Abstract Engineers are created in places. Engineering education reproduces engineering culture by teaching and training aspiring engineering students what ways of thinking (i.e., mindsets) are important and how things should be done in the engineering field. At a Mid-Atlantic engineering school, the physical infrastructure, i.e., hallways, classrooms, labs, offices, and communal areas, are also spaces for socialization into the engineering profession. These spaces are not neutral as they are often imbued with symbols, values, representations and messages that convey meaning and influence the perception of what the engineering discipline is for, whom it serves, and who can be an engineer, which leads us to pose several crucial questions: What is the relationship between the physical and cultural aspects of engineering spaces? How might these spaces reinforce or challenge dominant engineering ideologies and mindsets? And relatedly, what are the implications for sense of belonging and identity formation for students navigating these spaces? This paper examines how place shapes engineering culture, identity formation, and students' sense of belonging, particularly among underrepresented minorities, women, and LGBTQ+ students and thus directly aligns with the conference theme of engineering communities. We analyzed 250 student-submitted images of spaces on campus and conducted 16 two-hour focus groups to investigate students' experiences within these spaces. Additionally, we deployed Q-methodology, a ranking and sorting approach that captures subjective student perspectives about place, belonging, and beliefs as it relates to their engineering experiences in higher education The focus of this paper is the analysis of the Q-Sort data, and the results will show how spaces can convey inclusive and exclusive messages based on the recipient's identity, and work to reproduce dominant ideologies and mindsets. Our findings reveal that some engineering spaces reinforce harmful ideologies (Cech, 2014), which can be observed in infrastructural choices vis-à-vis symbols, representations (or lack thereof), and in the interactions within them. Furthermore, they also work to engender problematic engineering mindsets such as depoliticization, free market idealism, and detachment from social concerns, e.g., socio-technical dualism (Riley, 2013). Students across multiple identities report experiencing tensions between their sense of belonging and prevailing narratives that frame engineering as apolitical and prioritize its deep ties to military and corporate interests (Leydens Riley, 2013). Thus, explicating the role of place in the reproduction of an engineering identity and concomitant mindsets invites us to reimagine how they might be redesigned to reflect institutional and disciplinary values.
Reedy et al. (Thu,) studied this question.