Broadening Participation in Engineering as a Sociopolitical Phenomenon: A Systems Perspective

1.1. Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to advance the science of Broadening Participation by explaining the relationship between research and practice in this context. By addressing this purpose, we extend the field’s use of metaphorical language.

1.2. Scope

Before proceeding, we will disclose components of our positionality (Hampton et al., 2021; Merriam et al., 2001; Milner, 2007; Secules et al., 2021) that influenced the scope of this paper—which is primarily written from the perspective of Black engineers.

First and foremost, Broadening Participation is of personal and professional interest to each author of this paper. As part of a larger project in which this paper was situated, our goal was to understand efforts to diversify engineering as it relates to Black Americans across the entire education-to-workforce pathway. Our interest in this problem was primarily motivated by the lack of Black American representation among degrees awarded, despite decades of investments made in this area. For example, we have seen a decline in the percentage of Black Americans earning undergraduate engineering degrees, accounting for 5.6% in 2000 and only 4.4% in 2019 (American Society of Engineering Education, 2020; Gibbons, 2010). At the same time, we have seen an upward trend in the number of publications focused on this problem (London et al., 2020). For us, these proportions continuing in spite of growing research highlighted how imperative it is to make a concerted effort, sooner rather than later, to reevaluate our approaches to Broadening Participation as it relates to Black Americans.

Herein, we use Ecological Systems Theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1977) to organize insights from literature, interviews with subject matter experts (SMEs), and the collective sensemaking of our author team. Existing literature was incorporated through a series of review papers (Boyd-Sinkler et al., 2022; Holloman et al., 2018; Holloman et al., 2021a; Holloman et al., 2021b; London et al., 2020; London et al., 2021; Pee et al., 2019) and the interviews focused on the beliefs, insights, experiences, and recommendations of 40 SMEs involved in Broadening Participation efforts. To visually illustrate these insights, we propose a conceptual model of knowledge production and problem-solving (as opposed to research and practice) that encourages systems thinking and enables a more holistic understanding of Broadening Participation.

We posit that focusing on research-to-practice is advantageous due to the centrality of both activities in Broadening Participation as it is currently constructed. We also posit that focusing on Black Americans also provides an opportunity to advance the field’s understanding of the impediments to diversifying engineering in general. According to the National Science Foundation (NSF), “BPE [Broadening Participation in Engineering] focuses on enhancing the diversity and inclusion of all underrepresented populations in engineering, including gender identity and expression, race and ethnicity (African Americans/Blacks, Hispanic Americans, American Indians, Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians, and Native Pacific Islanders), disability, LGBTQ +, first generation college and socio-economic status.” (National Science Foundation, 2019, Synopsis section, para. 1). Based on this description, many other underrepresented groups have the potential to benefit from our insights.

1.3. A Note on Sampling

Purposive selection (Krathwohl, 2009) and snowball sampling (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) were used to identify SMEs. We first leveraged our professional networks, considered authors of existing literature, and sought recommendations from members of the project’s advisory board. We subsequently used snowball sampling and information sampling, asking each participant to recommend 2–3 people that we should interview for this study and/or share the email invitation with other SMEs. We allowed everyone who responded to the invitation to participate in the study and the interview itself was used as a filtering mechanism to ensure that information pertinent to the study was captured. This process yielded 40 participants, most identifying as Black or African American and working in various roles, such as deans, program evaluators, minority engineering program directors, professors, researchers, minority organizational leaders, practicing engineers, directors of informal education programs, K–12 teachers, and mentors to underrepresented students.

1.4. A Note on Language

While the dominant rhetoric of engineering education includes the phrase “research-to-practice,” bridging the relationship between the two entities is an ongoing effort in many other fields, and scholars use a wide array of language to describe work in this area. For example, the terms knowledge to action, innovation translation, implementation, evidence-based, diffusion, and dissemination have all been used in literature focused on guiding change (Graham et al., 2007). Herein, we will use the term research-to-practice to encompass this larger body of literature.

Several approaches to research-to-practice have developed over time, including linear models, relationship models, and systems models (Best & Holmes, 2010). In engineering education, the relationship between research and practice is often depicted as a double-arced circle, with one arc flowing to and from each entity. Given that linear and relationship models have been ineffective at diversifying engineering, we are proposing a systems-thinking approach to research-and-practice. Systems thinking entails investigating factors and the interactions between those factors. A systems-thinking approach views the world as a series of interconnected systems, where change is possible when stakeholders gain a critical amount of knowledge to understand the system (Arnold & Wade, 2015; Meadows, 2008; Morganelli, 2020). Systems thinking has proven effective across a variety of fields including business, nursing, ecology, and education. We believe that it can be similarly effective in Broadening Participation.

2.1. Adopting a Systems Mindset

Given the complexity of issues with which we must grapple to diversify engineering, it is imperative that the engineering community develop a systems mindset when it comes to Broadening Participation. Developing a systems mindset entails considering the wider context and underlying, interconnected structures (Bensberg, 2021). We explicitly make this point to an engineering audience because, though holism is emphasized in some engineering sub-fields (e.g., systems engineering, environmental engineering), this perspective is not adopted by all engineers, a characterization often referred to as technical-social dualism (e.g., Faulkner, 2000). The common disconnect between the technical and the social is partially a result of engineering problem-solving exercises, replete throughout formal undergraduate engineering education, that strip away the complexities (i.e., socio-political context) of problems to make them more solvable. This approach to teaching problem solving is one way that technical-social dualism is perpetuated in the training and socialization of engineers and does not work in our favor when approaching a complex challenge such as Broadening Participation.

In adopting a systems mindset, it is important to not oversimplify the actual problem(s) being addressed. Instead, we must use the holistic approach, which often comes with systems thinking, to address components of the larger system. Informed by the work of Behl and Ferreira (2014), this approach will require: a) understanding engineering and engineering education systems and their surrounding context, b) understanding the relationships and interdependencies between various elements of these systems, and c) leveraging multiple disciplinary and personal perspectives. Adopting systems thinking will help the engineering community develop a more complete, accurate, and nuanced understanding of Broadening Participation.

2.2. A Systems Approach to Researc-Hto-Practice

In light of Broadening Participation being concerned with such a wicked problem, it is imperative to adopt a systems model of research-to-practice, as opposed to a linear or relationship model. Linear models describe one-way processes where knowledge, seen as the product, is produced by researchers and then translated to end users. This process happens in discrete stages, and it is effective when there is a strong structure in place to support the process and relatively low risk and complexity. Broadening Participation does not exist in this type of environment, given its complexity and lack of universal support across institutions; consequently, it is of no surprise that a linear approach lacks efficacy in producing a concrete change in this context or other domains (Gale et al., n.d.; Steering Committee of the National Engineering Education Research Colloquies, 2006).

Relationship models emphasize sharing knowledge, presuming a close relationship between the knowledge producers and knowledge users, as well as a strong network with stakeholders (Best et al., 2010). A relationship model is likely to be effective for research-to-practice when stakeholders understand the relevance of local context and knowledge, there is organizational support for evidence-informed planning, and stakeholders recognize that the problem requires systems change (Best et al., 2010). This approach is reflected in the dominant approach that took hold in engineering education over a decade ago: the Innovation Cycle of Educational Practice and Research, put forth by Jamieson and Lohman (Jamieson & Lohmann, 2009). In introducing this model to the field of engineering education, Jamieson and Lohmann established the dominant way of thinking in engineering education about how research and practice work (2009).

Jamieson and Lohman adapted a research-to-practice model (e.g., Booth et al., 2008) that was designed for basic research. The model hypothesizes a smooth cyclical relationship between research and practice, where the two mutually inform one another. Jamieson and Lohmann (2009) articulated the interrelationships between what needs to be changed in engineering education, how to drive change in this context, and who should drive change. Furthermore, they proposed a model of systematic engineering education innovation that is based on a continual cycle of research and practice, which, if adopted, would “both continually advance the body of knowledge on engineering learning and result in the implementation of more effective and replicable educational innovations, with the end result being better-educated students” (Jamieson & Lohmann, 2009, p. 1). Though an improvement from a linear approach, this relationship model has similarly lacked efficacy in producing concrete change. In fact, prior work in Broadening Participation adopting a linear and/or relationship approach has produced little change in the field (American Society of Engineering Education, 2020; Gale et al., n.d.). Accordingly, we proposed the adoption of a systems approach.

Systems models recognize that systems are constantly changing and that the parts that make up the system are complex and interdependent, often intersecting with other systems (Best et al., 2010). In a systems approach, key stakeholders shape the system and are shaped by it. These models consider phenomena at multiple levels of interest simultaneously and postulate how phenomena at each level interact. A systems model is effective when it is possible for all stakeholders to be actively involved in shaping the problem-solving process, time and resources are available to contribute to developing the model, and research-to-practice can be integrated with the organizational change strategy (Best et al., 2010). Though additional work is needed to integrate Broadening Participation research-to-practice into organizational strategy, herein we argue that a systems approach—for example, the Iceberg Model (Goodman, 2002) and social ecological model (McLeroy et al., 1988)—is more appropriate for Broadening Participation than both the linear and relationship approaches.

2.3. Ecological Systems Theory

We situate the rest of this paper in the Ecological Systems Theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1977; Bronfenbrenner, 1979) because it best explained our key findings/insights. The Ecological Systems Theory (Figure 1) is a more general version of the social ecological model, where the simultaneous levels of chronosystem, macrosystem, exosystem, mesosystem, and microsystem exist (Bronfenbrenner, 1977; Bronfenbrenner, 1979). It is a human development theory developed by Urie Bronfenbrenner to emphasize the central role environmental factors play in development. While the theory was introduced in the context of child development, where each level of the system contains roles and norms that shape psychological development (Bronfenbrenner, 1977), it has since been used in a variety of fields and for a variety of purposes. Of particular relevance, the theory has been previously used in equity work (e.g., Hurtado et al., 2012; Liu, 2015; Noursi et al., 2021) and in a variety of studies on education (e.g., Hurtado et al., 2012; Kamenopoulou, 2016; Morton & Parsons, 2018; Savitz-Romer & Nicola, 2021; Sochaka et al., 2020). Most notably, Hurtado et al. (2012) demonstrate the utility of this theory at the intersection of both equity work and education, proposing a multi-contextual model for diverse learning environments.

Figure 1

Because the theory was developed to focus on human development, the individual is at the center of the model, with an individual’s characteristics all existing within the context of the five layers of the model. The chronosystem encompasses the changes occurring over the individual’s lifetime, including individual-specific events, historical events, and sociocultural events. The macrosystem is cultural elements that influence the individual, in addition to the micro and mesosystems within those cultures. These cultural elements are not specific to the individual, but rather are specific to the context that the individual exists in (e.g., geographic place). The exosystem contains social systems that do not directly involve the individual but exert influence on the individual through their influence on the microsystems. Individuals perceive events through this cultural layer and thus are influenced by the culture they are embedded in. The mesosystem encompasses the interconnections and influences between the individual’s microsystems. Lastly, the microsystem, the most influential level on the individual’s development, contains the immediate groups and institutions that the individual interacts with (Bronfenbrenner, 1977). Interactions within this level are bidirectional, where the individual is influenced by entities in the microsystem and can influence the entities in the microsystem as well. Although Bronfenbrenner’s model includes five levels, only three were used to organize our findings (i.e., macrosystems, mesosystem, and microsystem.)

By forefronting the influence of contextual layers, Ecological Systems Theory supports a) conceptualizing phenomena at multiple levels of abstraction simultaneously, b) relating those phenomena with each other, and c) exploring a wide range of factors at each level of abstraction. We used this theory to contextualize Broadening Participation at multiple levels. As Hurtado et al. (2012) noted:

We answer this call and extend their work by applying this ecological lens in a related context. More specifically, we considered how research-to-practice efforts, and the people these efforts focus on—herein, Black Americans—exist within the layers emphasized in the model to explore a wide range of factors at each level that could explain why field-level patterns of participation are reproduced. In doing so, we offer the field an ecological perspective of Broadening Participation.

3.1. The Macrosystem

We begin our discussion of the macrosystem with structural racism. Structural racism is of central importance for Broadening Participation in relation to Black Americans. Though multiple definitions exist, structural racism generally refers to the totality of ways in which society promotes the disenfranchisement of people based on their race via mutually reinforcing inequitable systems (e.g., housing, education, employment, media, health care, criminal justice) (Bailey et al., 2017; Lawrence et al. 2004). As a consequence of these systems, Black people are continually impacted through various mechanisms of discrimination, which Link and Phelan (2001) conceptualize as (1) individual discrimination, (2) structural discrimination, and (3) discrimination that results from the impacted person’s beliefs and behaviors.

Each of these mechanisms shapes the educational system as well as other organizations. For example, subject matter experts discussed educators having low expectations of Black American students (i.e., individual discrimination), the low availability of resources in the community (i.e., structural discrimination), and stereotype threat (i.e., discrimination resulting from a Black person’s beliefs) (Steele, 2011). Across SMEs, these mechanisms of discrimination were described as being interrelated, particularly structural and individual discrimination. For example, in the K–12 segment, inequitable school funding influences the quality of instruction that students receive (e.g., Adamson & Darling-Hammond, 2012; Knight et al., 2020), which influences the extent to which teachers and guidance counselors discourage Black students from pursuing engineering and/or higher education broadly. In the industry and higher education segments, SMEs similarly discussed a chilly climate that cannot be solely attributed to the behavior of individuals or the structure of an environment. Building on this premise, the macrosystem (Figure 2) can be conceptualized as three central elements that shape Broadening Participation: 1) U.S. history, 2) systems of oppression, and 3) national policies.

Figure 2

3.2. The Mesosystem

Next, we discuss the mesosystem (Figure 3). Broadening Participation is shaped by interactions within and across 1) engineering as a discipline, 2) organizational differences, and 3) dominant social groups.

Figure 3

3.3. The Microsystem

Lastly, we discuss the microsystem. This level includes activities embodied by the groups most immediately involved in Broadening Participation, that is, both practitioners and researchers.

As it relates to practice, Broadening Participation efforts originate from both within and beyond universities, dating as far back as the mid-1970s (e.g., DeYoung, 1975; National Society of Black Engineers, n.d). From within universities, MEPs and similar student support centers often focus on recruitment and retention through an array of programs, activities, and services (Lee & Matusovich, 2016). For example, it is not uncommon to find outreach initiatives, mentoring programs, living-learning communities, and summer bridge programs focused on supporting students from historically underrepresented groups within engineering. One can also find student chapters of diversity-focused organizations on university campuses, such as the National Society of Black Engineers (NSBE), whose mission is to “increase the number of culturally responsive Black engineers that excel academically, succeed professionally, and positively impact the community” (NSBE, n.d.). NSBE works towards this mission through a combination of K–12, collegiate, and professional programs. For example, in 2007, NSBE created Summer Engineering Experience for Kids (SEEK) to address the underrepresentation of Black students in STEM fields; and NSBE continued to expand SEEK to cities throughout the country (Edwards et al., 2018; 2021).

Organizations that operate outside of universities also focus their work on diversifying engineering. Some notable organizations as it relates to Black Americans include the National Action Council for Minorities in Engineering (NACME), the National Association of Multicultural Engineering Program Advocates (NAMEPA), the National Society of Blacks in Computing (NSBC), and the institute for African-American Mentoring in Computing Sciences (iAAMCS). Though the efforts of such organizations may not immediately come to mind when engineering work is envisioned, it is important to note that these efforts are largely driven by engineers and computer scientists.

Broadening Participation is also recognizably shaped by the involvement of researchers. As it relates to research, Broadening Participation often focuses on phenomena such as preparedness, awareness, motivation, interest, identity, recruitment, and retention (e.g., Atadero et al., 2018; Holloman et al., 2018; Rusk et al., 2008). Though educational researchers may have examined such topics without financial incentives, one should not overlook the impact of early decisions from NSF regarding what types of investments would be made towards this goal. There are some funding opportunities that prioritize practice in the research-to-practice relationship (e.g., the Scholarships in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Program, or S-STEM), but funding agencies have traditionally focused on basic research, that is, projects motivated by gaps in the literature as opposed to material needs. This focus should not come as a surprise due to the widely held perception that research is the mechanism by which transformative change in engineering education will happen. “Business, academic, and government leaders across the engineering enterprise have repeatedly remarked that systematic research [emphasis added] of how we educate engineers must be the path [emphasis added] by which we transition from episodic cycles of educational reforms and move to continuous, long-lasting improvements in our education system” (The Steering Committee of the National Engineering Education Research Colloquies, 2006, p. 259). However, despite its presumed importance, several publications (e.g., Altamirano et al., 2019; Jamieson & Lohmann, 2009; London, 2018) have commented on the disconnect between research and practice in engineering education and offered recommendations regarding what should be done.

As it relates to research, Broadening Participation efforts are often led by people trained as education researchers or social scientists. Acknowledging the involvement of trained researchers is important because, regardless of the disciplinary focus, there are shared elements of a researcher’s idealized approaches to solving problems as well. For example, research projects are often self-contained, generally begin with the interest and expertise of the researcher(s), and most NSF-funded projects tend to range from three to five years in duration. The research process is a familiar one (Booth et al., 2008; Creswell & Creswell, 2017). Research projects typically begin with a point of inquiry that is cloaked in a question, hypothesis, or purpose statement that is largely intended to advance knowledge. Once this aim is established, researchers pursue methods that will lead them to gather evidence and make claims. The research process, and thus research projects, tend to wrap up once the claims and corresponding insights are published or shared with the intended audience(s). Once the scholarship is disseminated, this usually marks the end of the project itself. We recognize that this is a simplified explanation, but generally speaking, it summarizes the process researchers use to solve problems.

The work herein aims to build upon our understanding of this process and problematize idealized conceptions about how research-to-practice leads to change. Building on this premise, the microsystem (Figure 4) can be conceptualized as four elements that shape Broadening Participation: 1) time, 2) communication, 3) funding-related expectations, and 4) progress measures.

Figure 4

5.1 Connecting Local Issues to Societal Problems

Broadening Participation efforts should focus on addressing underlying issues. The importance of focusing on underlying causes instead of symptoms (Alford & Head, 2017) is put into perspective when Broadening Participation is viewed through a systems lens. Accordingly, we join other scholars (e.g., Cross, 2020; Holly Jr., 2020; Mejia et al., 2020) and encourage the engineering community to adopt this perspective and confront the racialized (and other oppressive) ways in which the United States has been historically organized. In particular, as it relates to the participation of Black Americans, we posit that the field must grapple with the relationship between structural racism, resource disparities, the U.S. education system, and the public’s understanding of engineering. Harper (2010) similarly called upon the STEM education community to stop amplifying “minority student failure” in the name of “narrowing achievement gaps and attainment disparities in STEM” (p. 64). It is in this same spirit that we call on the engineering community to direct its attention, resources, and efforts on addressing the underlying causes behind said gaps and disparities instead of solely focusing on the more localized, readily identifiable symptoms.

The complexity of Broadening Participation and the breadth of context that shapes this sociopolitical phenomenon and the problem(s) it aims to address cannot be overstated. As noted by Jonassen (2014), “problem complexity is a function of external factors, such as the number of issues, functions, or variables involved in the problem; the number of interactions among those issues, functions, or variables; and the predictability of the behavior of those issues, functions, or variables” (p. 106). When external factors are ignored, people tend to focus on surface issues, confusing symptoms with their root causes. In the context of Broadening Participation, for instance, issues such as unequal distribution of resources (e.g., Lee, 2004; Smith et al., 2013), interpersonal racism (e.g., McGee at al., 2019), and unwelcoming climates (e.g., Brown et al., 2005) are easily identified throughout the education-to-workforce pathway and rightfully attract the engineering community’s attention. However, if the engineering community focuses on addressing these symptoms in isolation, it will continue to oversimplify challenges associated with Broadening Participation as opposed to identifying systemic solutions.

Prior work by Su (2010) drives home the importance of being honest about the underlying (i.e., macro-level) issues when it comes to Broadening Participation. This work focused on quantifying the gender and racial diversity of bachelor’s degree recipients in engineering by applying a metric (i.e., engineering yield) that described the probability that an earned bachelor’s degree from a member in a demographic group would be in an engineering subject. Their reasoning for taking this approach was to “isolate trends in the engineering yield from trends related to overall college-degree attainment” (p. 163). As a result of this analysis, Su (2010) concluded that the “underrepresentation of non-Asian minorities is general to all fields and is symptomatic of a larger problem of a lack of racial diversity in higher education, whereas the underrepresentation of women is specific to engineering” (p. 173). We agree with Su’s assertion that “this is not to suggest that the engineering education establishment, or the engineering profession, has no responsibility or role in increasing the number of underrepresented minorities among the ranks of engineers” (p. 173), but instead makes it clear that the field’s actions must address the unique challenges associated with structural racism if it wishes to broaden the participation of Black Americans in engineering.

Lastly, given the recent surge of anti-DEI legislation, the significance of societal problems and their impact on higher education cannot be overstated. As we think about the political context that has long surrounded Broadening Participation (e.g., Malcom et al., 2004) and the responsibility of the engineering education establishment, we must acknowledge the political context in which Broadening Participation work is currently being done. We must proactively challenge these political attacks (e.g., bills targeting DEI programming, decries against theories about systematic racism, book bans, and reversing race-conscious policies) and find ways to wisely navigate existing boundaries, never giving up advocacy for change. It is only by taking a comprehensive, nuanced, and sophisticated approach to connecting local and societal problems that we can hope to see links between research and practice that result in both local and national impact.

5.2 Using Context-Appropriate Models of Change

Broadening Participation efforts should consider the context in which the problem occurs. As Jonassen notes, “any situation or context may be constrained by cultural (history, belief systems, customs), sociopolitical (power relations), or organizational factors (administration, budgets, etc.)” (p. 107). For example, addressing an ill-structured problem requires navigating conflicting goals, multiple solution methods, non-engineering success standards, and non-engineering constraints (Jonassen, 2014), to name a few. The engineering community often fails to sufficiently acknowledge the contextual complexity associated with Broadening Participation. For example, implementing an initiative in the context of K–12 is not the same as implementing a solution in higher education or industry. Moreover, there are also contextual differences within each of these contexts (e.g., what works in one school district may not work in another). Mesosystems and microsystems are important to consider because the “structuredness of problems is significantly related to the context in which the problem is encountered” (Jonassen, 2014, p. 107). It is within these contexts that solutions are often implemented.

As a community, we must use contextualized approaches to change. When Broadening Participation is viewed through a systems lens, it is easier to anticipate the constraints (and moderators) associated with context because wicked problems rely on public participation (i.e., attracting and maintaining support) more so than less complex problems, which might be more readily solved using authoritative or competitive strategies (Alford & Head, 2017). Accordingly, we join prior scholars in emphasizing the importance of solution paths being discipline-based (Henderson et al., 2017); situated in context-appropriate models of change (e.g., Biddle & Nigg, 2000; By, 2005; Grol et al., 2013; Kezar et al., 2015; Stein, 2019; Trowler, 2008); include building public support (Kania & Kramer, 2013); and account for the “interest-convergence dilemma” in STEM education (Baber, 2015). In emphasizing these points, we hope to encourage stakeholders to grapple with questions for understanding disciplinary culture offered by Reinholz and colleagues (2019). More specifically, the field must ask the following question: “Which change strategies work most effectively in particular STEM disciplines?” (p. 12).

5.3. Forming Authentic Researc-HPractice Partnerships

Broadening Participation efforts should involve stakeholders effectively working together and exchanging information. In the same spirit as the recent call from Secules and McCall (2023) about “Rethinking Qualitative Research Designs to Promote Change Towards Equity and Inclusion,” we highlight the need for the community to form authentic partnerships between researchers and practitioners in the context of Broadening Participation. Whereas Secules and McCall urged the community to consider research designs that push toward changes, we are encouraging the community to go a step further by forming authentic partnerships. One way of doing this is to conceptualize research-practice partnership “as a form of joint work requiring mutual engagement across multiple boundaries” (Penuel et al., 2015, p. 192), as opposed to focusing solely on the translation of research into practice. Conceptualizing the work this way moves the field away from a focus on a group of people doing research (researchers) helping a group of people doing practice (practitioners) and instead highlights the reality of it often being a group of Broadening Participation stakeholders engaging in both knowledge production and problem-solving across multiple boundaries. If we are to overcome the time constraints, misaligned communication practices, divergent expectations, and varied conceptions of progress held among Broadening Participation stakeholders, we need to establish more shared routines that draw from familiar tools and routines and can be stabilized and shared over time (Penuel et al., 2015; Farrell et al., 2022).

We also join the National Science Foundation in emphasizing the importance of achieving the conditions of Collective Impact (Kania & Kramer, 2013), reiterating some points and expanding others. In particular, we wish to reiterate the importance of Shared Measurements, and to expand the conversation about Mutually Reinforcing Activities to include understanding how different conceptions of contributions, time, and communication practices make it difficult to simultaneously engage both researchers and practitioners.

First, Shared Measurements refer to the need for stakeholders to use a common set of measures to monitor progress. Our insights emphasize the importance of this condition by highlighting the extent to which people have different perspectives about progress. As a community, we must develop a shared philosophy for monitoring progress. Multifaceted indicators of progress (Onat et al., 2017) and shared measurement systems (Kania & Kramer, 2013) are needed to determine impact and facilitate the alignment of Broadening Participation stakeholders’ actions. A set of multifaceted indicators facilitates evaluation at multiple levels (e.g., global/societal, institutional, and individual) and would ensure stakeholders do not overemphasize the extent to which certain metrics capture the state of Broadening Participation overall. For instance, consider the data needed to answer the following questions: What is the status of Broadening Participation at the national level? How are individual universities performing? How impactful are individual programs? How are people from marginalized groups experiencing engineering? Each of these questions is worth considering and would necessitate different data to be answered. Having a suite of indicators would help the field keep a holistic view of the problem in mind and interrogate the problem from multiple angles.

Second, Mutually Reinforcing Activities refers to the need for stakeholders to focus on activities in which they excel in a manner that is coordinated with the actions of others. The involvement of both researchers and practitioners in Broadening Participation aligns with this philosophy, calling on researchers to focus on actions associated with advancing knowledge and practitioners to focus on actions associated with solving problems. However, our insights highlight several ways in which ensuring that these activities are in fact mutually reinforcing can be a challenge. In particular, we note the importance of focusing on the different ways in which contributions are understood, project timelines are perceived, and information is communicated. As Kania and Kramer (2013) note, “Collective impact poses many challenges, of course: the difficulty of bringing together people who have never collaborated before, the competition and mistrust among funders and grantees, the struggle of agreeing on shared metrics, the risk of multiple self-anointed backbone organizations, and the perennial obstacles of local politics” (para. 2).

5.4. Disrupting Traditional Power Dynamics

Lastly, as a community, we must disrupt current power dynamics. A central impediment to Broadening Participation-related progress is a lack of awareness of and interest in central issues that Black people and other marginalized communities face within society. This ignorance negatively impacts the cultural context (i.e., norms, values, explicit & implicit messages, and reward structures). Additionally, this ignorance influences who has the power to make decisions, the substance of the decisions themselves, and the rate at which change can happen. This ignorance will also impact the flow of human and financial resources that are necessary for making progress. When structure, culture, power, and resources work in favor of diversifying engineering, lasting change is likely to occur. Alternatively, these elements can also impede progress when disregarded or directed by an opposition force. Though SMEs primarily focused their comments in this area on White people, the lessons learned here can be applied to other dominant groups (e.g., men, and non-disabled people) as it relates to Broadening Participation.