As a predominantly white and male discipline, engineering is influenced by dominant discourses created by Whiteness. Whiteness in engineering transcends demographics; it influences norms, values, and practices, and it works as a mechanism that perpetuates biases and historical privileges that favor white individuals, affecting access, opportunities, and representation. Terms like meritocracy, objectivity, and masculinity are often used in engineering education research without addressing Whiteness as the systemic issue sustaining these ideologies. This paper employs a counternarrative to reveal how Whiteness is central to systemic barriers in engineering. Through a critical perspective on Whiteness, we describe instances in which Whiteness permeates engineering culture, maintaining its dominance and preventing the validation of diverse epistemologies. By highlighting one faculty member's experience, we explore more broadly how Whiteness manifests in engineering in U.S. higher education. Our analysis suggests that Whiteness leads to epistemic exclusion and diminishes the professional autonomy of faculty of color. In particular, this counternarrative shows how Whiteness forces faculty of color to constantly operate from a place of fear.
This paper investigates the drivers behind the institutionalization of engineering ethics at the national level through a comparative study of the United States and the Netherlands. The study examines the historical evolution and current landscape of engineering ethics activities in both countries. By comparing emergence, process, and actor involvement dimensions, commonalities and differences between the two nations' approaches to the institutionalization of engineering ethics are identified. The analysis reveals context-specific factors shaping engineering ethics policies, including the nature of the profession, technological challenges, and societal attributes. The study identifies common drivers for national engineering ethics development: external influences such as technological crises and societal debates, contextual forces like institutional dynamics and societal attributes, and the triple helix of academia, professional associations, and government relations. The findings may offer useful insights for policymakers and practitioners seeking to enhance engineering ethics.
