Women bring diversity of thought to engineering and their continuing underrepresentation in these disciplines introduces a cost – “in products not built, in designs not considered, in constraints not understood, in processes not invented.” (Wulf, 1998).

The stubborn and persistent gender gap in a wide range of engineering fields is a problem that both limits the diversity of the engineering workforce and prevents many women from pursuing technical interests in engineering jobs or in related careers that require an engineering background. Across the globe, there is substantial variation in women’s engineering participation, but under-representation remains almost almost universally consistent. For example, engineering undergraduates are 5% female in Japan, 15% in the U.K, and 25% in India. Women are even less present in the workplace, although the degree of underrepresentation also varies by country. The U.K. engineering workforce, for example, is less than 10% women, whereas Bulgaria is over 30% and China is 40% female (Singh & Peers, 2019).

The picture in the U.S., while not the bleakest, remains highly imbalanced. While women make up 58.2% of the population in the United States (U.S. Census Bureau, 2019), they earn only 19.8% of all bachelor’s degrees in engineering and 24.2% of masters degrees (National Science Foundation, n.d.). In the workforce, they represent only 15% of engineers (U.S. Census Bureau, 2021). Engineering remains stubbornly resistant to providing a compelling and welcoming environment for women, even while other STEM fields like biology and math have advanced to much greater gender balance, with 60% and 42% of bachelor’s degrees granted to women, respectively (American Physical Society, n.d.).

Research on women in engineering has been extensive and has illuminated many potential reasons for the stubborn, persistent, and slow-moving gender gap. As with many male-dominated fields, sexual harassment remains an issue in engineering at all levels of academia including among women faculty, post-doctoral scholars, graduate students, staff, and undergraduate students (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2018) and in the workplace (National Society of Professional Engineers, 2017; McLaughlin et al., 2012). In response to #MeToo, recent research has suggested that the nature of sexual harassment has shifted from overt and egregious forms of harassment (sexual coercion and physical expressions of unwanted sexual attention) to more subtle and chronic forms of gender harassment (Keplinger et al., 2019). Chronic gender harassment and its companion -- gender discrimination, are notoriously difficult to prove and eradicate. Female engineers often experience hostile work climates characterized by macho, geek, hard hat, or lab coat cultures or are left out of informal networks and career opportunities that would resolve otherwise mysterious pathways to promotion and advancement. Women more than men are often isolated in the work place and struggle to achieve a healthy sense of belonging. And, like men, women are also often subject to the extreme work pressures that influence workplace satisfaction in high tech and other high-pressure industries.

While a great deal of research on women in engineering focuses on external factors that may prevent women from remaining or thriving in engineering, our research focuses more on what's going on internally. Our research applies components of self-determination theory or SDT (Deci & Ryan, 2014, 2008) to understanding what women experience in the classroom and in the workplace. Our research goal is to structure such understanding in such a way that leads to multiple viable pathways to reducing the number of women who leave engineering and to enable those who remain to thrive. We apply SDT to understanding what motivates females with engineering degrees in making career choices and identifying the characteristics of engineering workplaces that capitalize on these motivations. Intrinsic motivations (those that do not need any external incentives to stimulate behavior) are the most stable and can enable individuals to stay in a job or line of work despite the difficulties and challenges of doing so. Unfortunately, women often have one or more intrinsic motivations or motivators that can be fulfilled in other jobs outside of engineering. While this provides women choices when the going gets hostile at work, it amplifies the pressure on engineering managers and higher-level executives to ensure that engineering work groups do not get so tough that they tempt women to look elsewhere for fulfillment and satisfaction.

We also leverage basic psychological needs theory (BPNT), a sub-theory of SDT, to take a different look at why women struggle in engineering and why they leave or consider leaving engineering. BPNT tells us that human beings have three basic psychological needs focused on relatedness, autonomy, and competence. Autonomy reflects the fact that individuals need to feel they are masters of their own destiny and that what they do has been chosen freely rather than out of a sense of obligation to, or coercion by, external factors. Those whose autonomy needs are satisfied feel that what they are doing is consistent with their core values and life purpose (Meyer et al., 2012). A negative autonomy environment either lacks opportunities for pursuing core values and interests, or actively blocks this pursuit (Vansteenkiste & Ryan, 2013). When needs for competence are satisfied, individuals maintain interest, engagement, and attention to tasks, persist in their efforts, and experience personal satisfaction and well-being. In contrast, those who do not feel competent in what they do experience reduced motivation and satisfaction. When tasks are boring or too easy, competence needs go unmet. When tasks are too challenging or frustrating, guidance is lacking, or job performance is too heavily critiqued or undervalued, competence needs are frustrated or thwarted. Psychologically, individuals seek out the sweet spot between these two extremes – the optimal challenge (Deci & Ryan, 2008; Legault, 2017). And, finally, individuals have a need for relatedness stemming from a desire to interact with others, experience connection to them, and feel cared for. This sense of being cared for must be perceived as independent of ulterior motives or alternative agendas. The satisfaction of relatedness needs corresponds to a sense of belonging; unfulfilled or thwarted relatedness needs lead to feelings of isolation, stress, and loneliness and are correlated to a wide range of detrimental physical and mental symptoms and illnesses (Baumeister & Leary, 1995).

Our published research to date has primarily focused on understanding women in the classroom and workplace using qualitative research methods involving interviews and focus groups. The goal of these research efforts has been to explore or cast the net regarding the motivations and basic psychological needs that are in play as women learn and work in engineering (see publications list). For example, in analyzing 29 interviews from early to mid-career engineering graduates, both male and female, we found that most engineers have at least one intrinsic motivation and women more than men expressed motivations that could be satisfied within or outside of engineering (VanAntwerp & Wilson, 2018). This opens up the possibility that to some degree, women leave engineering because they are moving toward a more nourishing work environment rather than simply leaving a less satisfying environment.

Moving forward, we are pursuing explanatory sequential mixed methods research using a nationwide survey to first identify the degree to which the three basic psychological needs of autonomy, competence, and relatedness are satisfied, thwarted, or unmet in the engineering classroom and workplace for both men and women. Based on the survey results, we will conduct an additional round of interviews to understand differences that emerge from the survey data. However, data collection and basic research are not our end goals.

Instead our end goal focuses on finding solutions that make the engineering workplace and classroom better places to work and learn for both genders and for individuals from all walks of life who want to be engineers. In our formal research, data drive the search for solutions. In our web community (Stories into Solutions), stories drive the search. Pulling data and stories together, we hope to contribute to and be part of a future that involves a more inclusive, harassment-free engineering field characterized by a much reduced gender gap.

VanAntwerp, J. & Wilson D. (2018). Differences in Motivation Patterns among Early and Mid-career Engineers. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 24(3), 227-259.

VanAntwerp, J.J. & Wilson, D.M. (2015, June 14-17). Difference between Engineering Men and Women: How and Why They Choose What They Do during Early Career ASEE (American Society for Engineering Education) Annual Conference and Exposition, Seattle, Washington.

VanAntwerp, J., Bruxvoort, C., Plett, M., & Wilson, D. (2011). Examining Calling as Motivator in Career Decisions: A Comparison of Engineering Graduates from Secular and Christian Undergraduate Institutions. CEEC 2011, Vancouver, B.C.

Wilson, D. & VanAntwerp, J. (2021). Left out: A review of women’s struggle to develop a sense of belonging in engineering. Sage Open, in press.

Wilson, D., VanAntwerp, J., Wright, J., & Summers, L. (2019, June 16-19). Need Satisfaction and Need Frustration Among Women and Men Faculty in Engineering: A Self-Determination Perspective. ASEE (American Society for Engineering Education) Annual Conference and Exposition, Tampa, Florida.

Wilson, D., VanAntwerp, J., Maynen, D., & Summers, L., (2019, June 16-19). After #MeToo: What’s Next for Women in the Engineering Workplace? ASEE (American Society for Engineering Education) Annual Conference and Exposition, Tampa, Florida.

Wilson, D., Plett, M., VanAntwerp, J., & Bruxvort, C. (2011). Opportunities to Serve: Important from Middle School to Retirement, WEPAN (Women in Engineering Program Pro-Advocates Network) Conference: Seattle, WA.

Wilson, D., Shaffer, J., & Freed, L. (2011). Differences in Self-Efficacy: Is it Women or is it Engineering? WEPAN (Women in Engineering Program Pro-Advocates Network) Conference, Seattle, WA.

Yonemura, R. & Wilson, D.M. (2016, June 26-29). Exploring Barriers in the Engineering Workplace: Hostile, Unsupportive, and otherwise Chilly Conditions. ASEE (American Society for Engineering Education) Annual Conference and Exposition, New Orleans, Louisiana.

Satisfaction of Relatedness Needs:
Please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with the following statements in the context of your work environment over the past four weeks. (1: Strongly Disagree; 2: Disagree; 3: Neutral; 4: Agree; 5: Strongly Agree).

• I feel that the people I care about at work also care about me.
• I feel connected with people who care for me at work, and for whom I care at work.
• At work, I feel close and connected with other people who are important to me.
• I experience a warm feeling with the people I spend time with at work.

Frustration of Relatedness Needs:
Please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with the following statements in the context of your work environment over the past four weeks. (1: Strongly Disagree; 2: Disagree; 3: Neutral; 4: Agree; 5: Strongly Agree).

• I feel excluded from the group I want to belong to at work.
• I feel that people who are important to me at work are cold and distant towards me.
• I have the impression that people I spend time with at work dislike me.
• I feel the relationships I have at work are just superficial.

Satisfaction of Autonomy Needs:
Please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with the following statements in the context of your work environment over the past four weeks. (1: Strongly Disagree; 2: Disagree; 3: Neutral; 4: Agree; 5: Strongly Agree).

• At work, I feel a sense of choice and freedom in the things I undertake.
• lI feel that my decisions on my job reflect what I really want.
• I feel my choices on my job express who I really am.
• I feel I have been doing what really interests me in my job.

Frustration of Autonomy Needs:
Please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with the following statements in the context of your work environment over the past four weeks. (1: Strongly Disagree; 2: Disagree; 3: Neutral; 4: Agree; 5: Strongly Agree).

• Most of the things I do on my job feel like “I have to”.
• I feel forced to do many things on my job I wouldn’t choose to do.
• I feel pressured to do too many things on my job.
• My daily activities at work feel like a chain of obligations.

Satisfaction of Competence Needs:
Please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with the following statements in the context of your work environment over the past four weeks. (1: Strongly Disagree; 2: Disagree; 3: Neutral; 4: Agree; 5: Strongly Agree).

• I feel confident that I can do things well on my job.
• At work, I feel capable at what I do.
• When I am at work, I feel competent to achieve my goals.In my job.
• I feel I can successfully complete difficult tasks.

Frustration of Competence Needs:
Please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with the following statements in the context of your work environment over the past four weeks. (1: Strongly Disagree; 2: Disagree; 3: Neutral; 4: Agree; 5: Strongly Agree).

• When I am at work, I have serious doubts about whether I can do things well.
• I feel disappointed with my performance in my job.
• I feel insecure about my abilities on my job.
• When I am working I feel like a failure because of the mistakes I make.