National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: 2 Development of a Positioning Statement, Themes, and Messages
Suggested Citation:"3 Research Results ." National Academy of Engineering. 2008. Changing the Conversation: Messages for Improving Public Understanding of Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12187.
×
Page 51
Suggested Citation:"3 Research Results ." National Academy of Engineering. 2008. Changing the Conversation: Messages for Improving Public Understanding of Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12187.
×
Page 52
Suggested Citation:"3 Research Results ." National Academy of Engineering. 2008. Changing the Conversation: Messages for Improving Public Understanding of Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12187.
×
Page 53
Suggested Citation:"3 Research Results ." National Academy of Engineering. 2008. Changing the Conversation: Messages for Improving Public Understanding of Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12187.
×
Page 54
Suggested Citation:"3 Research Results ." National Academy of Engineering. 2008. Changing the Conversation: Messages for Improving Public Understanding of Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12187.
×
Page 55
Suggested Citation:"3 Research Results ." National Academy of Engineering. 2008. Changing the Conversation: Messages for Improving Public Understanding of Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12187.
×
Page 56
Suggested Citation:"3 Research Results ." National Academy of Engineering. 2008. Changing the Conversation: Messages for Improving Public Understanding of Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12187.
×
Page 57
Suggested Citation:"3 Research Results ." National Academy of Engineering. 2008. Changing the Conversation: Messages for Improving Public Understanding of Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12187.
×
Page 58
Suggested Citation:"3 Research Results ." National Academy of Engineering. 2008. Changing the Conversation: Messages for Improving Public Understanding of Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12187.
×
Page 59
Suggested Citation:"3 Research Results ." National Academy of Engineering. 2008. Changing the Conversation: Messages for Improving Public Understanding of Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12187.
×
Page 60
Suggested Citation:"3 Research Results ." National Academy of Engineering. 2008. Changing the Conversation: Messages for Improving Public Understanding of Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12187.
×
Page 61
Suggested Citation:"3 Research Results ." National Academy of Engineering. 2008. Changing the Conversation: Messages for Improving Public Understanding of Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12187.
×
Page 62
Suggested Citation:"3 Research Results ." National Academy of Engineering. 2008. Changing the Conversation: Messages for Improving Public Understanding of Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12187.
×
Page 63
Suggested Citation:"3 Research Results ." National Academy of Engineering. 2008. Changing the Conversation: Messages for Improving Public Understanding of Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12187.
×
Page 64
Suggested Citation:"3 Research Results ." National Academy of Engineering. 2008. Changing the Conversation: Messages for Improving Public Understanding of Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12187.
×
Page 65
Suggested Citation:"3 Research Results ." National Academy of Engineering. 2008. Changing the Conversation: Messages for Improving Public Understanding of Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12187.
×
Page 66
Suggested Citation:"3 Research Results ." National Academy of Engineering. 2008. Changing the Conversation: Messages for Improving Public Understanding of Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12187.
×
Page 67
Suggested Citation:"3 Research Results ." National Academy of Engineering. 2008. Changing the Conversation: Messages for Improving Public Understanding of Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12187.
×
Page 68
Suggested Citation:"3 Research Results ." National Academy of Engineering. 2008. Changing the Conversation: Messages for Improving Public Understanding of Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12187.
×
Page 69
Suggested Citation:"3 Research Results ." National Academy of Engineering. 2008. Changing the Conversation: Messages for Improving Public Understanding of Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12187.
×
Page 70
Suggested Citation:"3 Research Results ." National Academy of Engineering. 2008. Changing the Conversation: Messages for Improving Public Understanding of Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12187.
×
Page 71
Suggested Citation:"3 Research Results ." National Academy of Engineering. 2008. Changing the Conversation: Messages for Improving Public Understanding of Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12187.
×
Page 72
Suggested Citation:"3 Research Results ." National Academy of Engineering. 2008. Changing the Conversation: Messages for Improving Public Understanding of Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12187.
×
Page 73
Suggested Citation:"3 Research Results ." National Academy of Engineering. 2008. Changing the Conversation: Messages for Improving Public Understanding of Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12187.
×
Page 74
Suggested Citation:"3 Research Results ." National Academy of Engineering. 2008. Changing the Conversation: Messages for Improving Public Understanding of Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12187.
×
Page 75
Suggested Citation:"3 Research Results ." National Academy of Engineering. 2008. Changing the Conversation: Messages for Improving Public Understanding of Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12187.
×
Page 76
Suggested Citation:"3 Research Results ." National Academy of Engineering. 2008. Changing the Conversation: Messages for Improving Public Understanding of Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12187.
×
Page 77
Suggested Citation:"3 Research Results ." National Academy of Engineering. 2008. Changing the Conversation: Messages for Improving Public Understanding of Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12187.
×
Page 78
Suggested Citation:"3 Research Results ." National Academy of Engineering. 2008. Changing the Conversation: Messages for Improving Public Understanding of Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12187.
×
Page 79
Suggested Citation:"3 Research Results ." National Academy of Engineering. 2008. Changing the Conversation: Messages for Improving Public Understanding of Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12187.
×
Page 80
Suggested Citation:"3 Research Results ." National Academy of Engineering. 2008. Changing the Conversation: Messages for Improving Public Understanding of Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12187.
×
Page 81
Suggested Citation:"3 Research Results ." National Academy of Engineering. 2008. Changing the Conversation: Messages for Improving Public Understanding of Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12187.
×
Page 82
Suggested Citation:"3 Research Results ." National Academy of Engineering. 2008. Changing the Conversation: Messages for Improving Public Understanding of Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12187.
×
Page 83
Suggested Citation:"3 Research Results ." National Academy of Engineering. 2008. Changing the Conversation: Messages for Improving Public Understanding of Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12187.
×
Page 84
Suggested Citation:"3 Research Results ." National Academy of Engineering. 2008. Changing the Conversation: Messages for Improving Public Understanding of Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12187.
×
Page 85
Suggested Citation:"3 Research Results ." National Academy of Engineering. 2008. Changing the Conversation: Messages for Improving Public Understanding of Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12187.
×
Page 86
Suggested Citation:"3 Research Results ." National Academy of Engineering. 2008. Changing the Conversation: Messages for Improving Public Understanding of Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12187.
×
Page 87
Suggested Citation:"3 Research Results ." National Academy of Engineering. 2008. Changing the Conversation: Messages for Improving Public Understanding of Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12187.
×
Page 88
Suggested Citation:"3 Research Results ." National Academy of Engineering. 2008. Changing the Conversation: Messages for Improving Public Understanding of Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12187.
×
Page 89
Suggested Citation:"3 Research Results ." National Academy of Engineering. 2008. Changing the Conversation: Messages for Improving Public Understanding of Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12187.
×
Page 90
Suggested Citation:"3 Research Results ." National Academy of Engineering. 2008. Changing the Conversation: Messages for Improving Public Understanding of Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12187.
×
Page 91
Suggested Citation:"3 Research Results ." National Academy of Engineering. 2008. Changing the Conversation: Messages for Improving Public Understanding of Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12187.
×
Page 92
Suggested Citation:"3 Research Results ." National Academy of Engineering. 2008. Changing the Conversation: Messages for Improving Public Understanding of Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12187.
×
Page 93
Suggested Citation:"3 Research Results ." National Academy of Engineering. 2008. Changing the Conversation: Messages for Improving Public Understanding of Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12187.
×
Page 94
Suggested Citation:"3 Research Results ." National Academy of Engineering. 2008. Changing the Conversation: Messages for Improving Public Understanding of Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12187.
×
Page 95
Suggested Citation:"3 Research Results ." National Academy of Engineering. 2008. Changing the Conversation: Messages for Improving Public Understanding of Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12187.
×
Page 96

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

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. 51

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

Research Results 53 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

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. 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.  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.

Research Results 55 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 e ­ ngineers). “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 c ­ ircumstances?” Columnist, major newspaper Shape the Future (engineering as an empowering, rewarding c ­ areer). “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

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.

Research Results 57 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.

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

Research Results 59 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

60 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 s ­ cientists . . . 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

Research Results 61 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

62 CHANGING THE CONVERSATION will keep them financially secure. “Tell them to find something that is reasonably satisfying and you can make a living at,” counseled one parent. QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH Once the information provided from the communications audit and qualitative research had been digested, the committee moved to obtain quantitative data, which are important for at least two reasons. First, they provide a check on the findings and interpretations of the qualitative research. Second, they provide a statistically sound founda- tion for making a case for new messaging to present to the engineering community. Methodology The online survey was administered in two phases: to an initial sample of teens and adults in December 2006 and two oversamples of African American and Hispanic teens and adults in spring 2007. The survey instrument (Appendix F), which was developed by BBMG/GSG in an iterative process with the committee, included six questions about views of engineering and engineers and four questions about reactions to messages and taglines. Some of these questions asked respondents to rate or choose among multiple answers. To avoid the possibility that the choices at or near the top or at or near the bottom of the list would be preferentially selected (so-called order effect), the order of answers was randomized for each respondent. Adults in all three samples were asked about their level of interest in the news and engagement in the community. This information was used to create a category of “informed adults,” individuals with some college education who said they either followed the news on an ongo- ing basis, including local, state, and national political developments, or were involved in their communities as volunteers. For the initial sample, GSG fielded the questionnaire in a panel recruited by Polimetrix (www.polimetrix.com). The survey was com- pleted by 1,234 individuals, 666 adults (including an oversample of 200 informed adults) and 568 teens, ages 14 to 17. As noted in Chapter 1,

Research Results 63 there were relatively few African Americans and Hispanics in the ini- tial sample (only 77 non-white adults and 116 non-white teens); thus, statistically speaking, it was impossible to draw valid conclusions about the responses of these groups. Because African Americans and Hispanics are a key audience for engineering messaging, the committee decided to enlarge the survey sample to include these populations. The oversampling was con- ducted in late May and early June 2007 by Harris Interactive (www.­ harrisinteractive.com) and returned 605 surveys from African American adults, 608 surveys from Hispanic adults, 535 surveys from African American teens, and 566 surveys from Hispanic teens. Like BBMG/ GSG, Harris Interactive relied on pre-recruited panels of respondents. All survey samples were statistically weighted to adjust for potential demographic differences between the final sample and the general population. When interpreting the results of the online survey, it is important to keep in mind that data for the initial and African American and Hispanic samples were obtained at different times and data were col- lected differently. Although every effort was made to ensure that the wording and order of the questions were the same for all the samples, other variables, such as the visual presentation, could not be as ­easily controlled. In other words, the mode of data collection may have influ- enced responses. For this reason, the committee’s analysis is focused on relative rankings within each sample, rather than potentially misleading dif- ferences among samples. The ranking numbers (in parentheses) in the tables that follow should be interpreted cautiously, because when the point spread between two percentages was smaller than the sampling tolerance, it was impossible to determine relative rankings of the responses. The sampling tolerances for comparing adult and teen samples and for compar- ing gender samples ranges from 4 to 10 percent, depending on the survey response percentages and the sizes of the samples. In the tables that follow, the committee has shaded data for which the differences exceeded the sampling tolerances.

64 CHANGING THE CONVERSATION Assuring Socioeconomic, Educational, and Geographical Representativeness Surveys such as ours need to be sensitive to the diversity of the U.S. population, because people from diverse backgrounds may not share the same views on engineering. For this reason, both GSG and Har- ris sought participation of teens and adults from a range of income, educational, and geographic backgrounds. As a result, our data reflect input from important subpopulations, such as those of low income and limited education, and those living in rural regions of the country. For example, income information collected in the two Harris sur- veys revealed 28 percent of African American adults and 34 percent of Hispanic adults had household income below the 2006 median for their race or ethnicity, $31,969 and $37,781, respectively (DeNavas-Walt et al., 2007). In 2006, median household income for white Americans was $50,673 and for all races it was $48,201. No income data were requested of adults in the initial sample. However, it is possible to use information about educational attain- ment to estimate a person’s socioeconomic status. In the initial sample, 39 percent of adults said they had no education beyond high school, and an additional 6 percent indicated they had not graduated high school. Median household income in 2005 for “householders” with no high school diploma was $24,675 and for those with no more than a high school diploma it was $38,191 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2006). The socioeconomic status of teens in the African American and Hispanic oversamples can be estimated by their reporting of the edu- cational attainment of their mothers and fathers. (No data regarding parental educational attainment were collected from the teens in the first survey.) These data suggest that a large minority of African Ameri- can teens (between 37 and 41%) and a majority of Hispanic teens (between 52 and 57%) were from families where neither mother nor father had attended college. Taken together, actual and inferred income data suggest that a significant proportion of adults and teens in the African American and Hispanic oversamples, and of adults in the initial sample, were of moderate to low income.

Research Results 65 The online survey also collected geographically representative data. The initial sample and two oversamples interviewed individuals across four regions of the United States (East, Midwest, South, and West), and these data were weighted to approximate the geographical distribution of the population of the United States. In addition, Harris collected data from the two teen oversamples regarding the location of the school that respondents “currently attend or most recently attended.” Approximately 50 percent of African American and Hispanic teens reported attending a school in an urban or city area; slightly more than 35 percent reported attending in a suburban area; and about 15 percent reported attending in a small town or rural area. Perceptions of Engineering Career Choice When adults were asked to name a “very good choice” of career from a list of six professions, doctor, scientist, and engineer were nearly equivalent (Table 3-2). Teens put doctor at the top of the list and engi- neer, lawyer, or scientist second. With the exception of teens in the initial sample, teaching was at the bottom of the list. In all of the teen samples, boys were nearly twice as likely as girls to rate engineering as a very good choice of career, and engineering was the only profession in which there was a difference between genders. This gender gap was even more dramatic in data collected by the Col- lege Board in 2006 for 1.55 million high school juniors who took the Preliminary SAT/National Merit Scholarship Qualifying Test. In those data, 14.7 percent of boys but only 2.0 percent of girls indicated they planned to major in engineering in college (College Board, 2007). Survey takers were asked to rate the relative importance of seven f ­ actors (interesting work, availability of jobs in the field, work that makes a difference, challenging work, salary, recognition, and prestigious field) in career choices. Adults in the initial sample and Hispanic adults in the oversample rated interesting work and job availability equally as the two most important factors (Table 3-3). African American adults cited job availability as most important and interesting work second.

66 TABLE 3-2  Survey Respondents’ Choices for “Very Good Choice” Careers, by Percentage (Rank) Initial Sample African American Oversample Hispanic Oversample Adults Teens Adults Teens Adults Teens Career All Boys Girls All Boys Girls All Boys Girls Engineer 56 (1) 24 (3) 34 (1) 17 (4) 58 (2) 27 (3) 36 (1) 19 (4) 61 (1) 29 (2) 39 (1) 20 (5) Doctor 52 (2) 32 (1) 32 (3) 32 (1) 62 (1) 42 (1) 34 (2) 48 (1) 58 (2) 40 (1) 37 (2) 43 (1) Scientist 50 (3) * * * 54 (3) 23 (4) 25 (4) 22 (3) 50 (3) 22 (4) 21 (5) 23 (3) Architect 37 (4) 17 (5) 19 (4) 16 (5) 50 (4) 19 (5) 23 (5) 16 (5) 45 (4) 20 (5) 22 (4) 17 (6) Teacher 33 (5) 24 (3) 19 (4) 29 (2) 40 (6) 10 (6) 7 (6) 12 (6) 34 (5) 17 (6) 12 (6) 21 (4) Lawyer 28 (6) 30 (2) 33 (2) 27 (3) 44 (5) 29 (2) 28 (3) 30 (2) 33 (6) 25 (3) 26 (3) 25 (2) * Due to a programming error, “scientist” was not included as an answer choice for teens in the initial sample. 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.

TABLE 3-3  Survey Respondents’ Choices for “Extremely Important” Factors in Making Career Choices, Percentage (Rank) Initial Sample African American Oversample Hispanic Oversample Adults Teens Adults Teens Adults Teens Factor All Boys Girls All Boys Girls All Boys Girls Interest 48 (1) 65 (1) 63 (1) 66 (1) 50 (2) 62 (1) 59 (2) 64 (1) 49 (1) 59 (1) 56 (1) 63 (1) Availability 48 (1) 28 (4) 32 (4) 24 (5) 61 (1) 45 (4) 42 (3) 47 (3) 48 (2) 37 (4) 36 (4) 38 (3) Difference 41 (3) 47 (2) 45 (2) 49 (2) 46 (3) 48 (3) 38 (4) 56 (2) 46 (3) 51 (2) 46 (2) 55 (2) Challenge 29 (4) 28 (4) 32 (4) 25 (4) 30 (5) 22 (7) 24 (5) 21 (7) 27 (5) 25 (5) 26 (5) 23 (5) Salary 26 (5) 34 (3) 43 (3) 26 (3) 45 (4) 54 (2) 63 (1) 45 (4) 35 (4) 40 (3) 45 (3) 35 (4) Recognition 10 (6) 14 (7) 13 (6) 15 (7) 18 (7) 24 (6) 23 (6) 25 (6) 15 (6) 24 (6) 25 (6) 22 (7) Prestige 9 (7) 15 (6) 13 (6) 16 (6) 19 (6) 25 (5) 22 (7) 28 (5) 13 (7) 24 (6) 25 (6) 23 (5) 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. 67

68 CHANGING THE CONVERSATION 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 (35 vs. 16%). Among Hispanics, informed adults were significantly more likely than those in the not informed group to believe interesting work and challenging work were extremely important. Teens universally rated interesting work as the most important factor in choosing a career. Making a difference was second most important among teens in the initial and Hispanic samples and as important to job availability for African American teens. When gender was taken into account, African American girls were significantly more likely than African American boys to look for a job that makes a differ- ence. Salary was a strong second choice for African American teens and the top choice among African American boys, who were significantly more likely than African American girls to consider salary extremely important. Familiarity with the Profession Survey participants were asked to rate, on a scale of 1 to 10, how well they understood what people in the six professions do on a day- to-day basis (Table 3-4). Adults and teens were both most familiar with what teachers and doctors do for a living. This is not surprising considering how doctors and teachers are portrayed in the media and that people naturally come into contact with them. Engineer, architect, and scientist were much less understood, and among teens, engineer was either the least understood or was tied with scientist for that distinction. Boys in all three samples claimed greater familiarity with engineering than girls. Informed adults in the initial and Hispanic samples claimed a ­ statistically greater familiarity with engineering than their not informed peers. Men in all three samples asserted greater knowledge of engineering than the women.

TABLE 3-4  Familiarity with Professionals, from 1 (“Don’t Know at All”) to 10 (“Know Very Well”), Adults, Teens, and Teens by Gender, Mean Score (Rank) Initial Sample African American Oversample Hispanic Oversample Adults Teens Adults Teens Adults Teens Professional All Boys Girls All Boys Girls All Boys Girls Teacher 8.18 (1) 8.85 (1) 8.84 (1) 8.85 (1) 8.8 (1) 8.4 (1) 8.1 (1) 8.7 (1) 8.3 (1) 8.6 (1) 8.5 (1) 8.8 (1) Doctor 7.35 (2) 7.28 (2) 7.3 (2) 7.26 (2) 8 (2) 7.6 (2) 7.2 (2) 8 (2) 7.6 (2) 7.2 (2) 6.9 (2) 7.5 (2) Lawyer 6.65 (3) 6.33 (3) 6.61 (3) 6.09 (3) 7.5 (3) 6.7 (3) 6.5 (2) 6.9 (3) 6.9 (3) 6.3 (3) 6.1 (3) 6.4 (3) Engineer 5.75 (4) 4.86 (6) 5.41 (5) 4.4 (6) 5.8 (6) 5.2 (5) 5.7 (5) 4.7 (6) 5.8 (5) 5.2 (5) 5.7 (5) 4.8 (6) Architect 5.66 (5) 4.99 (5) 5.2 (6) 4.81 (5) 5.9 (4) 5.5 (4) 5.8 (4) 5.2 (4) 6 (4) 5.7 (4) 6 (4) 5.5 (4) Scientist 5.34 (6) 5.46 (4) 5.68 (4) 5.27 (4) 5.9 (4) 5.2 (5) 5.3 (6) 5.1 (5) 5.6 (6) 5.2 (5) 5.1 (6) 5.3 (5) 69

70 CHANGING THE CONVERSATION Attributes of Engineers In answer to the only open-ended question, respondents were asked to type the first word or words that came to mind when they heard the word engineering. The words mentioned most often (22 to 30% of the time) by adults were “builders,” “building,” and “construc- tion” (Table 3-5). The second most frequent associations for adults in the initial sample were “math” or “science” (mentioned by 12%) and “design” (mentioned by 11%). Among African American and Hispanic adults, “math” and “science” were the second most frequent words asso- ciated with engineering. Teens across the board typed “math” or “sci- ence” most often (between 21 and 31% of the time). Informed adults in all three samples were significantly more likely than the not informed cohorts to associate math and science with engineering. The prominence of math and science in the minds of the public was reinforced by responses to a second question in which respon- dents were asked to decide how well each of 25 attributes described engineering and/or engineers. Adults and teens chose “high skill level in mathematics and science” as the most distinguishing attribute of engineering (Table 3-6). Only in the Hispanic oversample was there a difference between the informed and not informed subpopulations in views about mathematics and science, with the former believing more strongly in the essentiality of such skills. A majority of adults and teens also chose “designers,” “builders,” and “problem solvers.” More teens than adults chose “hard workers.” African American women were more likely than African American men to believe engineers are well paid, hard working, and smart. Although in the in-depth interviews, engineers said they believed the public viewed them as “boring” and “nerdy,” fewer than 15 percent of adults or teens in the survey described engineers this way, although teens in the initial sample were three times as likely as adults in that group to consider engineering “boring” and twice as likely to consider engineers “nerdy.” Hispanic girls were significantly more likely than Hispanic boys to think engineers were nerdy and boring. When answer choices “very well” and “somewhat well” were combined, Hispanic girls were also significantly less likely than Hispanic boys to consider engineering fun.

Research Results 71 Hispanic girls were also significantly less likely than Hispanic boys to believe engineering has a positive effect on people’s lives. These find- ings suggest Hispanic girls may be an important audience segment to reach with messaging. Examples of Engineering Survey respondents were asked to rate the relative appeal of 27 technologies (Table 3-7). In general, technologies that have not yet been developed or are not in widespread commercial use were more appeal- ing to adults and teens than technologies already in use. The develop- ment of machines to enable blind people to see, cars that can run on alternate fuels, safer cars, and improved medical imaging devices were considered “very appealing” by most adults and teens. Teens across the board found entertainment technologies, such as iPods and video games, more appealing than adults did. Fabric technologies, Velcro®, and the development of new foods were relatively unappealing to both adults and teens. Although His- panic boys found fabric technologies and Velcro® significantly more appealing than Hispanic girls did, these technologies were still at the bottom of the boys’ list. Among all teens, computer processors, video games, and high-defi- nition television were significantly more appealing to boys than to girls. And girls in the initial sample and the African American oversample found the idea of using DNA evidence to solve crimes much more appealing than boys did. Boys in the initial sample were much more strongly attracted to space exploration than girls, and boys in the initial sample and Hispanic oversample found missile-defense systems more appealing than did girls in these groups. Message Testing After refinement based on the results of qualitative research, the committee tested five messages in the online survey (Box 3-2). Like the preliminary message themes, the refined messages are all derived from the positioning statement.

72 TABLE 3-5  Words Most Often Associated with “Engineering” or “Engineer” (chosen by 5 percent or more of respondents), Percentage (rank) Initial Sample African American Oversample Hispanic Oversample Words Associated with Adults Teens Adults Teens Adults Teens Engineering All Boys Girls All Boys Girls All Boys Girls Builders/ 23 (1) 16 (2) 17 (1) 15 (2) 29 (1) 21 (3) 23 (3) 19 (3) 30 (1) 25 (2) 25 (2) 26 (2) buildings/ constuction/ bridges Math/numbers/ 12 (2) 21 (1) 17 (1) 23 (1) 17 (2) 27 (1) 24 (2) 30 (1) 19 (2) 31 (1) 35 (1) 28 (1) physics/ computers/ science Design 12 (2) 6 (5) 10 (4) 3 (6) 8 (4) 2 (10) 2 (10) 3 (9) 11 (3) 4 (11) 6 (9) 2 (11) Mechanic/ 5 (4) 13 (3) 13 (3) 14 (3) 10 (3) 23 (2) 26 (1) 20 (2) 10 (4) 21 (3) 21 (3) 21 (3) machines/ industrial Smart/skilled 5 (4) 1 (12) 2 (8) 1 (12) 5 (7) 2 (10) 1 (11) 3 (9) 7 (5) 3 (12) 3 (10) 2 (11)

Invention/ 5 (4) 3 (6) 2 (8) 4 (5) 5 (7) 3 (5) 3 (8) 2 (12) 6 (6) 6 (6) 7 (6) 6 (6) innovation/ creativity Problem solving 3 (7) 3 (6) 5 (5) * (12) 7 (5) 6 (6) 3 (8) 8 (5) 4 (9) 5 (8) 3 (10) 7 (5) Electrical/ 3 (7) 3 (6) 3 (7) 2 (7) 6 (6) 6 (6) 7 (6) 5 (7) 6 (6) 7 (5) 10 (5) 5 (8) electronics Complicated/ 2 (7) 2 (8) 2 (8) 2 (7) 3 (10) 2 (12) * (12) 3 (8) 3 (10) 5 (8) 4 (12) 6 (6) complex/difficult Cars/ 2 (10) 7 (4) 4 (6) 10 (4) 5 (7) 16 (4) 17 (4) 15 (4) 5 (8) 14 (4) 14 (4) 15 (4) Automotive/ trains Technology 2 (10) 2 (8) 2 (8) 2 (8) 1 (12) 8 (5) 9 (5) 7 (6) 3 (10) 6 (6) 7 (6) 5 (8) Makes things/ 2 (10) 2 (8) 2 (8) 2 (8) 3 (10) 4 (8) 4 (7) 4 (8) 3 (10) 5 (8) 7 (6) 3 (10) manufacturing * less than 1%. 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. 73

74 TABLE 3-6  Words That Describe Engineering “Very Well,” by Percentage (rank) Initial Sample African American Oversample Hispanic Oversample Words that Describe Adults Teens Adults Teens Adults Teens Engineering All Boys Girls All Boys Girls All Boys Girls Good at math/ 86 (1) 84 (1) 85 (1) 84 (1) 77 (1) 71 (1) 59 (4) 81 (1) 72 (1) 76 (1) 74 (1) 78 (1) science Designs, draws, 61 (2) 63 (2) 64 (3) 61 (3) 67 (2) 59 (3) 60 (2) 59 (3) 60 (3) 56 (4) 61 (3) 50 (7) and plans things Problem solver 59 (3) 62 (3) 68 (2) 57 (5) 60 (6) 52 (5) 58 (5) 47 (9) 64 (2) 50 (7) 47 (9) 53 (4) Builds, 53 (4) 59 (5) 59 (4) 59 (4) 63 (3) 59 (3) 60 (2) 59 (3) 54 (4) 61 (2) 64 (2) 58 (2) constructs, and makes things Creative 45 (5) 47 (7) 55 (7) 41 (9) 62 (4) 50 (6) 50 (6) 50 (7) 47 (6) 52 (5) 52 (6) 53 (4) Get results 44 (6) 41 (10) 44 (9) 40 (10) 51 (8) 45 (8) 39 (8) 50 (7) 45 (8) 47 (8) 56 (5) 38 (11) Well paid 44 (6) 46 (8) 48 (8) 44 (8) 61 (5) 45 (8) 32 (14) 56 (5) 53 (5) 51 (6) 52 (6) 51 (6) Must be smart 43 (8) 56 (6) 58 (5) 54 (6) 46 (9) 37 (12) 35 (13) 38 (12) 45 (8) 42 (9) 38 (15) 45 (8) Original thinkers 43 (8) 45 (9) 44 (9) 45 (7) 41 (12) 46 (7) 36 (9) 54 (6) 38 (13) 37 (12) 39 (13) 35 (12) Hard working 42 (10) 62 (3) 56 (6) 66 (2) 56 (7) 64 (2) 63 (1) 65 (2) 47 (6) 58 (3) 58 (4) 58 (2) Well respected 39 (11) 34 (14) 35 (15) 32 (13) 40 (14) 35 (14) 36 (9) 34 (16) 42 (10) 36 (14) 40 (11) 31 (13) Work is 36 (12) 32 (15) 39 (13) 26 (15) 41 (12) 31 (17) 32 (14) 30 (17) 38 (13) 35 (15) 39 (13) 30 (14) rewarding

Mostly men 35 (13) 37 (12) 37 (14) 38 (12) 40 (14) 41 (11) 36 (9) 45 (10) 31 (15) 30 (16) 31 (17) 28 (15) Have a positive 32 (14) 36 (13) 43 (12) 29 (14) 44 (11) 36 (13) 36 (9) 36 (14) 39 (12) 37 (12) 51 (8) 22 (17) effect Inventors 28 (15) 41 (10) 44 (9) 39 (11) 46 (9) 43 (10) 45 (7) 40 (11) 40 (11) 42 (9) 40 (11) 43 (9) Leaders 23 (16) 22 (16) 24 (16) 21 (16) 30 (17) 33 (16) 31 (16) 35 (15) 31 (15) 42 (9) 44 (10) 40 (10) Often work 17 (17) 20 (17) 22 (17) 19 (17) 29 (18) 35 (14) 30 (17) 38 (12) 21 (18) 30 (16) 33 (16) 27 (16) outdoors White 12 (18) 11 (23) 10 (22) 12 (22) 34 (16) 14 (21) 15 (20) 12 (21) 22 (17) 10 (23) 9 (22) 10 (24) Entrepreneur 12 (18) 18 (18) 18 (18) 18 (18) 21 (19) 22 (19) 15 (20) 28 (18) 14 (21) 24 (18) 29 (18) 19 (19) Too much school 10 (20) 15 (19) 15 (20) 15 (20) 16 (20) 14 (21) 17 (19) 11 (22) 18 (19) 13 (21) 12 (21) 15 (21) Fun 7 (21) 9 (24) 6 (24) 11 (24) 15 (22) 15 (20) 12 (22) 17 (20) 13 (22) 19 (20) 24 (19) 14 (23) Start new 7 (21) 14 (20) 16 (19) 12 (22) 16 (20) 23 (18) 23 (18) 24 (19) 18 (19) 21 (19) 20 (20) 22 (17) companies Nerdy 5 (23) 14 (20) 13 (21) 15 (20) 13 (23) 10 (23) 10 (23) 10 (24) 12 (23) 12 (22) 4 (24) 18 (20) Boring 4 (24) 12 (22) 7 (23) 16 (19) 6 (24) 10 (23) 10 (23) 11 (22) 9 (25) 10 (23) 4 (24) 15 (21) Sits at a desk 2 (25) 6 (25) 5 (25) 7 (25) 4 (25) 3 (25) 1 (25) 5 (25) 12 (23) 5 (25) 7 (23) 4 (25) 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. 75

TABLE 3-7  Examples of Engineering Considered “Very Appealing,” by Percentage (rank) 76 Initial Sample African American Oversample Hispanic Oversample Adults Teens Adults Teens Adults Teens Example All Boys Girls All Boys Girls All Boys Girls Machines that 60 (1) 48 (2) 50 (3) 47 (3) 62 (1) 50 (1) 43 (9) 48 (2) 57 (2) 56 (2) 61 (2) 51 (2) allow blind people to see Building cars 58 (2) 51 (1) 54 (2) 48 (2) 55 (3) 48 (2) 47 (6) 33 (13) 61 (1) 61 (1) 64 (1) 57 (1) that run on alternative fuels Protecting the 54 (3) 37 (7) 36 (10) 39 (5) 46 (8) 29 (17) 23 (21) 22 (23) 50 (7) 46 (8) 48 (10) 44 (6) water supply Wind power 48 (4) 29 (18) 31 (21) 27 (16) 40 (12) 21 (23) 21 (22) 52 (1) 46 (11) 33 (17) 35 (19) 31 (14) Creating more 47 (5) 32 (14) 29 (23) 35 (9) 54 (4) 48 (2) 43 (9) 31 (15) 54 (4) 48 (4) 49 (9) 48 (3) advanced MRI Protecting 47 (5) 40 (5) 35 (11) 45 (4) 40 (12) 26 (20) 19 (24) 35 (11) 49 (7) 42 (12) 44 (16) 40 (10) rainforest by developing new ways to farm Solar energy 47 (5) 35 (7) 35 (11) 35 (9) 47 (6) 36 (12) 37 (12) 46 (4) 56 (3) 45 (10) 52 (7) 38 (12) Making cars safer 43 (8) 31 (15) 32 (20) 31 (13) 57 (2) 47 (5) 49 (5) 43 (5) 52 (5) 48 (4) 53 (6) 44 (6) Using DNA to 42 (9) 43 (4) 34 (15) 50 (1) 47 (6) 35 (13) 27 (14) 27 (18) 42 (12) 44 (11) 45 (15) 43 (8) solve crimes

Space exploration 40 (10) 45 (3) 55 (1) 35 (9) 35 (20) 27 (18) 27 (14) 47 (3) 39 (14) 46 (8) 50 (8) 43 (8) Making homes 40 (10) 27 (22) 24 (25) 29 (14) 52 (5) 44 (7) 40 (11) 42 (6) 49 (7) 38 (14) 41 (17) 36 (13) safer Reducing air 40 (10) 33 (13) 26 (24) 38 (6) 39 (14) 47 (5) 52 (4) 27 (18) 52 (5) 47 (6) 46 (12) 47 (5) pollution Smart traffic 38 (13) 28 (20) 35 (11) 21 (19) 44 (10) 27 (18) 26 (16) 31 (15) 42 (12) 33 (17) 36 (18) 29 (16) solutions Missile defense 37 (14) 30 (17) 44 (5) 19 (23) 37 (17) 31 (14) 31 (13) 15 (23) 35 (16) 33 (17) 48 (10) 20 (25) systems Turning deserts 37 (14) 25 (23) 33 (17) 17 (24) 39 (14) 15 (26) 15 (25) 36 (10) 34 (18) 29 (23) 32 (23) 26 (20) into farmland DNA Test 34 (16) 34 (10) 33 (17) 36 (7) 31 (23) 31 (14) 24 (20) 39 (8) 35 (16) 29 (23) 34 (21) 24 (23) Designing 34 (16) 31 (15) 44 (5) 20 (22) 38 (16) 42 (9) 46 (7) 37 (9) 39 (14) 38 (14) 46 (12) 30 (15) world’s fastest plane Making smaller, 34 (16) 34 (10) 44 (5) 26 (17) 44 (10) 48 (2) 60 (1) 35 (11) 49 (7) 47 (6) 56 (3) 39 (11) faster computer processor Growing organs 32 (19) 35 (7) 37 (9) 33 (12) 32 (22) 30 (16) 25 (17) 26 (20) 32 (20) 31 (21) 32 (23) 29 (16) for transplant 77 continued

TABLE 3-7  Continued 78 Initial Sample African American Oversample Hispanic Oversample Adults Teens Adults Teens Adults Teens Example All Boys Girls All Boys Girls All Boys Girls Building an 27 (20) 29 (18) 34 (15) 24 (18) 37 (17) 26 (20) 25 (17) 25 (22) 27 (22) 31 (21) 34 (21) 28 (18) acoustically perfect concert hall Building the 26 (21) 25 (23) 35 (11) 16 (25) 46 (8) 25 (22) 25 (17) 26 (20) 32 (20) 32 (20) 35 (19) 28 (18) world’s longest bridge Developing new 24 (22) 25 (23) 31 (21) 21 (19) 23 (26) 19 (24) 11 (26) 32 (14) 23 (25) 21 (25) 23 (26) 19 (25) foods HDTV 20 (23) 28 (20) 38 (8) 21 (19) 36 (19) 42 (9) 53 (3) 29 (17) 34 (18) 35 (16) 46 (12) 26 (20) Designing video 19 (24) 38 (6) 50 (3) 29 (14) 34 (21) 41 (11) 54 (2) 16 (25) 25 (24) 40 (13) 56 (3) 25 (22) games Developing new 13 (25) 13 (26) 9 (26) 16 (25) 25 (25) 18 (25) 21 (22) 41(7) 23 (25) 16 (26) 25 (25) 9 (26) fabrics iPod 13 (25) 34 (10) 33 (17) 36 (7) 27 (24) 43 (8) 44 (8) 9 (26) 27 (22) 51 (3) 55 (5) 48 (3) Velcro 11 (27) 12 (27) 9 (26) 14 (27) 16 (27) 7 (27) 6 (27) 9 (26) 16 (27) 13 (27) 18 (27) 7 (27) 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.

Research Results 79 BOX 3-2 Messages Tested in the Online Survey Engineers make a world of difference.* From new farming equipment and safer drinking water to ­electric cars and faster microchips, engineers use their knowledge to i­mprove people’s lives in meaningful ways. Engineers are creative problem-solvers. They have a vision for how something should work and are dedi- cated to making it better, faster, or more efficient. Engineers help shape the future. They use the latest science, tools, and technology to bring ideas to life. Engineering is essential to our health, happiness, and safety. From the grandest skyscrapers to microscopic medical devices, it is impossible to imagine life without engineering. Engineers connect science to the real world. They collaborate with scientists and other specialists (such as ani- mators, architects, or chemists) to turn bold new ideas into reality. *This message was inspired by a similar theme used to promote National Engineers Week. Three survey questions addressed responses to the messages. The first asked respondents how appealing the messages were and, sepa- rately, how believable and personally relevant they were (how much they cared about the message). Although the committee members were most concerned about the appeal of the messages, they recognized that an appealing message might not be believable, or vice versa. In some cases, a message might be believable but not considered relevant. In other cases, a very appealing message is likely to be considered per- sonally relevant. By triangulating among appeal, believability, and

80 CHANGING THE CONVERSATION relevance, the committee hoped to get an accurate sense of the validity of the appeal ratings. All five tested messages were rated at least “somewhat appeal- ing” by an overwhelming majority of adults and teens, a finding that reinforces the validity of the underlying positioning statement. The message with the highest “very appealing” rating—the most favorable category—among all adults and teens was “Engineers make a world of difference” (Figures 3-1 and 3-2). This message was also considered the Engineers make a world of difference Engineers are creative problem- solvers Engineers help shape the future Engineering is essential to our health, happiness and safety Engineers connect science to the real world 0 20 40 60 80 100 Percentage FIGURE 3-1  Messages selected as “very appealing” by adults, by percentage. Note: Top bar = initial sample. Middle bar = African American oversample. Bottom bar = Hispanic oversample. 3-1.eps Engineers make a world of difference Engineers are creative problem- solvers Engineering is essential to our health, happiness and safety Engineers help shape the future Engineers connect science to the real world 0 20 40 60 80 100 Percentage FIGURE 3-2  Messages selected as “very appealing” by teens, by percentage. 3-2.eps Note: Top bar = initial sample. Middle bar = African American oversample. Bottom bar = Hispanic oversample.

Research Results 81 most believable and most relevant in most groups (Table 3-8). How- ever, once again, girls were generally less enthusiastic than boys about all of the messages. The message that received the lowest percentage of “very appeal- ing” rankings by respondents in all groups was “Engineers connect science to the real world.” This message was also the least personally TABLE 3-8  Message Appeal, Believability, and Relevance Among Adults and Teens, by Percentages (rank) African American Hispanic Initial Sample Oversample Oversample Message Adults Teens Adults Teens Adults Teens Engineers make a world of difference Very appealing 55 (1) 43 (1) 53 (1) 40 (1) 48 (1) 46 (1) Very believable 57 (2) 54 (1) 57 (1) 40 (3) 49 (1) 47 (1) Care very much 41 (1) 31 (1) 46 (1) 32 (2) 39 (1) 37 (1) Engineers are creative problem-solvers Very appealing 52 (2) 42 (2) 48 (2) 33 (4) 40 (3) 39 (3) Very believable 58 (1) 53 (2) 54 (2) 39 (4) 44 (4) 44 (3) Care very much 32 (4) 26 (3) 38 (5) 27 (4) 33 (4) 30 (4) Engineers help shape the future Very appealing 48 (3) 37 (3) 48 (2) 37 (2) 44 (2) 40 (2) Very believable 56 (4) 48 (4) 53 (3) 46 (1) 45 (3) 46 (2) Care very much 33 (3) 25 (4) 41 (2) 31 (3) 34 (3) 31 (2) Engineering is essential to our health, happiness, and safety Very appealing 48 (3) 35 (4) 45 (4) 35 (3) 40 (3) 36 (4) Very believable 57 (2) 50 (3) 49 (4) 35 (5) 47 (2) 39 (4) Care very much 38 (2) 31 (1) 40 (3) 33 (1) 35 (2) 31 (2) Engineering connects science to the real world Very appealing 42 (5) 35 (4) 42 (5) 31 (5) 34 (5) 35 (5) Very believable 49 (5) 46 (5) 49 (4) 41 (2) 38 (5) 39 (4) Care very much 28 (5) 21(5) 39 (4) 23 (5) 29 (5) 27 (5) NOTE: Pairs of shaded cells indicate responses where differences between adults and teens exceeded the sampling tolerance and are therefore significant.

82 CHANGING THE CONVERSATION relevant to all but African American adults. The lack of resonance with this message was confirmed when survey participants were asked to choose the single “most appealing” message of the five (Figures 3-3 and 3-4). Engineers make a world of difference Engineers are creative problem- solvers Engineers help shape the future Engineering is essential to our health, happiness and safety Engineers connect science to the real world 0 20 40 60 80 100 Percentage 3-3.eps FIGURE 3-3  Messages selected as “most appealing” by adults, by percentage. Note: Top bar = initial sample. Middle bar = African American oversample. Bottom bar = Hispanic oversample.  Engineers make a world of difference Engineers are creative problem- solvers Engineering is essential to our health, happiness and safety Engineers help shape the future Engineers connect science to the real world 0 20 40 60 80 100 Percentage FIGURE 3-4  Messages selected as “most appealing” by teens, by percentage. Note: Top bar = initial sample. Middle bar = African American oversample. Bottom 3-4.eps bar = Hispanic oversample.

Research Results 83 Boys in the initial sample found “Engineering makes a world of dif- ference” and “Engineers are creative problem solvers” equally appealing (Table 3-9). This second message did not appeal nearly as much to girls. The second most appealing message for girls, across the board, was “Engineering is essential to our health, happiness, and safety.” Girls age 16 and 17 in the African American oversample and all girls in the Hispanic oversample found the “essential to health and happiness” message significantly more appealing than did the boys in those groups. 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. As a check on both adult and teen preferences, respondents were also asked to choose a single “least appealing” message (Tables 3-10 and 3-11). “Engineers connect science to the real world” was the least TABLE 3-9­ “Most Appealing” Message, Teens by Gender and Percentage (rank) African American Hispanic Initial Sample Oversample Oversample Message Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls Engineers make a 27 (2) 30 (1) 28 (1) 32 (1) 30 (1) 26 (1) world of difference Engineers help shape 16 (3) 16 (4) 20 (2) 18 (3) 26 (2) 19 (3) the future Engineers are 28 (1) 19 (3) 18 (4) 14 (4) 20 (3) 18 (4) creative problem- solvers Engineering is 16 (3) 22 (2) 14 (5) 22 (2) 12 (4) 21 (2) essential to our health, happiness and safety Engineers connect 13 (5) 13 (5) 20 (2) 14 (4) 12 (4) 16 (5) science to the real world NOTE: Pairs of shaded cells indicate responses where differences between boys and girls exceeded the sampling tolerance and are therefore significant.

84 CHANGING THE CONVERSATION TABLE 3-10  “Least Appealing” Message, Teens by Gender and Percentage (rank) African American Hispanic Initial Sample Oversample Oversample Message Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls Engineers make a 17 (3) 13 (5) 10 (5) 14 (5) 10 (5) 13 (5) world of difference Engineers help shape 16 (5) 24 (2) 21 (2) 24 (1) 24 (2) 27 (1) the future Engineers are 21 (2) 16 (4) 18 (4) 20 (3) 12 (4) 17 (4) creative problem- solvers Engineers connect 29 (1) 25 (1) 21 (2) 24 (1) 30 (1) 20 (3) science to the real world Engineering is 17 (3) 24 (2) 30 (1) 19 (4) 23 (3) 23 (2) essential to our health, happiness and safety NOTE: Pairs of shaded cells indicate responses where differences between boys and girls exceeded the sampling tolerance and are therefore significant. appealing message for all but African American boys, who found the message “Engineering is essential to our health, happiness, and safety” least appealing, and Hispanic girls, who found the message “Engineers help shape the future” least appealing. Among Hispanic adults, women reacted more positively to “Engineers are creative problem solvers” than men. Preliminary Testing of Taglines Several preliminary taglines (Box 3-3) were tested, although, because of time and funding constraints, the taglines were developed quickly without creative prototypes (such as posters, TV ads, or web pages) or input from focus groups. Thus the survey results do not represent the best measure of the potential (or lack of potential) of

Research Results 85 TABLE 3-11  “Least Appealing” Message, Adults by Gender and Percentage (rank) African American Hispanic Initial Sample Oversample Oversample Message Men Women Men Women Men Women Engineers make a 11 (5) 13 (5) 12 (5) 8 (5) 13 (5) 10 (5) world of difference Engineers help shape 16 (4) 19 (2) 20 (3) 24 (3) 20 (3) 20 (3) the future Engineers are 22 (3) 17 (3) 24 (2) 16 (4) 14 (4) 23 (2) creative problem- solvers Engineers connect 25 (1) 34 (1) 25 (1) 26 (1) 28 (1) 26 (1) science to the real world Engineering is 25 (1) 16 (4) 19 (4) 25 (2) 26 (2) 20 (3) essential to our health, happiness and safety NOTE: Pairs of shaded cells indicate responses where differences between boys and girls exceeded the sampling tolerance and are therefore significant. BOX 3-3 Preliminary Taglines • 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

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.

Research Results 87 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

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.

Research Results 89 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

90 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/yr2006/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/2007pubs/p60- 233.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/h13.html. (January 31, 2008)

Research Results 91 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.

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. 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. This 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.”

Research Results 93 “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.

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.

Research Results 95 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.

Next: 4 Conclusions and Recommendations »
Changing the Conversation: Messages for Improving Public Understanding of Engineering Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $45.00 Buy Ebook | $35.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Can the United States continue to lead the world in innovation? The answer may hinge in part on how well the public understands engineering, a key component of the 'innovation engine'. A related concern is how to encourage young people--particularly girls and under-represented minorities--to consider engineering as a career option.

Changing the Conversation provides actionable strategies and market-tested messages for presenting a richer, more positive image of engineering. This book presents and discusses in detail market research about what the public finds most appealing about engineering--as well as what turns the public off.

Changing the Conversation is a vital tool for improving the public image of engineering and outreach efforts related to engineering. It will be used by engineers in professional and academic settings including informal learning environments (such as museums and science centers), engineering schools, national engineering societies, technology-based corporations that support education and other outreach to schools and communities, and federal and state agencies and labs that do or promote engineering, technology, and science.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!