in the School of Civil and Construc-
tion Engineering. Her research interests include diversity, equity, inclusion in the engineering classrooms
and workplaces. Dr. Desing graduated from Ohio State with her Ph.D. in Engineering Education, and also
holds a B.S. in Industrial Engineering from the Georgia Institute of Technology and a M.S. in Industrial
Engineering and Operations Research from the Pennsylvania State University.
Dr. Susan Sajadi, Virginia Tech
Susan Sajadi is an assistant professor at Virginia Tech in the department of engineering education. She
has a BS and MS in Biomedical Engineering and a Ph.D. in Engineering Education Systems and Design
from Arizona State University. Prior, she worked as an engineer in the medical device industry.
Dr. Christina Anlynette Alston, Rice University
As Associate Director for Science and Engineering of the Rice Office of STEM Engagement, Christina
leads the NanoEnvironmental Engineering for Teachers program. In this capacity, she guides Houston
area secondary science teachers in weekly meetings on Ric
Stephanie A Damas, Clemson University
Stephanie Ashley Damas is currently a graduate student at Clemson University studying to get her Ph.D.
in Engineering and Science Education. Her area of interest is Diversity and Inclusion in Engineering. She
holds a bachelorˆ
aC™s degree in electrical engi
Gabriella Torres
Dr. Corin L. Bowen, California State University, Los Angeles
Corin (Corey) Bowen is an Assistant Professor of Engineering Education, housed in the Department
of Civil Engineering at California State University - Los Angeles. Her engineering education research
focuses on structural oppression in engineering systems, organizing for equitable change, and developing
an agenda of Engineering for the Common Good. She teaches structural mechanics and sociotechnical
topics in engineering education and practice. Corey conferred her Ph.D. in aerospace engineering from
the University of Michigan - Ann Arbor in April 2021; her thesis included both technical and educational
research. She also holds an M.S.E. in aerospace engineering from the University of Michigan - Ann Arbor
and a B.S.E. in civil engineering from Case Western Reserve University, both in the areas of structural
engineering and solid mechanics.
©American Society for Engineering Education, 2023

Work in Progress: Developing Methods from Feminist Standpoint
Perspectives to Analyze a Panel Discussion and Promote Enduring Impact
Abstract
Panel discussions have been widely used to provide diverse perspectives on pressing topics
within academic and non-academic communities. Individuals participating in panels are usually
brought together to express a wide range of viewpoints and to combine ideas, research, and
experiences. We see an opportunity to extend panel discussions to have enduring impact by
broadly distributing the data synthesized during the panel discussions. The use of panel
discussions as a research endeavor has the potential to broaden researchers' ways of knowing, yet
knowledge transfer from panel conversations to peer-reviewed publications has to this point been
minimal.
This paper highlights a methodology for analyzing panel discussions, discourse content, and
panelist reflection to produce research results, new insights, and field recommendations. We
ground our analysis in our individual and collective positionalities as well as the careful selection
of a guiding theoretical framework. We explore the use of a collaborative autoethnography
approach and qualitative coding of the panel transcript as effective methods for analyzing panel
discussions and capturing the information and ideas presented in peer-reviewed publications.
We find the method presented especially impactful for topics related to broadening participation
in engineering. Marginalized groups are still vastly underrepresented, and their perspectives
remain unvalidated within engineering and engineering education spaces. This paper is based on
a panel of six early career women engineers in the academy. We pursue this endeavor through an
explicit standpoint of feminist epistemology, recognizing that our collective positionalities
impact our methodological approaches and analyses of these methodologies. As women in
STEM, we utilize two of the four dimensions of Black feminist standpoint theory (BFT): (1)
lived experiences viewed as a criterion of meaning and (2) the use of dialogue to access
knowledge claims. We expand these dimensions to all women by leveraging feminist theory,
which emerged from BFT. The method presented allows each panelist to contribute their distinct
but overlapping personal, professional, and research experiences to create one unified message.
Together, we believe our individual experiences revealed unique insights worth capturing
collectively, and this paper will show transparency in our process, which may be replicable by
participants on other panels. We hope to capture this methodology to help other minoritized or
marginalized groups amplify their voices within the engineering and engineering education
spaces, furthering the calls for systemic change.
Key Words: women, diversity, collaborative autoethnography, panel discussions

Introduction
“I think my big lasting thought that I'd love to impart is around the power of the
collective…In order to break that pattern [of an individualistic society], we're
going to have to rebuild relationships with other people, and we're going to have
to take action with other people. The conversations that we have will drive us and
each other outside our comfort zones, and then our actions will do the same thing.
I think that’s the power that we have to make change.”- Author Corey Bowen from
Graduate Student and Postdoctoral Fellows’ Perspectives on Advancing Women
and Gender Equity in Engineering panel during the 2022 ASEE Annual Conference
The value of panel discussions is derived from an understanding that there is value in capturing
and presenting a wide range of viewpoints that could benefit a diverse audience. Panel
discussions at conferences, in particular, are used to exchange viewpoints among experts
working as a team, whether or not panelists agree on all issues, to create an interesting discussion
for the audience [1]. Within academia, panel discussions are often used as a catalyst for
curricular, policy-based, and other interventions. When used for publications, they are widely
presented as opinion pieces or as summaries of the discussion content [e.g., 2, 3]. Although
summaries of discussions have been used as motivation for studies and publications, panel
discussions have yet to be viewed as a data collection method. Specifically, scholars have not
analyzed or interpreted the dialogue from panel discussions with the intention of the production
of academic research publications. We believe that panel discussions can be used for more than
simply encouraging an affective response to systemic problems. We aim to expand the potential
use of panel discussions by presenting a methodology for using panel discussion content as
research data for a study. Since there is a gap in the literature regarding the role of panel
discussions in facilitating enduring impact, we are motivated by the distinct nature of panel
discussions to create safe spaces for critical discourse on challenges related to social justice and
societal issues.
Purpose
This work-in-progress paper describes a methodology we designed to interpret data from an
American Society of Engineering Education (ASEE) panel discussion in which we participated
as panelists. Panel discussions are increasingly being used to tackle difficult conversations
regarding race relations, diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) and broadening participation in
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) [4]. For example, the 2022 ASEE
Annual Conference held four panel discussions regarding topics on diversity, equity, inclusion,
and justice (DEIJ) in STEM (full list provided in the Appendix). The disparities in experiences
and participation between individuals of different backgrounds in STEM are alarming, as
multiple literature sources document [e.g., 5-7]. Panel discussions are among the primary
strategic courses of action for companies, universities, and organizations that seek to reduce
disparity gaps. Those with knowledge in these areas or who identify with marginalized groups
are typically invited to be panelists for these discussions, but their contributions are not reflected
in academic publications. To move beyond conversation toward enduring, meaningful impact,
the actors must become active participants in systemic change [8]. This change cannot happen
without a shift in what we deem to be worthy knowledge and who is deemed knowledgeable [9].
Thus, we leverage Black feminist standpoint theory (BFT) to position the legitimacy of our
voices as women, a marginalized group in engineering spaces as well as in society at large, and

to present a new way of analyzing and presenting the content of our panel discussion as
legitimate scientific and academic knowledge. Although all panelists have not experienced the
intersectional oppression that BFT was developed around, within the context of the engineering
field women experience “othering” and historical exclusion, and the theory helps conceptualize
our identities in this context, while also acknowledging our differences. We present a method
that allows each panelist to contribute their distinct but overlapping personal, professional, and
research experiences to develop a unified message.
Methodology
In June 2022, the authors were invited to be participants on a panel titled Graduate Student and
Postdoctoral Fellows’ Perspectives on Advancing Women and Gender Equity in Engineering,
which was organized by the Women in Engineering Division at the 2022 ASEE Annual
Conference. We share the methodology of how we specifically organized and analyzed our panel
discussion to leverage our own experiences and perspectives as a rich data source to encourage
an enduring impact resulting from the discussion. Our methodology consists of three main steps,
which are further detailed in the sections below, along with how we will apply these steps to our
analysis.
● Step 1: Describe who we are in relation to existing social stratifications of power by
defining our individual and collective positionalities
● Step 2: Select a guiding framework to align our analysis with the panel (in consideration
of our positionalities and the panel topic)
● Step 3: Conduct a collaborative autoethnography to analyze our panel discussion data
and generate new knowledge
Step 1: Positionality
The first phase of our methodology considers the panel’s purpose in relation to its collective
identity. Our identities impact our positionality through existing social structures that assign
varying amounts of social power to different groups (e.g., gender, race, class) [10], [11]. Our
positionality impacts the choices we make as researchers, directly affecting data collection,
analysis procedures, and proposed conclusions [12]-[14]. In our work together, the authorship
team’s individual identities coalesce around a topic that has personal meaning and importance
for all of us, resulting in our collective positionality that both guides our research and uniquely
positions us to draw important conclusions from our data.
Various members of the authorship team identify as engineers, engineering education scholars,
women, and racial or ethnic minorities. These identities have each contributed to goals with
respect to our methodology. First, as engineers, we share lived experiences in engineering
academia and industry. We prioritize analytical and logical skills, and we have “action-oriented”
mindsets that we have gleaned from our engineering education and careers. This mindset
contributed to our group’s desire to actively create ways to preserve, elevate, and distribute the
valuable knowledge that is put forth during panel sessions.
Second, as scholars, we have extensive knowledge in engineering education and qualitative
analysis methods. Our strength in this area comes from our ability to leverage the skills of six
engineering education researchers. Third, all our panel members identify as women. As women
in STEM, we are highly invested in promoting gender equity and valuing members of our

community who are not empowered by the patriarchal norms of our field. Fourth, much of the
authorship team identifies as racial and ethnic minorities, and we are appreciative of the
remainder being strong allies. Recognizing the impacts of intersectional oppression described by
Kimberlé Crenshaw and other Black feminist scholars both inside and outside of education [15]-
[17], we are also cognizant of the compounding effects of marginalization along multiple axes as
experienced by many members of our team. Both quantitative and qualitative research has
already documented the impacts of intersectional oppression in STEM [18]-[22]. Thus, we seek
to devise methods that amplify marginalized voices and promote “non-traditional” paths to
scholarship.
When assembling a panel, intentional sampling that considers positionality is of the utmost
importance for several reasons [23], [24]. Our panel’s organizers ensured quality by including a
diverse range of perspectives centered on the panel themes: Advancing Women and Gender
Equity in Engineering. Intentional sampling prevents “othering”, which is defined as the action
or risk of perceiving differences between two or more people and converting the differences to
inferiority [25]. Within our panel, no one was isolated as the only member of their race or
ethnicity, as the only participant with a given role in academia (i.e., graduate student or
postdoctoral researcher), or as the only participant with industry experience. We feel that this
panel composition effectively eliminated any othering that might have occurred otherwise and
created a safe space for us to hold an authentic discussion. These considerations could easily be
adapted to future panels with other commonalities and goals.
Step 2: Selecting a Guiding Framework
The second phase of our methodology is to ground the panel discussion and analysis in a guiding
theoretical or conceptual framework. Selecting a guiding framework for a panel is important
because it ensures that the panel discussion remains focused and relevant to the topic. A
theoretical framework offers a conceptual structure and guiding principles that help to organize
the discussion. Furthermore, grounding the discussion in established knowledge, rather than
relying on opinions or anecdotes alone, can enhance its credibility and value, making it more
informative for the audience. We recommend selecting a framework that is relevant to the
panelists’ individual and collective positionalities and the panel discussion topic. In our case, we
selected Black feminist standpoint theory. The epistemological cornerstone of the field of
women's studies is feminist theory, with Black feminist standpoint theory (BFT) addressing the
underlying conditions of oppression due to race, gender, class, and sexuality experienced by
Black women [26], [27]. BFT is concerned with how knowledge is produced and how power is
used in daily life. Within White-male-dominated fields, such as engineering, the collective power
of Black women’s experiences is often subjugated to social and political standards that create
hierarchy. This unbalanced dynamic leaves the position of this group to be mitigated on their
own. Thus, BFT demands that the lives, voices, and experiences of Black women and other
marginalized groups should be given an elevated priority within research and social order. Using
BFT is essential for individuals of all racial identities. Non-Black and nonfemale researchers can
help promote more inclusive and equitable research practices. In contrast, Black researchers can
help to center their experiences and perspectives in the research process by empowering and
validating them, as it acknowledges the critical contributions. Collins [26] asserts a Black
feminist standpoint must be promoted collectively through agency (space to share lived
experiences for the creation of meaning) and power (access to knowledge claims).

Agency
Marcel [28] states agency is sensing the pre-reflection self. From this frame of mind, agency is
an inherent cause of action due to an immersion with feelings and beliefs. Additionally, agency
can commonly be referred to as a space - describing all the dimensions in which we, as human
beings, exist (e.g., physical, mental, and social), is used to help understand the importance of
agency. According to Alston et al. [29], the freeing or oppressing of any state of these
dimensions directly impacts an individual's ability to project their reality onto their world.
Combining the ideas of Macel and Alston, we define agency as physical and mental space for
women’s shared lived experiences to be viewed as a criterion of meaning and expression of
beliefs that lead to action. Agency is necessary for the collective thought and actions that
contribute to expanding Black feminist standpoint through the acquisition and transfer of
educational, organizational, and societal knowledge to improve women’s professional experience
[26], [28].
Power
Conti and O'Neil [30] state power is not owned by an individual but shifted amongst
relationships between individuals, organizations, and institutions. In this sense, power is dynamic
and becomes dangerous when one person or culture becomes obsessive in its ownership. King
[31] adds to the idea of dynamic power, declaring, “Black women are empowered with the right
to interpret our reality and define our objectives” and “continually establish and re-establish our
priorities” [31, p. 72]. Collins [26] agrees that power is the ability of Black women to self-define
their experiences, intentions, worth, and credibility within society utilizing their narratives. The
power of self-definition is realized collectively by women twofold. First, women gain a critical
consciousness to determine their truth and their place in a society free from dominating and
oppressive views. Second, women begin to create new knowledge onto the world by bestowing
their narratives and providing a collective standpoint. However, this cannot happen without
access to power in the first place. That is why the process is dynamic - a continual motion,
struggle, back and forth for women to bestow their truth onto the world. Aligning with King,
Collins, and Conti and O'Neil, we define and use the idea of power to enhance all women’s
ability to participate in the dynamic action of gaining and transferring societal knowledge claims
within the context of their choosing.
Step 3: Collaborative Autoethnography
The third phase of our methodology is to approach data collection and analysis of the panel
discussion through collaborative autoethnography [32]. Collaborative autoethnography is “a
qualitative research method in which researchers work in community to collect their
autobiographical materials and to analyze and interpret their data collectively to gain a
meaningful understanding of sociocultural phenomena reflected in their autobiographical data”
[32, p. 23-4]. In our case, the autobiographical materials are our past experiences as women in
engineering as well as the panel discussion transcript. The sociocultural phenomena we are
studying is the panel topic, the role of women in building diversity, equity, and inclusion in
engineering.
We plan to follow the iterative process outlined by Chang et al. [32] for conducting a
collaborative autoethnography: data collection through both individual writing and reflection and
group sharing (i.e., our panel discussion and subsequent meetings); and individual data review,
coding, group meaning-making and theme search. Specifically, we plan to analyze the panel

discussion transcript using multiple cycles of inductive coding [33]. We will focus the transcript
analysis on participant responses and not audience comments or other aspects of the panel. Each
panelist will code the transcript individually, and then during multiple iterative group sessions
via video call, the panelists conduct a thematic analysis [33] by reviewing all codes and
organizing them into meaningful themes and insights. Further, panelists can add more context to
their comments at the panel through individual reflection and during these group sessions based
on their autobiographical experiences. We repeatedly lean on our individual and collective
positionalities during our discussions and reflections to help us determine the key themes that
relate to the phenomena of study and the goal of our panel. While our analysis is ongoing, we
expect it to result in a set of themes focused on our past and current experiences, thereby
centering and raising the voices of marginalized women in engineering, as well as
recommendations for future change in the field based on our individual and collective
experiences.
Our methodology proposes not only an extension of panel procedures to generate scholarly
research, but also recognizing the potential of academic panels to add to collaborative
autoethnographic work. Academia exists in a firmly siloed nature and structure, with strong
divisions between departments and institutions that also serve powerful purposes in aiding the
isolation of those from minoritized social groups, including women in engineering. The
formation of this group via panel organizing was a non-trivial step to the initiation of this work,
and we encourage reflection on other existing structures within academic spaces might also
utilize collaborative autoethnography to extend the impact of change-making efforts.
Methodological Quality
The use of a collaborative autoethnographic approach leverages the benefits of autoethnography
while overcoming its challenges. Specifically, collaborative autoethnography allows for
exploration of the researchers’ subjectivity, power-sharing among the researchers as participants,
deeper learning about themselves and others, and community building [32]. Expanding on
autoethnography, collaborative autoethnography supports the shift from individual to collective
agency, which opens doors for accessible research [34], aligning with our purpose and
theoretical framework. A challenge with collaborative autoethnography is the trustworthiness
and honesty of participants during the process [32]. The panelists are working to overcome this
challenge by building relationships with one another through frequent meetings and a focus on
our shared goal to improve women’s experiences in engineering.
Conclusion and Future Work
Conferences, universities, and companies frequently use panel discussions to begin the discourse
on critical conversations regarding STEM. These discussions provide the opportunity for
historically marginalized groups in engineering (whether industry or academia), who are
traditionally excluded from academic publishing [35] to be a part of the conversation.
Conferences within and outside of academia continually employ panels that produce a wealth of
knowledge that is often limited in research propagation. The intentional inclusion of
marginalized panelists in discussions of high-priority issues in STEM has proven to be beneficial
for discourse. We believe that enduring impact can be achieved when the conversation continues
beyond the setting of the panel discussion. Inspired by the need to build both power and agency,
as described in BFT, we believe that this methodology can be extended to other marginalized
groups in engineering and in society. Our methodology positions panelists' experiences as
knowledge, and thus panel discussions are viewed as data-appropriate and valuable for

propagation. Further, we offer this methodology as a step towards increased equity in
compensation for panelists in the form of the academic currency provided by publications.
Constructing this pathway to publication based on panel participation will be a way for panelists
to be recognized for their contributions in a meaningful way that helps further their careers.
We intend to begin to break these knowledge distribution barriers with our own data. We are
applying this methodology to our own panel discussion to develop a manuscript submission. We
believe that this methodological implementation will serve as a guiding study for future panels.
We also believe that our work will contribute to the body of literature regarding broadening
participation and the role of women in advancing diversity in engineering. As participants and
researchers in our study, we hope to propagate our findings in a way that maintains the integrity
of our panel and demonstrates the usefulness of our methodology. We recognize that both panels
and publications have limited impact, and hope to reimagine both and open doors for more real
communication and impact on critical topics. We believe that the implementation of our
methodology is most impactful when used with the end in mind: to amplify the voices of
historically marginalized populations in engineering and create systemic change.
Acknowledgments
We first want to acknowledge, aligned with collaborative autoethnography, that this panel and
paper were a truly collaborative effort. All authors (panelists) contributed equally to the panel
preparation, panel discussion, conceptualization and writing of the paper, and subsequent data
analysis, despite the author order listed. We would also like to thank our panel organizers, Drs.
Lily Wang and Idalis Villanueva Alarcón from the ASEE Women in Engineering Division.
References
[1] J. L. Doumont, “Panel Discussions,” in English Communication for Scientists, Cambridge,
MA: Scitable by Nature Education, 2010. Accessed: Jan. 31, 2023. [Online]. Available:
https://www.nature.com/scitable/ebooks/english-communication-for-scientists-
14053993/126085065/
[2] G. Roehrig, H. El-Deghaidy, A. García-Holgado, and D. Kansan, “A closer look to STEM
education across continents: insights from a multicultural panel discussion,” 2022 IEEE
Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), Tunis, Tunisia, pp. 1873–1880,
2022, doi: 10.1109/EDUCON52537.2022.9766669.
[3] L. Summers, “Panel Discussion: Price Stability: How Should Long-Term Monetary Policy
Be Determined?,” Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 625–631,
1991, doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/1992697.
[4] J. M. Ezell, “‘Trickle-Down’ Racial Empathy in American Higher Education: Moving
Beyond Performative Wokeness and Academic Panels to Spark Racial Equity,” Journal of
Education, vol. 0, no. 0, 2021, [Online]. Available:
https://doi.org/10.1177/00220574211053586
[5] E. O. McGee, “Devalued Black and Latino Racial Identities: A By-Product of STEM
College Culture?,” American Educational Research Journal, vol. 53, no. 6, pp. 1626–1662,
Dec. 2016, doi: 10.3102/0002831216676572.
[6] M. W. Ohland et al., “Race, gender, and measures of success in engineering education,”
Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 100, no. 2, pp. 225–252, 2011, doi: 10.1002/j.2168-
9830.2011.tb00012.x.
[7] T. L. Fletcher, J. P. Jefferson, B. N. Boyd, and K. J. Cross, “Missed Opportunity for
Diversity in Engineering: Black Women and Undergraduate Engineering Degree

Attainment,” Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, Jan.
2021, doi: 10.1177/1521025120986918.
[8] J. E. Froyd, C. Henderson, R. S. Cole, D. Friedrichson, R. Khatri, and C. Stanford, “From
Dissemination to Propagation: A New Paradigm for Education Developers,” Change: The
Magazine of Higher Learning, vol. 49, no. 4, pp. 35–42, 2017, doi:
https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2017.1357098.
[9] S. Harding, Whose science? Whose knowledge?: Thinking from women’s lives. Cornell
University Press, 1991. [Online]. Available:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7591/j.ctt1hhfnmg
[10] O. O. Delano-Oriaran and M. W. Parks, “One Black, One White: Power, White Privilege,
Creating Safe Spaces,” Multicultural Education, vol. 22, pp. 15–19, 2015.
[11] K. St. Louis and A. C. Barton, “Tales from the science education crypt: A critical reflection
of positionality, subjectivity, and reflexivity in research,” Forum: Qualitative Social
Research, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 249–262, 202AD, doi: https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-3.3.832.
[12] A. G. D. Holmes, “Researcher Positionality- A Consideration of Its Influence and Place in
Qualitative Research- A New Researcher Guide,” International Journal of Education, vol.
8, no. 4, pp. 1–10, Sep. 2020.
[13] S. Secules et al., “Positionality practices and dimensions of impact on equity research: A
collaborative inquiry and call to the community,” Journal of Engineering Education, vol.
110, no. 1, pp. 19–43, Jan. 2021, doi: 10.1002/jee.20377.
[14] C. Hampton, D. Reeping, and D. S. Ozkan, “Positionality Statements in Engineering
Education Research: A Look at the Hand that Guides the Methodological Tools,” Studies in
Engineering Education, vol. 1, no. 2, p. 126, Mar. 2021, doi: 10.21061/see.13.
[15] K. W. Crenshaw, On intersectionality: Essential writings. New York, NY: The New Press,
2017.
[16] P. H. Collins and S. Bilge, Intersectionality, Second. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2020.
[17] A. A. Tefera, J. M. Powers, and G. E. Fischman, “Intersectionality in education: A
conceptual aspiration and research imperative,” Review of research in education, vol. 42,
no. 1, pp. vii–xvii, 2018.
[18] T. R. Morton and E. C. Parsons, “#BlackGirlMagic: The identity conceptualization of
Black women in undergraduate STEM education,” Science Education, vol. 102, no. 6, pp.
1363–1393, 2018, doi: 10.1002/sce.21477.
[19] E. Blosser, “An examination of Black women’s experiences in undergraduate engineering
on a primarily white campus: Considering institutional strategies for change,” Journal of
Engineering Education, vol. 109, no. 1, pp. 52–71, 2020, doi: 10.1002/jee.20304.
[20] S. M. Lord, M. W. Ohland, R. A. Layton, and M. M. Camacho, “Beyond pipeline and
pathways: Ecosystem metrics,” Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 108, no. 1, pp. 32–
56, 2019, doi: 10.1002/jee.20250.
[21] E. Litzler, C. C. Samuelson, and J. A. Lorah, “Breaking it down: Engineering student
STEM confidence at the intersection of race/ethnicity and gender,” Research in Higher
Education, vol. 55, no. 8, pp. 810–832, 2014, doi: 10.1007/s11162-014-9333-z.
[22] H. K. Ro and K. I. Loya, “The Effect of Gender and Race Intersectionality on Student
Learning Outcomes In Engineering,” The Review of Higher Education, vol. 38, no. 3, pp.
359–396, 2015, doi: 10.1353/rhe.2015.0014.
[23] Michigan Tech Diversity Council, “10 tips on how to organize and promote diverse,
inclusive panels and keynotes,” Michigan Tech University, Nov. 2018.

[24] S. Milstein, “Putting an End to Conferences Dominated by White Men,” Harvard Business
Review, Jan. 23, 2014. Accessed: Feb. 11, 2023. [Online]. Available:
https://hbr.org/2014/01/theres-no-excuse-for-all-white-male-panels
[25] M. Krumer-Nevo and M. Sidi, “Writing Against Othering,” Qualitative Inquiry, vol. 18, no.
4, pp. 299–309, Apr. 2012.
[26] P. H. Collins, Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of
Empowerment (Routledge Classics). Routledge, 2000.
[27] I. van der Tuin, “Feminist Standpoint Theory,” Apr. 2016, [Online]. Available:
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118663219.wbegss040
[28] A. J. Marcel, “The Sense of Agency: Awareness and Ownership of Action,” in Agency and
Self-Awareness: Issues in Philosophy and Psychology, Johannes Roessler & Naomi Eilan
(eds.), Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2003.
[29] C. Alston, F. Mirghassemi, and C. D. Gist, “A Course in Academic Writing as a Vehicle for
Personal Growth and Transformation, Multicultural Perspectives,” Multicultural
Perspectives, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 138–146, 2022, doi: 10.1080/15210960.2022.2127396.
[30] J. A. Conti and M. O’Neil, “Studying Power: qualitative methods and the global elite,”
Qualitative Research: QR, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 63–82, 2007.
[31] D. K. King, “Multiple jeopardy, multiple consciousness: The context of a black feminist
ideology,” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 42–72.
[32] H. Chang, F. Ngunjiri, and K.-A. C. Hernandez, Collaborative Autoethnography, First.
Routledge, 2013. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315432137
[33] J. Saldana, The coding manual for qualitative researchers, Third. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE
Publications Ltd, 2015.
[34] J. C. Lapadat, “Ethics in Autoethnography and Collaborative Autoethnography,”
Qualitative Inquiry, vol. 23, no. 8, pp. 589–603, 2017, doi: 10.1177/1077800417704462.
[35] Holman, L., Stuart-Fox, D., & Hauser, C. E. (2018). The gender gap in science: How long
until women are equally represented?. PLoS biology, 16(4), e2004956.
[36] American Society for Engineering Education. “ASEE 2022 Annual Conference Program &
Highlights,” presented at the ASEE 2022 Annual Conference: Excellence Through
Diversity, Minneapolis, MN, Jun. 2022. Accessed: Feb. 14, 2023. [Online]. Available:
https://aseecmsprod.azureedge.net/aseecmsprod/asee/media/content/conferences%20and%2
0events/2022%20conference/2022_ac_program.pdf
Appendix
Panel discussions on DEIJ topics at the 2022 ASEE Annual Conference [36]
1. Queerness in STEM Book Panel
2. Panel: Problematizing Place and Context: Voicing the Crisis at the University of Puerto
Rico
3. Panel: Graduate Student and Postdoctoral Fellows’ Perspectives on Advancing Women
and Gender Equity in Engineering
4. Changing the Equation for Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Access Through
Academia/Industry Collaboration