Who Engineering Includes Impacts How Engineers Work

2022 ◽  
pp. 1884-1903
Author(s):  
Stephen Secules ◽  
Alexandra Coso Strong ◽  
Trina Fletcher
Keyword(s):  
Socioeconomic Status ◽  
Sexual Orientation ◽  
Engineering Education ◽  
Design Thinking ◽  
Engineering Profession ◽  
Education Design

This chapter focuses on the persistent lack of diversity in the engineering profession along intersections of race, gender, and other key demographic categories (e.g., sexual orientation, socioeconomic status). After outlining specific circumstances that have influenced the lack of diversity in engineering, the chapter outlines particular challenges related to this lack of diversity and suggests a design thinking approach to resolving those challenges. Drawing on research from engineering education, design thinking, and workplace practice, the authors provide both familiar and novel strategies for addressing diversity in engineering as well as in other professions.

Who Engineering Includes Impacts How Engineers Work

2021 ◽  
pp. 224-248
Author(s):  
Stephen Secules ◽  
Alexandra Coso Strong ◽  
Trina Fletcher
Keyword(s):  
Socioeconomic Status ◽  
Sexual Orientation ◽  
Engineering Education ◽  
Design Thinking ◽  
Engineering Profession ◽  
Education Design

This chapter focuses on the persistent lack of diversity in the engineering profession along intersections of race, gender, and other key demographic categories (e.g., sexual orientation, socioeconomic status). After outlining specific circumstances that have influenced the lack of diversity in engineering, the chapter outlines particular challenges related to this lack of diversity and suggests a design thinking approach to resolving those challenges. Drawing on research from engineering education, design thinking, and workplace practice, the authors provide both familiar and novel strategies for addressing diversity in engineering as well as in other professions.

Assessing sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and mental health concerns in tobacco use disorder treatment research: Measurement challenges and recommendations from a Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco (SRNT) pre-conference workshop

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrea H Weinberger ◽  
Marc L Steinberg ◽  
Sarah D Mills ◽  
Sarah S Dermody ◽  
Jaimee L Heffner ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Socioeconomic Status ◽  
Sexual Orientation ◽  
Gender Identity ◽  
Tobacco Use ◽  
Health Concerns ◽  
Tobacco Use Disorder ◽  
Lower Socioeconomic ◽  
Treatment Research ◽  
Mental Health Concerns

Abstract This paper reports on topics discussed at a Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco (SRNT) pre-conference workshop at the 2019 annual SRNT meeting. The goal of the preconference workshop was to help develop a shared understanding of the importance of several tobacco-related priority groups in tobacco use disorder treatment research and to highlight challenges in measurement related to these groups. The workshop focused on persons with minoritized sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation identities; persons with minoritized racial and ethnic backgrounds; persons with lower socioeconomic status (SES); and persons with mental health concerns. In addition to experiencing commercial tobacco-related health disparities, these groups are also underrepresented in tobacco research, including tobacco use disorder (TUD) treatment studies. Importantly, there is wide variation in how and whether researchers are identifying variation within these priority groups. Best practices for measuring and reporting sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, SES, and mental health concerns in TUD treatment research are needed. This paper provides information about measurement challenges when including these groups in TUD treatment research and specific recommendations about how to measure these groups and assess potential disparities in outcomes. The goal of this paper is to encourage TUD treatment researchers to use measurement best practices in these priority groups in an effort to conduct meaningful and equity-promoting research. Increasing the inclusion and visibility of these groups in TUD treatment research will help to move the field forward in decreasing tobacco-related health disparities. Implications Tobacco-related disparities exist for a number of priority groups including, among others, women, individuals with minoritized sexual and gender identities, individuals with minoritized racial and ethnic backgrounds, individuals with lower socioeconomic status, and individuals with mental health concerns. Research on tobacco use disorder (TUD) treatments for many of these subgroups is lacking. Accurate assessment and consideration of these subgroups will provide needed information about efficacious and effective TUD treatments, about potential mediators and moderators, and for accurately describing study samples, all critical elements for reducing tobacco-related disparities, and improving diversity, equity, and inclusion in TUD treatment research.

Diversities in Group Specialty Practice

2013 ◽  
pp. 208-226
Author(s):  
Sally H. Barlow
Keyword(s):  
Socioeconomic Status ◽  
Sexual Orientation ◽  
Group Intervention ◽  
Intervention Strategies ◽  
National Origin ◽  
Practice Group ◽  
Specialty Practice ◽  
Race Ethnicity ◽  
Group Therapies

Chapter 11 details diversities in group specialty practice. Group therapies and other group intervention strategies are uniquely positioned to focus on issues of diversity, those issues of multiculturalism such as race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, and age.

scholarly journals Are Engineering and Social Justice (In)commensurable? A Theoretical Exploration of Macro-Sociological Frameworks

2012 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 63-82 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jon A. Leydens ◽  
Juan C. Lucena ◽  
Jen Schneider
Keyword(s):  
Social Justice ◽  
Engineering Education ◽  
Social Conflict ◽  
Engineering Profession ◽  
Theoretical Frameworks ◽  
Structural Functionalism ◽  
Open Question

The degree to which engineering and social justice as fields of practice are (in)commensurable remains an open question. To illuminate important dimensions of that question, we explore intersections between those fields and two macro-sociological frameworks. Those theoretical frameworks—structural functionalism and social conflict—represent contrasting perspectives on how society should be organized. Specifically, we reveal conceptual alignments between structural functionalism and engineering/engineering education and between social conflict and social justice. Those alignments suggest some salient potential catalysts for tensions between engineering and social justice and provide a useful ideological mirror for reflection by all who are committed to the engineering profession and/or to social justice.

Gender-based Structural Stigma and Intimate Partner Violence Across 28 Countries: A Population-based Study of Women Across Sexual Orientation, Immigration Status, and Socioeconomic Status

2020 ◽  
pp. 088626052097621
Author(s):  
Jillian R. Scheer ◽  
John E. Pachankis ◽  
Richard Bränström
Keyword(s):  
Socioeconomic Status ◽  
Intimate Partner Violence ◽  
Sexual Orientation ◽  
Sexual Minority ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
Population Based ◽  
Intimate Partner ◽  
Minority Women ◽  
Sexual Minority Women ◽  
Gender Based

Reducing structural drivers of intimate partner violence (IPV), including gender inequity in education, employment, and health, surrounding women worldwide represents a clear public health priority. Within countries, some women are at disproportionate risk of IPV compared to other women, including sexual minority women, immigrant women, and women in poverty. However, limited research has assessed women’s IPV risk and related circumstances, including police involvement following IPV experiences and IPV-related worry, across sexual orientation, immigration status, and socioeconomic status in a population-based survey of women across countries. Further, few studies have examined IPV against minority women as a function of gender-based structural stigma. This study aimed to determine whether gender-based structural stigma is associated with IPV and related circumstances among European women; examine minority-majority IPV disparities; and assess whether structural stigma is associated with IPV disparities. We used the population-based 2012 Violence Against Women Survey ( n = 42,000) administered across 28 European Union countries: 724 (1.7%) identified as sexual minority, 841 (2.0%) as immigrant, and 2,272 (5.4%) as living in poverty. Women in high gender-based structural stigma countries had a greater risk of past-12-month IPV (AOR: 1.18, 95% CI = 1.04, 1.34) and IPV-related worry (AOR: 1.09, 95% CI = 1.04, 1.15) than women in low structural stigma countries. All minority women were at disproportionate risk of IPV and IPV-related worry compared to majority women. Associations between gender-based structural stigma and IPV and related circumstances differed across minority status. Country-level structural stigma can possibly perpetuate women’s risk of IPV and related circumstances. Associations between structural stigma and IPV and related circumstances for sexual minority women, immigrant women, and women in poverty call for research into the IPV experiences of minority populations across structural contexts.

Stereotypes and Prejudice

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Marx ◽  
Sei Jin Ko
Keyword(s):  
Socioeconomic Status ◽  
Sexual Orientation ◽  
Social Group ◽  
Social Issues ◽  
Social Groups ◽  
The Elderly ◽  
Social Judgments ◽  
The Face ◽  
Race Ethnicity ◽  
Antecedents And Consequences

Stereotypes are widely held generalized beliefs about the behaviors and attributes possessed by individuals from certain social groups (e.g., race/ethnicity, sex, age, socioeconomic status, sexual orientation). They are often unchanging even in the face of contradicting information; however, they are fluid in the sense that stereotypic beliefs do not always come to mind or are expressed unless a situation activates the stereotype. Stereotypes generally serve as an underlying justification for prejudice, which is the accompanying feeling (typically negative) toward individuals from a certain social group (e.g., the elderly, Asians, transgender individuals). Many contemporary social issues are rooted in stereotypes and prejudice; thus research in this area has primarily focused on the antecedents and consequences of stereotype and prejudice as well as the ways to minimize the reliance on stereotypes when making social judgments.

Strategies for Nursing Leaders on Recruiting and Retaining a Diverse Workforce

2020 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 17-22
Author(s):  
Mika Sunago
Keyword(s):  
Socioeconomic Status ◽  
Sexual Orientation ◽  
Gender Identity ◽  
Personality Traits ◽  
Generational Differences ◽  
Diverse Workforce ◽  
Nursing Leaders ◽  
Professional Goals ◽  
Disability Status ◽  
Nursing Teams

There are many benefits to diversity in nursing teams; for example, diverse teams are more cognitively diverse, innovative, collaborative, creative, and inclusive, and have more satisfied employees (Douma, 2017). Diversity includes variations in religion, ethnicity, personality traits, sexual orientation, gender identity, generational differences, socioeconomic status, and disability status. This article presents strategies that have been successful in hiring employees with varied backgrounds, recognizing that they bring unique values and professional goals. It also provides recommendations for retaining a diverse staff, including awareness of differences in the concept of time and of religious customs, promoting inclusivity in the team, initiating crucial conversations, and encouraging participation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document