Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 51
RESEARCH
RESULTS
3
The communications audit provided a comprehensive overview and
critique of the strategic approaches and tactics used to date to commu-
nicate with the public about engineering. Combined with input from
the committee, the audit gave the consultants a solid basis on which to
develop a positioning statement and preliminary themes and messages.
The consultants then conducted qualitative and quantitative research,
which added to our knowledge of stakeholder perceptions of engineer-
ing, vetted preliminary messages, validated the positioning statement,
and provided an evidence base for recommendations.
The qualitative research comprised individual interviews, adult
and teen focus groups, and “triads” (groups of three) with preteens.
The quantitative research consisted of an online survey. Consistent
with federal rules for research on human subjects, the National Acad-
emy of Engineering established procedures, including informed con-
sent, to ensure the confidentiality of research participants. This process
was overseen by the National Academies Institutional Review Board.
OCR for page 52
CHANGING THE CONVERSATION
QUALITATIvE RESEARCh
qualitative research involving small samples selected without using
statistical procedures must be considered exploratory, and the resulting
hypotheses may have to be validated by quantitative research. qualita-
tive research can sometimes provide clear conclusions but is designed
primarily to shed light on perceptions of the issues in question, in this
case engineering and engineers.
In-Depth Interviews
In the first phase of the qualitative research for this study (Sep-
tember and October 2006), Bemporad Baranowski Marketing Group/
Global Srategy Group (BBMG/GSG) conducted 12 in-depth inter-
views of a cross section of educators, opinion leaders, and engineers.
By talking with individuals familiar with engineering, BBMG/GSG
hoped to confirm and build on the conclusions of the communications
audit and discussions with the committee. The interviewees were the
first group outside of the committee to weigh in on the messages and
themes.
Methodology
The interviews were conducted by telephone and tape recorded
to ensure that they were reported accurately. Each interview lasted
45 minutes to an hour. (An interviewer’s guide can be viewed at
Appendix B.) The project committee and staff suggested potential
interviewees, but BBMG/GSG made the final selection. In keeping with
the informed-consent process, the identities of the interviewees were
not revealed to the committee or project staff.
Key Findings
Perceptions of Engineers and Engineering. The interviews revealed a
wide gap between the way engineers would like themselves and their
field to be perceived and the way both are actually perceived. At best,
engineers are seen—and see themselves—as curious, hard-working
OCR for page 53
Research Results
individuals who design solutions to difficult problems and leave their
mark on the world. As the chair of a university chemical engineering
department said, “They [engineers] are the interface between society
and technology.”
However, engineers can also be very hard on themselves. Sometimes
they describe themselves and others in engineering as “Dilberts”, that is,
“book smart,” “nerdy” “know-it-alls” who are “isolated,” “myopic,” and
“not cool.” Some argue that this stereotype is unfair and have criticized
their peers for not doing a better job of explaining exactly what engi-
neers do. As a researcher in a corporate research and developoment
division said, “Engineers are seen as nerds and geeks. People who are
not in it [the field] have a hard time grasping what we do, [and] we
don’t do a good job of explaining it either. It [engineering] is seen as a
bunch of technical things they can’t grasp . . . and boring, too.”
Many interviewees noted that there is no readily identifiable “public
face” of engineering, no personality, such as Julia Child for cooking,
Oprah Winfrey for talk television, Tiger Woods for golf, or Martha
Stewart for home living. Some felt that cable TV programs that explain
“the way things work” or feature engineering “marvels” expose many
more people to a positive image of the field than the best-organized
“engineering fair” or “popsicle-stick bridge-building contest,” which
only attract people who are already interested in engineering.
Interviewees who are engineers expressed concerns that the con-
tributions of engineering to everyday lives are taken for granted. To
an observant eye, engineering is all around us, but it takes a “powerful
awareness” to be able to see it. A columnist for a major newspaper said,
“Engineering is the behind-the-scenes job that no one pays attention
to, and it doesn’t have to be that way.”
Several interviewees said that the lack of diversity in engineering is
a significant issue. “If anything, I’d like to make it [engineering] more
appealing for minorities and women,” said a Ph.D. candidate and mem-
ber of the National Society of Black Engineers. As noted in Chapter 1,
women and some minorities are significantly underrepresented in
engineering education and practice.
One reason for the difficulty in communicating effectively with
the public is that the technical aspects of engineering—especially
OCR for page 54
CHANGING THE CONVERSATION
mathematics and science, which are perceived as difficult—are usually
emphasized, rather than the creative opportunities. As a vocational
instructor and middle school technology teacher explained, “Students
don’t …understand that [engineering] is really a super-creative job.
They don’t see that [engineers] are probably more artistic than some
artists. [Engineers] are just using a different set of paints, if you will.”
Reactions to Messages. All of the preliminary messages and themes
(Box 3-1) were well received, except for “An Enterprising Spirit” and
“Free to Explore.” Both engineers and educators embraced the image of
engineering as creative, imaginative problem-solving and overcoming
“seeming impossibilities.”
Focus Groups and youth Triads
In mid-October 2006, BBMG/GSG conducted four focus groups
with young people ages 12 to 15 and 16 to 19 (one in each age group in
Raleigh, North Carolina, and in Phoenix, Arizona) and a single focus
group with parents of young people ages 9 to 19 in Raleigh. BBMG/
GSG also conducted four same-sex youth triads with children ages 9
to 11 in Phoenix.1
The purpose of the focus groups and triads was to explore teens
and children’s understanding of engineering, their impressions of
engineers, and their reactions to examples of engineering and mes-
sages about engineering. In addition, the student groups were asked
their opinions on current school subjects and their ideas about future
careers. The parent group was asked what they thought was important
in career choices for their children.
1 One-on-one interviews with young children are notorious for causing
respondents to “shut down,” and focus groups with young children are similarly
unproductive. In triads, the three friends already have a rapport and are accustomed
to playing and talking with each other. All qualitative methods will introduce some
bias, and with triads there may be a “pecking order” effect. GSG has conducted youth
triads with great success for such clients as the Boy Scouts and Scholastic.
OCR for page 55
Research Results
BOX 3-1
Reactions to Preliminary Messages,
Selected Quotes
Ideas in Action (underscores that engineering bridges the world
of science and the real world).
“That’s what engineering does. That’s what got me into engineer-
ing. I didn’t want to go into chemistry. I thought engineering was
more practical.”
Chemical engineer, international industrial gas company
Life Takes Engineering (focuses on the life-changing work of
engineers).
“No kidding. Life does take engineering. [The word] life adds
depth to the subject. It speaks to people on all levels. It speaks
to people who aren’t as fortunate [as we] to have the greatest
environment to live in. It gives them aspirations for greatness. It’s
changing your life for the better.”
Vocational instructor and middle school technology teacher
Limitless Imagination (focuses on the innovative nature of engi-
neering design).
“Creative ideas often lead to elegant solutions, like the Segway.”
Computer architect, major semiconductor company
Free to Explore (evokes the constant journey, the engineer’s quest
for new solutions).
“Is that always true? Is it always a new solution you’re looking
for, or is it to take existing solutions and apply them in certain
circumstances?”
Columnist, major newspaper
Shape the Future (engineering as an empowering, rewarding
career).
“You’re talking about making a difference in so many ways: from
artificial limbs to XBox 360.”
Ph.D. candidate, National Society of Black Engineers
An Enterprising Spirit (the inventive spirit and pioneering contri-
butions of engineering).
“[The word] enterprising conveys much more of a business as-
pect, and kids won’t understand that until later. It gives a business
flavor, so I’m not sure about that one.”
Planner, NASA
OCR for page 56
CHANGING THE CONVERSATION
Methodology
Focus group respondents were recruited by telephone by profes-
sional recruiters calling from a residential telephone list. Respondents
were eligible only if they had not participated in a market research
group discussion, focus group, or individual interview in the previous
six months. Adult participants were parents of children in school ages 9
to 19 who were “planning to attend or . . . currently attending college.”
Adult respondents were informed that the project consisted of an infor-
mal discussion group “to learn more about how parents feel regarding
various issues that impact their child’s education and career choices.”
All teen respondents were currently “planning to attend or . . . currently
attending college.” Teens were informed by recruiters that the discus-
sion groups were being conducted “to learn more about how young
people feel about their education and career choices.” Teens ages 16–18
were eligible to participate only if they had not already chosen to pur-
sue a specific, non-science-related career, or if they might change their
mind about a chosen career. Teens were also asked for their opinions
about several possible professions or career choices they may choose,
and asked if they thought that profession or career choice would be
a very good choice, a good choice, a fair choice, or a bad choice for
them. Teen respondents were ineligible to participate if they believed
engineering was a “bad choice” for them, personally.
A total of 28 teens, 12 pre-teens, and 10 adults participated in the
focus groups and triads. According to demographic data collected by
BBMG/GSG, between 20 and 50 percent of individuals in each focus
group considered themselves minority (i.e., non white). Participants were
recruited and screened by local research firms selected by the consultants,
and the sessions were held at the facilities of the local firms in rooms
with one-way mirrors, which enabled consultants and project staff to
observe the discussions without distracting the participants. Committee
members and project staff who were not onsite were able to observe the
sessions in Phoenix via video on a password-protected website.
The focus sessions lasted about two hours and were professionally
moderated according to committee-approved discussion guides (see
Appendixes C and D). Participants received a small financial incentive
and were required to sign informed-consent forms.
OCR for page 57
Research Results
Triads lasted from 45 minutes to an hour, and moderators again
used a committee-approved discussion guide (Appendix E). Like the
focus groups, the triads were held in rooms with one-way mirrors. The
general format was the same as for the teen and adult focus groups,
with one exception. Children were asked to react to engineering-related
pictures rather than to respond to the message themes directly. Parents
signed consent forms on behalf of their minor children.
Findings
Perceptions of Engineers and Engineering. Students struggling to
understand the concept of engineering—especially younger children
and older children with little interest in math, science, or computer
games—connected the word “engineering” to the word “engine” and
thus concluded it had something to do with vehicles, such as cars,
trains, and army tanks. One Phoenix teen in the 12–15-year-old group
thought engineering must be “being able to fix things that are part of
the engine.”
Other researchers have also found that children have a relatively
narrow idea of engineering (Cunningham et al., 2005). The majority
of students understood that engineers “design and build things” but
tended to have a very limited idea of what that meant, focusing mainly
on mechanical or structural aspects of engineering, like cars, bridges,
and buildings. One teen in Raleigh had a more comprehensive view.
Engineering, he said, is about “designing buildings, making blueprints,
making stuff work . . .Taking things apart and putting them back
together better, like electronics . . . Making new products that are more
efficient, like a trash can that can go to the curb by itself.”
When the moderators explained (via written examples for the teen
groups and pictures for the preteens) that engineering is all around us,
the students became much more interested in engineering as a possible
field of study. The examples helped them understand the broad reach
of engineering, how it benefits society, and how it might be connected
to something that interests them. “If you told somebody that they could
invent the next Xbox, you’d get a lot of kids who’d want to be an engi-
neer,” declared a teen in the 12–15-year-old focus group in Phoenix.
OCR for page 58
CHANGING THE CONVERSATION
Students who were most aware of engineering—older children,
particularly if they had a parent or family friend or relative who was
an engineer, and students who already had a strong interest in science
and math—included computers and technology, space exploration,
traffic and city planning, and other topics in their definitions. Even
these students, however, were not sure of the role of engineering in
actual projects. In fact, even the few students who said they planned
to become engineers had little understanding of the kinds of tasks
involved in performing a job or pursuing a career.
When asked to describe the qualities of engineers, students tended
to emphasize that engineers were “smart,” “imaginative,” and good at
math and science when they were kids. Although they did not have
a negative impression of engineers, many seemed to feel that they
themselves were not smart enough or did not enjoy math or science
enough to become engineers. One preteen commented, “Certain kids
can become engineers. If dumb kids try to become engineers, it isn’t
going to work well. [Engineering is for] smart kids who know how to
fix things . . . For cars, you need to know math and science, how this
plus this equals mileage.”
If some students thought that engineers were smart, creative, and
imaginative, many others thought they were sedentary, worked mostly
on computers, and had little contact with other people. “Seems like a
lot of engineers sit behind a desk and don’t do much field work,” said
one Raleigh teen in the 16–19-year-old group. “It’s a desk job. I’d beat
my head against the wall if I had to do that . . . When you think of engi-
neering, you don’t think about being in front of people.”
Nearly all of the girls who took part in the research said they
thought women could be engineers as well as men. However, there was
a strong underlying assumption that girls “who like things that boys
tend to like” (e.g., video games, cars and vehicles, building things) were
more likely to become engineers than “average girls” (e.g., girls who
want to be veterinarians, lawyers, doctors, fashion designers, teachers,
or otherwise want to “work with people”).
When asked to name engineers they knew or had heard of, includ-
ing those who had visited their schools on career days, most students
could name only men. Almost everyone—students and parents of both
OCR for page 59
Research Results
genders—agreed that no concerted efforts had been made to engage
women in engineering or to demonstrate to girls how science, math,
and engineering are related to the things they are most likely to care
about.
Examples of Engineering. Students were asked to review a list of
examples of engineering (Table 3-1) (for focus groups) or pictures of
engineering-related artifacts or people engaged in activities (for triads)
and pick the examples they found most interesting or appealing. The
results showed that students tended to pick examples of the things
they “connect with” personally. This suggests that a broad variety of
examples would appeal to a very wide range of children, as long as the
examples include concepts related to students’ interests.
TABLE 3-1 Examples of Engineering Shown to Students in Focus
Groups
• •
How the pyramids were built Automotive design
• •
Space Computer-aided design
• •
Designing video games Missile defense systems
• •
Building an acoustically perfect Interactive television
•
concert hall Traffic design
• •
What makes a bridge High-definition television
• •
Building the world’s tallest bridge Nuclear fission
•
(over 1,000 feet high) Internet security systems
• •
Designing the world’s fastest plane iPod
• •
Developing new foods Making homes safer
• •
How MRI machines work How a million Twinkies are made
• DNA testing every day
• •
Using DNA evidence to solve crimes How tower cranes work
• •
Cars that run on alternative fuels Velcro
• •
Making cars safer High-speed image transmission
• •
Growing organs for emergency High-performance racing cars
•
transplants Turning deserts into farmland
• •
Making smaller, faster computer Wind power
•
processors Solar energy
• •
Protecting the rainforest Machines that allow blind people
• High-speed (250 mph) trains to see
• Developing new fabrics
OCR for page 60
0 CHANGING THE CONVERSATION
Examples of objects and activities children were familiar with in
their daily lives stimulated the most interest. For example, students
repeatedly expressed enthusiasm for video games, iPods, computers,
cell phones, and amusement parks. High-tech devices, such as the
iPod and video games, were picked by a broad range of children, while
pictures of the microchip were picked mostly by science- and math-
oriented students. Some students found images and descriptions of
space exploration interesting, while others gravitated more toward
historical examples of engineering (e.g., catapults or pyramids).
Younger girls tended to pick images that showed people, particu-
larly older female engineers, while boys were more likely to pick images
that featured “things.” This finding is consistent with other research
on thing–people orientation among girls and boys (e.g., Lippa, 1998).
Many older girls seemed to gravitate toward “DNA evidence” from the
list of examples. Young students did not select pictures of individuals
standing still or sitting at a desk, which reflected their image of engi-
neering as “boring or repetitive” and “not with other people.”
Reactions to Message Themes. Students generally reacted positively
to the message themes. They especially liked descriptions of engi-
neers as “creative problem solvers” and “free to explore.” The creative
aspect of engineering “grabbed me,” said one Raleigh 16–19-year old.
“[T]hat appeals to me a lot more than trying to describe them as
scientists . . . The never-ending part appeals to me . . . there’s so much
you can do with [engineering].” One Raleigh 12–15-year-old student
liked the theme suggesting “that you’ll never be bored. keeping interest
is the best thing in a job . . . Makes it sound like an adventure . . . some-
thing I wouldn’t mind sitting through two calculus courses for.”
Students expressed a very strong sense of the importance of
choosing careers that will provide financial stability and a comfortable
lifestyle. The career goal named most often was “making good money.”
Another concept that had strong appeal as a career goal was “helping
to make a difference.” However, many students found it difficult to
connect engineering and helping others.
Most students thought that engineers might make a difference, but
only indirectly, whereas doctors and lawyers, who have direct contact
OCR for page 61
Research Results
with others, have a more obvious impact on people. “Engineering is
behind the scenes helping people,” observed a 16–19-year-old Raleigh
student. “They design the machines that help people. You don’t think
of an engineer when you see a building or machine, you think that is
a great machine. But when a doctor does something, you know that
they did it.”
This perception may explain why very few students associated
major engineering challenges for the next generation (e.g., “cars that
will help us achieve oil independence” or “saving the rainforest”) with
“making a difference.” Several students also hinted that a career in
engineering might not fulfill their desire for recognition. This idea
was based on a conception that engineers draw more satisfaction from
individual or team-oriented work than from direct recognition or the
gratitude of users or beneficiaries.
Parents. Most parents said that engineering would be a good field
for their children to consider. Even those who were not certain about
what engineers do were confident that engineering would provide job
security—a top priority for parents—in the form of good salary and
benefits, as well as a career path for advancement and success. “You can
test waters in different disciplines within engineering. It is a good career
choice,” said one parent.
Parents had a mixed perception of engineers, however. On the
one hand, they saw them as very smart problem solvers whose work is
critical to society. On the other hand, they perceived them as somewhat
nerdy and, perhaps, too focused on understanding how things work or
trying to make things more efficient. As one parent said, “I think it is
a certain personality type. I know it is a stereotype, but I think [engi-
neers] tend to see things more black and white.…Very precise, detail
oriented, they are not going to get into a conversation about politics
or news.”
In the discussion of message themes, parents tended to prefer the
practical messages, underscoring their interest in job security for their
children. They strongly agreed that “creative problem solving,” “free-
dom to explore,” and “making a difference” would appeal to their kids,
but they were more intent on making sure their kids find a career that
OCR for page 86
CHANGING THE CONVERSATION
these taglines. Nevertheless, it was encouraging that several of them
tested well.
“Turning ideas into reality” tested well among all survey respon-
dents (Figures 3-5 and 3-6). This straightforward tagline, which is con-
sistent with the messaging used by National Engineers Week, is more
descriptive than evocative. It states plainly that engineers translate
creative thinking into practical solutions. Perhaps that is one reason it
scored well as a tagline. By itself, without any additional creative con-
text, it makes the most sense.
It is interesting to note, however, that “Turning ideas into reality”
was part of the key message, “Engineers connect science to the real
world,” which was the least appealing of the five tested messages, espe-
cially among women. This discrepancy reinforces the need for qualita-
tive testing of taglines.
The second most appealing tagline varied among the sample
populations. African American teens, for example, favored, “Designed
to work wonders.” The second favorite choice of adults and teens in the
initial sample and the Hispanic oversample was “Because dreams need
doing.” The similar responses of girls and boys in all three populations
to this tagline (Table 3-12) suggests that “Because dreams need doing”
may be relatively gender neutral. Among Hispanic teens, there were
significant gender differences for three of the seven taglines. Among
African American teens, girls ages 16–17 were significantly more likely
than all African American boys (44 vs. 29%) to find “Turning ideas into
reality” very appealing.
CONCLUSION
The qualitative and quantitative research for this study provided
useful data on the perceptions of engineering and engineers held by
adults and teens and focused attention on the particular messages that
resonated most with the sample groups. The research process itself was
educational for the committee, not only because it shed light on public
understanding of engineering, but also because it provided insights
into the benefits and limitations of market research. key findings from
all of the research for this study are summarized in the annex to this
chapter.
OCR for page 87
Research Results
Turning ideas into reality
Because dreams need doing
Designed to work wonders
Life takes engineering
The power to do
Bolder by design
Behind the next big thing
0 20 40 60 80 100
Percentage
FIGURE 3-5 Preliminary taglines selected as “very appealing” by adults, by percentage.
Note: Top bar = initial sample. Middle bar = African American oversample. Bottom
bar = Hispanic oversample. 3-5.eps
Turning ideas into reality
Because dreams need doing
The power to do
Bolder by design
Designed to work wonders
Behind the next big thing
Life takes engineering
0 20 40 60 80 100
Percentage
FIGURE 3-6 Preliminary taglines selected as “very appealing” by teens, by percentage.
Note: Top bar = initial sample. Middle bar = African American oversample. Bottom
bar = Hispanic oversample.
3-6.eps
OCR for page 88
TABLE 3-12 Preliminary Taglines Selected as “Very Appealing” by Adults, Teens, and Teens by Gender, by Percentage
(rank)
Initial Sample African American Oversample Hispanic Oversample
Adults Teens Adults Teens Adults Teens
Tagline All Boys Girls All Boys Girls All Boys Girls
Turning ideas 46 (1) 48 (1) 54 (1) 43 (1) 48 (1) 34 (1) 29 (1) 38 (1) 45 (1) 41 (1) 47 (1) 35 (1)
into reality
Because dreams 24 (2) 42 (2) 43 (2) 42 (2) 24 (4) 18 (4) 17 (6) 18 (4) 27 (2) 28 (2) 28 (3) 28 (2)
need doing
The power to do 20(3) 31 (3) 37 (3) 25 (3) 27 (3) 18 (4) 21 (4) 16 (6) 22 (3) 24 (4) 28 (3) 20 (4)
Bolder by design 18 (6) 26 (4) 33 (4) 20 (6) 21 (6) 18 (4) 16 (7) 19 (3) 14 (7) 18 (6) 22 (6) 15 (5)
Designed to work 20 (3) 25 (5) 29 (5) 21 (4) 28 (2) 26 (2) 26 (2) 25 (2) 21 (4) 26 (3) 32 (2) 21 (3)
wonders
Behind the next 14 (7) 23 (6) 26 (6) 21 (4) 18 (7) 20 (3) 23 (3) 17 (5) 20 (6) 21 (5) 27 (5) 15 (5)
big thing
Life takes 20 (3) 19 (7) 24 (7) 15 (7) 22 (5) 15 (7) 20 (5) 12 (7) 21 (4) 17 (7) 19 (7) 14 (7)
engineering
NOTE: Pairs of shaded cells indicate responses where differences exceeded the sampling tolerance and are therefore significant. Gray = adults
vs. all teens. Black = boys vs. girls.
OCR for page 89
Research Results
One of the most important outcomes of the research was to
demonstrate how much perceptions of mathematics and science
have shaped perceptions of engineering. Evidently, messages from
the engineering community linking success in engineering to skills in
mathematics and science have reached a wide audience. Although this
message is correct, our research suggests that it has not been effective
in improving the appeal of engineering.
The committee received more public comments on the linkage of
science and mathematics to engineering than on any other subject. Sev-
eral people suggested that attracting more students to engineering will
ultimately require improving the teaching of math and science, includ-
ing how applications of math and science are relevant to students.
Another result of our research was to demonstrate that age and
gender affect perceptions of engineering and engineers. The differences
were most evident in the online survey. For example, adults, who have
much more experience in the world of work than teens, were generally
more concerned about job availability. One implication of this differ-
ence for messaging is to keep in mind that adults, who may influence
students’ career choices, may be especially sensitive to reports (accurate
or not) of the outsourcing of technical jobs, including engineering jobs,
and the resultant possible decrease in employment opportunities.
The research strongly suggests that boys and girls have different
reactions to messages and different perceptions of engineering. The
focus groups and triads confirmed other research showing that girls
are much more comfortable with images of engineering that include
people, especially women, whereas boys tend to gravitate to “things.”
This suggests messaging that targets girls should include a human
element.
Boys also appear to have a more positive outlook toward engineer-
ing as a career choice than girls, who are less confident that engineering
can be a rewarding profession that will have a positive effect on people’s
lives. This relatively negative view of engineering has been documented
in other research (EWEP, 2005; EWEP, unpublished). Girls also were
generally less responsive to all of the messages tested in this project.
The research also exposed a “disconnect” between the engi-
neering community’s self-perception and the public perception of
OCR for page 90
0 CHANGING THE CONVERSATION
engineers. The image of a nerdy, dull person, as popularized in the
comic strip Dilbert, is widely accepted as a given by the engineering
community. However, our research shows Dilbert is not the public’s
image of an engineer. Neither adults nor teens in our study correlated
Dilbert’s characteristics with real engineers. This means that messag-
ing resources that might have been invested in efforts to counter the
“nerdiness” image can be spent in more productive ways.
Finally, the research shows there are few significant ethnicity-based
differences in the way adults and teens perceive engineers, engineering,
and messages and taglines meant to improve the image of engineering.
This does not mean, however, that messaging efforts, particularly the
use of taglines, should not take ethnicity, culture, language, and other
factors into account. For optimum effectiveness, messaging needs to be
contextualized for the target population.
REFERENCES
College Board. 2007. PSAT/NMSqT® 2006-2007 College-Bound High School Juniors
Summary Report, Table 7: College Major. Available online at http://www.collegeboard.
com/prod_downloads/about/news_info/cbjunior/yr00/AL.pdf. (October 26, 2007)
Cunningham, C., C. Lachapelle, and A. Lindgren-Streicher. 2005. Assessing Elementary
School Students Conceptions of Engineering and Technology. Proceedings of the
2005 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposi-
tion. Portland, Ore., June 12–15. Washington, D.C.: ASEE.
DeNavas-Walt, C., B.D. Proctor, and J. Smith. 2007. Income, Poverty, and Health Insur-
ance Coverage in the United States: 2006. Table A-1, Households by total money
income, race, and Hispanic origin of householder: 1967–2006. Current Population
Reports—Consumer Income. U.S. Census Bureau. U.S. Department of Commerce.
Issued August 2007. Available online at http://www.census.gov/prod/00pubs/p0-
.pdf. (January 31, 2008)
EWEP (Extraordinary Women Engineers Project). 2005. Extraordinary Women Engi-
neers—Final Report, April 2005. Available online at http://www.eweek.org/site/news/
Eweek/EWE_Needs_Asses.pdf. (July 16, 2007)
EWEP. Unpublished. January 2007 memorandum from Global Strategy Group to the
Extraordinary Women Engineers Project.
Lippa, R. 1998. Gender-related individual differences and the structure of vocational
interests: The importance of the people-things dimension. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology 74: 996–1009.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2006. Historical Income Tables—Households, Table H-13, Educa-
tional attainment of householder households with householder 25 years old and
over by median and mean income: 1991–2005. Available online at www.census.
gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/h.html. (January 31, 2008)
OCR for page 91
Research Results
ANNEx
SUMMARy OF KEy RESEARCh FINDINGS
This annex consolidates the most important research findings from
this project. By putting all of the information in one place, the commit-
tee hopes to help readers identify results most relevant to their needs.
Since no two outreach efforts are likely to use identical tactics or share
the same purpose or target audience, certain findings will be more
significant for some readers than for others. The committee organized
the annex to reflect the very important idea of audience segmentation.
Thus, findings that call out differences in attitudes or understanding
between teens and adults are grouped together, as are findings for boys
and girls, men and women, and informed and not informed adults.
When used in concert with the detailed data presented in the body of
Chapter 3, the annex should be a useful guide for designing effective
outreach to improve public understanding of engineering.
FOCUS GROUPS AND TRIADS
Students
The majority of students understand that engineers “design and
build things” but tend to have a very limited idea of what engineers
actually do.
Students do not have an overtly negative impression of engineers, but
many feel that they are not smart enough or do not enjoy math or sci-
ence enough to become engineers themselves.
Many students think that engineers are sedentary, work mostly on
computers, and have little contact with other people.
Most girls believe that women have the talent and intellect to become
engineers, if they so choose.
OCR for page 92
CHANGING THE CONVERSATION
When asked to name engineers they knew or had heard of, including
those who had come to their schools on career days, most students
could name only men.
Examples of engineering related to the objects and activities of stu-
dents’ daily lives aroused a great deal of interest.
“Making good money” was the career goal mentioned most often
by students.3 The idea of “helping make a difference” also had a very
strong appeal.
Parents
Parents were mostly of the opinion that engineering would provide their
child with job security in the form of good salary and benefits, as well as
a career path that would enable them to continue to grow and succeed.
Parents tended to prefer the more practical messages, underscoring
their concerns about job security for their children.
ONLINE SURvEy
General Findings
Both adults and teens said the most distinguishing characteristic of
engineers is their high skill level in mathematics and science.
Less than 15 percent of adults or teens described engineers as “boring”
or “nerdy.”
Technologies that have yet to be developed or are not in widespread
commercial use were more appealing to adults and teens than tech-
nologies already in use.
3This contrasted to the answers from teens in the online survey who rated the
importance of salary to job choice second or third behind “interesting work” and
“work that makes a difference, is meaningful.”
OCR for page 93
Research Results
“Engineers make a world of difference” was the message with the high-
est “very appealing” rating among all adult and teen groups.
“Engineers connect science to the real world” was the least appealing
message among all survey groups and the least personally relevant for
all but African American adults.
All teens rated interesting work as the most important consideration
in choosing a career. Making a difference was second most important
among teens in the initial sample and Hispanic teens, and equally
important to job availability for African American teens.
Adults in the initial sample and Hispanic oversample rated interest-
ing work and job availability as most important and of equal value
in career choice. African American adults rated job availability most
important and interesting work second.
Teens versus Adults
Teens in the initial sample were three times as likely as adults to con-
sider engineering “boring” and twice as likely to consider engineers
“nerdy.”
More teens than adults considered engineers hard workers.
Teens across the board responded more strongly than adults to enter-
tainment technologies, such as iPods and video games.
Informed versus “Not Informed” Adults
Adults in the initial sample classified as “not informed” were more
than twice as likely as informed adults to believe salary was extremely
important to career choice.
Informed adults in all three samples were significantly more likely
than the not informed cohorts to associate math and science with
engineering.
OCR for page 94
CHANGING THE CONVERSATION
Informed adults in the Hispanic and African American oversamples
were significantly more positive than their not informed counterparts
about all but one message: Engineers are creative problem-solvers.
Men versus Women
African American women were more likely than African American men
to believe engineers are well paid, hard working, and smart.
Men in all three samples asserted greater knowledge of engineering
than did women.
Among Hispanic adults, women reacted more positively to “Engineers
are creative problem solvers” than men.
Boys versus Girls
In all of the teen groups, boys were nearly twice as likely as girls to rate
engineering as a very good career choice.
Boys in all three samples claimed they had greater familiarity with
engineering than girls.
African American girls were significantly more likely than African
American boys to want a job that “makes a difference.”
African American boys were significantly more likely than African
American girls to consider salary extremely important to job choice.
Hispanic girls were significantly more likely than Hispanic boys to
think engineers were nerdy and boring.
Hispanic girls were significantly less likely than Hispanic boys to believe
engineering has a positive effect on people’s everyday lives.
In all teen groups, computer processors, video games, and high-defini-
tion television were significantly more appealing to boys than to girls.
OCR for page 95
Research Results
Girls in the initial sample and African American oversample found the
idea of using DNA evidence to solve crimes much more appealing than
did boys in these populations.
Girls were generally less enthusiastic than boys about all of the
messages.
Boys in the initial sample found “Engineering makes a world of differ-
ence” and “Engineers are creative problem solvers” equally appealing
messages. The second message did not appeal nearly as much to girls.
After “Engineers make a world of difference,” the second most appeal-
ing message for girls across the board was “Engineering is essential to
our health, happiness and safety.”
“Engineers connect science to the real world” was the least appealing
message for all teens. However, African American boys disliked the
“Engineering is essential to our health, happiness and safety” message
most, and Hispanic girls disliked the “Engineers help shape the future”
message most.
OCR for page 96
