Diversity in Engineering: Leveraging Alliances for Minority Participation

1. Diversity in Engineering: Leveraging Alliances for Minority Participation Derek Dunn-Rankin Professor and Department Chair Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering University of California, Irvine Faculty mentor (UC-LEADS, McNair/STAR, CAMP, CODE, UROP, SURP, etc.) Faculty director for UCI CAMP Program, 1995-present Co-director for UC Systemwide LSAMP Program, 2007- present Engineering Equity Advisor for UCI ADVANCE Program, 2007-2009 School of Engineering taskforce on diversity, 2009 UC Commission Subcommittee on Access and Affordability, 2009-2010

2. Abstract • A candid results-driven focus on the practical challenges, success stories, and opportunities for enhancing underrepresented minority participation in engineering will be presented. The Louis Stokes Alliance for Minority Participation model will be highlighted • Basic message/question – “we know what the solutions are…why are we not implementing them?” (similar challenge for global climate change)

3. What Works -- LSAMP Summary • Louis Stokes Alliance for Minority Participation • NSF program that networks 37 alliances (and many more institutions) across the country; underrepresented STEM majors (part of the AGEP, HBCU-UP, CREST grouping in the Human Resources Division) • Provides a range of support but focuses on mentoring/research opportunities • Provides National funds that can be targeted to underrepresented students • University of California - http://www.camp.uci.edu/index.html • $50K/year per campus (enhanced by local campus) • Currently in Phase IV (2006-2011); increased graduates by 84% from baseline • Many success stories; faculty members at various institutions having come through the program (since 90-91) • Statewide CAMP Symposium highlights student talent

4. LSAMP National Evaluation Results • LSAMP participants pursued STEM graduate degrees in STEM at higher rates (38%) compared to matched URM (20%) and non-URM (22%) students • LSAMP participants completed STEM graduate degrees at higher rates (25%) compared to both matched URM and non-URM (9%) students • LSAMP participants pursued ALL graduate degrees at higher rates (66%) compared to both matched URM (46%) and non-URM (44%) students • Source: The Urban Institute (2006)

5. CAMP Program Logic Model Increase access & support within STEM disciplines (Diversity) ALL URM STEM & Undecided Students Academic Research Mentoring Career Counseling STEM Socialization - NSF Funding - Supports From Within Alliance Institutions - Other Local, State, & Federal Support Shortage of STEM skilled workforce for a technical society New Research Skills Increased Self-Confidence Higher Self-Expectation Retention Graduation Increased Diversity of Graduate Students Institutional Changes Impact on Faculty

6. CAMP Short-Term Outcomes

7. CAMP Short-Term Outcomes Method: Survey

8. CAMP Medium-Term Outcomes All URM Students: Graduation Changes Percent change over baseline year (1991)

9. Why do we care about diversity? • Socially enlightened self-interest • Meaningful participation in our democracy • Ideals of fair play • Remedy for historical injustices • Personal utilitarian worth • Part of our cultural background • Maintaining the disciplines Walter Secada, Professor and Chair, Department of Teaching and Learning, School of Education University of Miami, FL

10. Motivations for enhancing diversity • Motivations vary with administrative level • Nation • State • Institution • College • Department • Individual • Social justice • Giving back • Improved solutions with broadening perspectives • National need for technologists • Paid position

11. Does diversity matter to you? • I am color/gender blind -- there is no real need to work for diversity; it will occur naturally if we continue to focus on choosing the best • I welcome diversity and informally encourage underrepresented minorities to apply for positions • I give my time to participate in formal program efforts to increase diversity by increasing the pool or stopping leaks in the pipeline • I am willing to reevaluate my measures of what constitutes “the best” in order to enhance diversity • I will take some risks in hiring/admission/advancement decisions • I will take moderate risks in hiring/admission/advancement decisions • I will take high risks in hiring/admission/advancement decisions • I try and convince others to adjust their measures of what constitutes “the best” in order to enhance diversity

12. Excellence Through Diversity • First, define what is meant by diversity • Bringing a variety of perspectives to problem solving • Focusing on underrepresented minorities • Developing solutions for a globally connected world • Next, understand the true motivations for working towards diversity • Can individual faculty really commit to diversity? • If so, why and how much? Top, middle, or low priority • What are they willing to give up in order to work towards diversity? • How can intrinsic motivations be enhanced? • Finally, develop realistic approaches that enhance diversity within the parameters of available time/money/effort commitment

13. Implementation Challenges • Defining Diversity • Diversity is Code • Age, gender, sexual orientation, country of origin, socioeconomic status, language, size, ethnicity, background, hobbies, …. • Which of these diversity elements are significant and why? • Defining Explicit Benefits of Diversity • Developing Institutional Commitment • Federal funds often stimulate turf battles • Some field specific approaches can be difficult to generalize

14. Barriers to Developing a Diversity Enhancing Culture • Poorly defined benefits of diversity • A notion of “best” • Anecdotes of successes (I had a student once that…) versus comprehensive evaluation • Unconscious bias (a necessary fact of life) • Territoriality in diversity programs