Leadership Team and Advisory Board

The leadership team consisted of Julie Martin, Clemson University; Sheryl Burgstahler, University of Washington; and Amy Slaton, Drexel University. Project leaders convened an advisory board to help identify broad research areas and coordinate the conference planning and execution. The following individuals served on the advisory board:

  • Julie Martin, Assistant Professor of Engineering & Science Education, Clemson University
  • Sheryl Burgstahler, Director, Accessible Technology Services & Adjunct Professor, College of Education, University of Washington
  • Amy Slaton, Professor of History, Drexel University
  • Karl Booksch, Professor, Chemistry, University of Delaware
  • Juan Lucena, Professor, Liberal Arts & Intl. Studies & Director, Center for Humanitarian Engineering, Colorado School of Mines
  • Alice Pawley, Associate Professor of Engineering Education, Purdue University
  • Matthew Pliel, Research Professor in Mechanical Engineering, University of New Mexico and Central New Mexico Community College/Southwest Center for Microsystems Education
  • Karen Rosenschein, Assistant Director, Disability Services, Office of Equity & Community Engagement (ret. 2014), University of Colorado
  • Darryl Williams, Director, Center for STEM Diversity, Tufts University
  • Katherine Steele, Assistant Professor, Mechanical Engineering, University of Washington
  • Tim Wilson, Chair, Department of Electrical, Computer, Software, and Systems Engineering, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University
  • Donna Riley, Professor of Engineering Education, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

The advisory board met via virtual conferencing throughout the year to determine project steps and ensure that the conference and resulting research areas was inclusive. Members of the committee framed questions such as:

  • Are there particular scholars, policy makers or administrators that should optimally be gathered at this workshop?
  • What outcomes and assessment techniques are optimal for this project?
  • What is currently being asked by those who study these underserved communities? What is not yet being asked and why?
  • How may our own institutional and disciplinary positions be shaping or limiting work our approach to this project?

The advisory board developed further questions to be discussed at the conference by the participants. These questions included

  • How do current epistemological assumptions limit what is considered valid knowledge regarding the teaching of engineering?
  • How do current methods function to erase some identities altogether in analysis of underrepresentation?
  • In what ways does evidence-based practice neglect underrepresented and underserved groups?
  • How do current methodological decisions (e.g., research questions and research designs) reproduce marginalization of underrepresented and underserved students?
  • What critical questions could potentially increase the impacts of educational research?
  • How do ascriptions of identity categories promote a monolithic “normal” experience in engineering education?
  • What roles do funding institutions play in the prioritization or counting of “category membership”?
  • What theories and methodologies can promote intersectional research in engineering education?
  • What are institutional, cultural or political impediments to research or funding changes?