During the 2023 WE Local Europe conference, members of the SWE Research Advisory Council met with Spanish colleagues in academia and professional practice for two roundtable discussions. Participants from Austria, the United States, and across Spain addressed the need for sustained, top-down efforts to fix biased systems — rather than attempting to “fix” women to fit into them.
By Anne Perusek, SWE Emerita Director of Editorial and Publications
The Society of Women Engineers’ ongoing efforts to empower women to succeed in engineering and technology took another step forward with the convening of two bicontinental roundtable discussions last May. Held in conjunction with SWE’s WE Local conference in Barcelona, the discussions brought together researchers from throughout Spain, Austria, and the United States and included members of the SWE Research Advisory Council and staff. Participants examined women’s lived experiences through the dual lens of research and various programs designed to increase women’s participation in STEM fields.
Views on the pervasiveness of gender stereotypes, generational changes in media consumption and values, the importance of systemic solutions, and many more insights contributed to enriching discussions. In both educational settings and the workplace, involving boys and men in gender equity efforts was deemed critical.
Discussions for both roundtable groups flowed from three questions, adjusted for whether they related to education or the workplace. These highlights are based on hours of recorded dialogue, transcripts, and notes. Key takeaways and areas of overlap are summarized in hopes of stimulating additional dialogues and efforts to inform best practices.
EDUCATIONAL PATHWAYS
Q1: From your perspective/experience, what do you see as the biggest challenge to recruiting women in science, technology, and engineering programs?
In the words of one researcher, the biggest challenge “is not related to one thing, it’s related to the society and many things.” Spanish researchers noted that the number of women in STEM undergraduate and graduate programs at Spanish universities is currently declining. Despite official reports that present a more positive picture, there has been a decrease following a promising period of stronger participation and persistence. There is no one single reason for this decline; rather, it is a combination of individual, family, and societal factors. The challenge facing recruitment and retention efforts is to disentangle these factors and find ways to address them in a fundamental way. Consequently, a holistic approach is necessary to develop remedies.
Another researcher noted that when elementary school teachers in Spain support gender stereotypes, children and families absorb and reinforce those stereotypes. Similarly, one participant from the United States, whose first career was in elementary education, observed, “If the teachers are supporting stereotypes, then students are not getting anything different from their families.” Compounding this is the issue of empathy with the teacher, in which elementary students identify with the teacher following gendered roles. What would happen if that were to change — if instead of women typically teaching subjects such as language or history, it was men? And alternatively, if women taught math and science? It was pointed out that ages 7–12 are a critical foundational period, and if students are “lost” during these years, it is often permanent.
There was lengthy discussion of the importance of communicating what engineers do, and the roles of mass media and social media in affirming stereotypes or representing the difficulties that women in engineering and technology experience. An interesting question led to lively debate: Is the reason for low numbers of women in engineering due to lack of knowledge about engineering, or do they stay away because they know about the difficulties they may experience in a traditionally male field?
Regarding higher education, the importance of recognizing the student as a whole person with various lenses was seen as taking on a certain urgency. Whether students are women, identify as nonbinary or another gender, are members of a racial or ethnic minority, or have some combination of identities, they need to be recognized as such, and they need to see people in academia or working in industry who “look like” themselves, participants said.
Additional observations:
- Having women teach STEM subjects doesn’t automatically ensure that female students will have a good experience and persist. One hypothesis is that some women teachers take on male cultural behaviors, perhaps to survive or be accepted.
- A promising strategy in primary and secondary school is to change classroom methodologies by forming diverse groups of students so they learn how to work together collaboratively.
- A focus on only helping girls ignores other factors that are relevant. The main challenge is putting together a global perspective to work with all the complexities that contribute to inequities.
- How generations think about values and changing values should be considered. The perception that engineers must work hard, with long hours, is not attractive to younger people and may turn students away.
- The potential to promote a digital nomad lifestyle as an option available to engineers could make engineering more appealing to some young people.
- Gender equity and other diversity efforts are undermined by backlash.
“It’s a structural problem, and we are trying to solve it with the small changes, like having more role models, trying to talk about the stereotypes, et cetera. We should be able to structurally act in that [critical] moment [middle and high school]. And that means not only to talk to girl students but also to the rest of the society, because the rest of the society is pushing them.”
– Daniel Riera Terrén, Ph.D., university full professor and dean of the computing, multimedia, and telecommunications department, Universitat Oberta de Catalunya
“What is happening at younger ages in the relationship between boys and girls in school? Do we know how girls feel about being with boys who are not particularly nice to girls they believe are invading their turf?”
— Karen J. Horton, P.E., professor of mechanical engineering technology, The University of Maine
“Normally, when we put interventions into practice, we try to somehow change aspects related to girls’ motivation. We forget about context; we forget about the socialization process. We have to also work with families because sometimes they are the source of many of the prejudices or other stereotypes.”
— Milagros Sáinz Ibáñez, Ph.D., researcher, the Internet Interdisciplinary Institute (IN3) at the Universitat Oberta de Catalunya
“To change roles for teacher training in primary and the first stage of secondary education so that more women teach technology, science, and mathematics, we need to change the role of male teachers to that of language and other subjects that are considered typical of women teachers.”
— David Fonseca Escudero, Ph.D., university full professor, coordinator of the graphic representation area, department of architecture, La Salle, Ramon Llull University
Q2: Can you cite some examples of policy and program interventions that have been effective in helping to retain university women in science, technology, and engineering programs?
This wide-ranging discussion focused primarily on higher education and covered policy interventions ranging from learning communities to mentorship research, a gender mainstreaming program that creates a “triangle of support,” and the dynamics of teams.
One successful example is the living-learning programs at Virginia Tech, a public U.S.-based research university, which involve first-year women engineering students who attend classes together and live in the same residence hall. When compared to women who do not participate, the program has resulted in much higher retention and graduation rates. Illustrating both the effectiveness of the program and the backlash that can accompany gender-based interventions, the university was sued for discrimination.
The program survived because the university pointed to the success of honors dorms, which were not considered controversial, as a comparable model, and at the same time created a living-learning community for first-year men. There are now two programs — the women’s and the men’s — in the same residence hall, with some floors coed and others single sex. The students can decide which they prefer.
At some universities in Spain, a mentorship program designed for first-year women students aims to create a “triangle of support” between mentee, mentor, and tutors — who are also professors — to bring gender into the mainstream. After the first year, men who had migrated to Spain requested to join, thus expanding the program but altering the dynamic somewhat.
Now in its third year, the program has shown positive results, in part because it is designed to be comprehensive, including aspects of university life outside the classroom. The program is also designed to increase the tutors’ and professors’ awareness of gender bias and related issues. Given the variations in environments — larger urban areas having issues, access, and resources, that differ from smaller areas — efforts to duplicate it are being adjusted accordingly.
In the K–12 space, the dialogue focused on innovative programs that relied on various media. One such example had middle school and high school students in Spain creating their own TikTok videos about engineering. These videos were part of a competition, with the best examples then shared with elementary students.
Additional observations:
- What happens on teams has been consistently documented as negative for women students. Faculty members are typically not trained to manage teams, and even if they have been trained to construct teams taking gender into account, they may not be able to control the behavior of male students, who exclude women from the design aspect of the project and push them into administrative tasks. Is this an example of the need for better training, or is it a structural issue?
- The gender perspective should be considered from the outset when developing teaching strategies and in conducting research. Otherwise, the hypothesis could be wrong, which would affect the methodology and interpretation of results.
“They’re in classes with men, just their regular schedule. But that living-learning community, that home base where everybody’s the same and doing the same things, that’s where they see success among women. Our retention is probably 15 points higher for the women who live there than those who don’t.”
— Bevlee Watford, Ph.D., P.E., professor of engineering education, associate dean for equity and engagement, and founding executive director of the Center for the Enhancement of Engineering Diversity, College of Engineering at Virginia Tech
“We transferred training for professors in the classroom to the mentorship program to teach them how to create inclusive spaces in the college. So, it’s not only in the class but also in the common areas, at the bar, and all those places. And we are piloting this experience to other universities.”
— Alicia García-Holgado, Ph.D., associate professor of computer science, Universidad de Salamanca; social responsibility and inclusion lead of the university’s GRIAL research group; board member of the Women in Computing Committee of the Scientific Society of Spanish Informatics
Q3: More research is coming out about the importance of including boys and men in creating a more inclusive and welcoming environment for girls and women in science, technology, and engineering education spaces. What are your thoughts, observations, and suggestions for including boys and men in gender equity efforts?
To start the discussion, an analogy to the civil rights movement in the United States provided a useful illustration: Just as support from white people helped the civil rights movement gain ground, support from men and boys is essential to establish gender equity in education and society overall. Yet, data shows that most men in the workplace do not recognize that gender discrimination occurs, let alone view it as a structural problem. One solution might be presenting facts and data, which is sometimes a forgotten element of diversity training. The effectiveness of personal stories that speak to colleagues and evoke their sense of fairness or sympathy is another strategy to expand awareness, as is a combination of facts with personal stories.
All participants agreed that if men and boys are not part of the discussion, then solutions will be limited at best and are likely to result in pushback. As one participant said, “We can’t solve the problem for girls if we can’t solve it for boys.” Similarly, another participant noted that when designing programs to promote gender equity, it is important “not to think in simple ways, and that we can avoid backlash if programs are also for boys or men.”
Participants said that to fully address the complexity of the problem and avoid backlash, expanding the parameters of a program to include people beyond the typical roles will result in the best solutions. As a cautionary note, in most cases, when men are involved in women’s equity programs, they should not be the sole leader — women must also lead the program.
A noteworthy approach for engaging male faculty in institutional transformation came from work conducted at North Dakota State University under the auspices of a National Science Foundation ADVANCE Grant, which funds efforts to increase the representation and advancement of women in academic science and engineering careers.
Additional observations:
- Hiring committees at universities frequently don’t “see” women candidates or assess their qualifications in an unbiased way. Having a male advocate on the committee can be an effective way to counter this.
- In the late 1990s and early 2000s, one effort to create understanding was to ask men to imagine that their wife, daughter, or sister was being treated in a blatantly sexist manner. Asking, “Would you want your wife or daughter to be treated this way?” was thought-provoking and effective in the past. Can this approach be revived and updated to be effective now?
“We must think not only in terms of gender but also in terms of roles and co-responsibilities. Depending on how the interventions are designed, they can engage many people who were not engaged at the beginning. They should be there because they are not only part of the [university] program but will be part of the solution as well.”
— Carina González, Ph.D., full professor, department of computer engineering and systems and chair of the Women Studies Research Institute, Universidad de La Laguna, Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Spain
“We have an NSF Adaptation Grant on allies and advocates based on work successfully done at North Dakota State University. The grant is structured so the men are responsible for training other men and advocating within the male community. An all-woman advisory board works with them, but the advocacy to men is all male-driven.”
— Stephanie Adams, Ph.D., dean of the Erik Jonsson School of Engineering and Computer Science at The University of Texas at Dallas
STEM WORKPLACES
Q1: From your perspective/experience, what do you see as the biggest challenge to recruiting women in science, technology, and engineering programs?
The terms “organizational culture” and “climate” encompassed most, if not all, of the issues noted in this portion of the discussion, as women’s experiences are indicative of workplace cultures. Company leadership’s failure to acknowledge that there is an issue with gender bias, or neglecting to take it seriously, topped the list, followed by other examples. These ranged from unconscious bias and women’s voices not being heard in meetings, to lack of opportunity, lack of appropriate responses to sexual harassment or sexual assault, and many more. When good policies exist but are not enforced, when leadership is not committed to these policies and no sanctions are in place, disillusionment sets in.
Whether or not women are selected for special training programs, if promises of leadership remain unfulfilled, opportunities diminish and, again, there is disillusionment. Additionally, if the leadership model is not attractive to women, there is no incentive to remain.
As one participant noted, “I think I have had some great experiences being an engineer, but the cost was greater than it should have been.”
Sometimes an effective program is in place with its success largely due to a dedicated individual champion. If commitment to the program is not institutionalized at all levels, then once that champion leaves, the program languishes or is discontinued.
Many, if not all, of these cultural behaviors are rooted in childhood socialization, participants noted. A fixed mindset on gender roles, an unwillingness to change, and reluctance to give up advantages are some of the outcomes of this socialization. While not part of workplace culture, the disproportionate amount of work that women do aside from employment, in terms of caregiving and managing households, stems directly from this socialization and does impact careers. One participant recalled reading a study that estimated women’s additional responsibilities add an extra 40 hours of work per month.
Yet another dimension of workplace culture — one that is not based on early socialization — is the cyclical nature of corporate technical employment. When layoffs take place, such as those following the COVID-19 pandemic, women are frequently lower in status and among the first to be let go. These layoffs often translate into decision points at which women change fields. (Read “Coming Back from Tech Layoffs” in the SWE Magazine, Conference 2023 issue.)
Additional observations:
- Many efforts to increase the recruitment and retention of women in engineering and other STEM fields are based on the premise of fixing the women rather than fixing the system.
- Women’s representation in Europe improved when the European Parliament developed quotas in politics and board participation.
- Yet research also indicates that quotas alone can backfire unless they are part of a larger systemic effort to increase participation.
- The research on decision-making shows that diverse teams make better decisions.
- While better science takes place when diverse populations are included, it is questionable whether people really believe this.
“Much remains to be done to guide this critical situation so that the gender perspective is the core part of all the projects that are undertaken. We need more research and fewer gender stereotypes.”
— Lilia D. Tapia Mariscal, assistant professor, researcher, department of electronic engineering and computers, Universidad de Córdoba, Spain; Ph.D. student, agricultural, food, forestry, and sustainable rural development engineering
“In the research setting we’ve seen that having more women does more than create equity. It benefits society and can create a driving force to help change the system. In research, more women in decision-making positions means that more research is done about women’s issues, and we are expanding society’s knowledge.”
— Núria Bayó Puxan, Ph.D., director of programmes, Barcelona Institute of Science and Technology (at the time of the roundtables)
“There must be committed leadership and commitment to change the systems and structures to support the recruitment, retention, and advancement of women. It can’t be a single champion who can leave; it has to be led by the leadership of the organization.”
— Carlotta M. Arthur, Ph.D., executive director, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education at the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Washington, D.C.
“A study showed that two-thirds of the men in a corporation did not believe gender bias exists at all, and 90% did not believe it exists in their company. And if you look at a company that’s predominantly male, that means that more than half the company doesn’t believe that gender bias exists.”
— Diane Foley, executive director, digital technology, Raytheon’s Intelligence & Space business (now part of RTX)
Q2: Can you cite some examples of policy and program interventions that have been effective in helping to retain women in STEM?
The discussion addressed a range of policy interventions across government, corporate, and institutional settings. Some of the most successful interventions have resulted from the European Commission’s policies, which are designed to create structural changes and promote gender equality programs and innovations. Roundtable participants from Europe were most familiar with implementation in academic and research communities across the member states of the European Union, rather than the private sector, while much of this information was new to participants in the United States.
Essentially, the European Commission created a framework to address gender equality in three broad areas: employment, leadership and decision-making, and innovation. To qualify for funding, an institution must have a gender equality plan. The closest comparable program in the United States is the National Science Foundation’s ADVANCE Program, which is also regarded as an effective approach to address structural issues affecting the representation and advancement of women in academic science and engineering careers.
The dialogue turned toward leadership and the composition of boards. As one participant observed, “Some people think of leadership in organizations as being the president and the CEO, but it’s the board. The board makes decisions about what happens within the organization that are even more impactful than the senior leadership team.” Typically, a non-diverse board will place the onus of inclusivity on suppliers and others rather than looking internally.
If the board perceives that everything’s fine, then there is no motivation to change. Much like the senior manager who mistakenly congratulates himself on being a diversity champion because he allows one woman on his staff flexible hours — rather than instituting a companywide policy — the board’s stance is both shortsighted and a missed opportunity. The board could be so much better, so much more successful, if it came to terms with its lack of representation. Recently published research indicates that women-owned, women-run companies on the Fortune 500 outperform companies run by men, participants observed.
So, would part of the solution be to implement more board readiness training for women and other underrepresented groups? How would such a program override the tendency of boards to choose members just like themselves?
Additional observations:
- What would happen if a systems engineering approach was taken to address these problems?
- Is it more important to retain women in the engineering workforce rather than recruit them? Both are important, but if the conditions in the workplace are such that women stay, then recruitment should also be a smoother process.
- There is an inherent contradiction when a company or organization believes they don’t need to do the internal work to examine policies and make changes, yet demand that their external suppliers meet certain standards.
- Does this contradiction occur because people don’t see themselves as part of the problem?
“The European Commission has channeled a lot of money into structural change projects whereby different research institutes or universities work together to implement gender equality plans. This has pushed forward a lot of knowledge in terms of structural change within institutions for gender equality in research and innovation organizations.”
— Rachel Palmén, Ph.D., senior researcher, Internet Interdisciplinary Institute (IN3 — UOC) in Barcelona
“I think training selection committees on unconscious values was successful because the recruitment process is really a critical step, and without training, most of the committees are not prepared to recognize their own unconscious bias.”
— Núria Bayó Puxan, Ph.D., director of programmes, Barcelona Institute of Science and Technology (at the time of the roundtables)
Q3: While we are making efforts to increase gender equity in the workplace, we must contend with societal and cultural gendered expectations, especially concerning caregiving responsibilities. How do we balance efforts to make accommodations possible and at the same time change expectations and norms?
At the heart of this question are several considerations and social forces. If more workplace policies are implemented to allow flexibility, remote work, etc., with women being the main participants, will these accommodations reinforce gender roles surrounding caregiving? Would exceptions made on an individual basis, such as allowing flexibility to pick up kids from school or meet similar needs, translate into structural change? Or could individual exceptions lead to “mommy tracks” that relegate women into certain roles?
Alternatively, can such policies be part of a larger social change regarding expectations and norms? And how do we make flexible, family-friendly policies possible while at the same time addressing the other reasons why so few women enter and stay in engineering, most of which are not related to caregiving?
The COVID-19 pandemic provided a unique opportunity, when those working from home proved that not only could they accomplish the work, but in many cases, they could be more productive. Women especially appreciated the flexibility that working from home provided, and both women and men rebuffed back-to-the-office mandates once COVID-19 rates began to decrease and vaccines became available. The experience overall shows that, at least in some segments of the workforce, it is possible to make a significant culture change.
Useful models for cultural change might be found by looking at other professions that previously were male-dominated and are now approaching parity. Of these, physicians offer the most compelling case, as most other professions that were previously male-dominated now have lower salaries and less desirable working conditions.
Why has medicine not followed this pattern? While it’s true that leadership in medicine is still predominantly male, it is changing. More women still go into pediatrics than surgery, so there is gender segregation within the profession. It would be an interesting study to determine the various forces at play and to determine what, if any, would be applicable to engineering or other STEM fields. Is supply and demand a factor? Has the increased number of women professors in medical schools helped in the retention of women students?
Additional observations:
- Do the terms “accommodations” and “individual exceptions” imply some type of special treatment and thereby invite backlash?
- The trust factor in remote work gets to the heart of objective versus subjective measures of performance, because showing up in the office doesn’t necessarily mean someone is doing work.
- Large-scale remote working has not been in place long enough for us to understand the impact it may have on career progression.
- The research currently shows that working in person is important for relationship building.
“During childhood, we learn through observation who belongs where. We accept these male/female identity roles and are limited by this fixed mindset. These expectations keep us from changing, and we are not always prepared to accept scientific evidence if it doesn’t suit our worldview.”
— Rishelle Wimmer, senior lecturer in information technology and systems management, Fachhochschule Salzburg University of Applied Sciences
“The inequity is comparable to a race where the traditional power holders only have to run 50 yards and everyone else has to run 150 yards. The ones winning think, ‘Wow, I’m leading,’ and don’t recognize that they had a head start. And then, just even a small gesture to help the other people is perceived as special treatment, a handout, and unfair to those who started out with the advantage in the first place.”
— Peter Meiksins, Ph.D., emeritus professor of sociology at Cleveland State University, past lead author of SWE Magazine’s annual review of the literature on women in engineering
and science
Final thoughts
Not surprisingly, there were areas of considerable overlap and agreement between both roundtable discussions. Areas of common agreement included the need for structural changes rather than efforts to “fix women.” The importance of buy-in from the top leadership was stressed repeatedly, along with the importance of involving boys and men. It was noted, particularly in the workplace roundtable, that many leaders don’t see their complicity in the system and probably don’t recognize that systemic problems exist.
Variations on these sentiments, such as, “Stop trying to change women, change the systems that favor a particular group,” and “We need systemic and ecosystem change,” were repeated in both discussions.
One participant aptly expressed the current moment: “A lot of the challenges that we still encounter are because we take this fix-the-women approach to many issues and not a fix-the-system approach. I think it was Einstein’s definition of insanity, doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Unless we’re ready to change the systems and structures, we’re going to keep getting the same results.”
On the positive side, research points toward solutions. We also know that the most successful programs are the ones that are supported from the top and that aim for institutional transformation, change in structures and systems, and accountability.
The exchange of perspectives between researchers and stakeholders in the United States and Europe was deemed helpful, much appreciated, and a valuable starting point toward greater understanding and, with that, greater opportunities for women to succeed in engineering and technology.
ROUNDTABLE PARTICIPANTS
Education:
Stephanie Adams, Ph.D., dean of the Erik Jonsson School of Engineering and Computer Science at The University of Texas at Dallas; member, SWE Research Advisory Council
Stephanie Adams, Ph.D., is the fifth dean of the Erik Jonsson School of Engineering and Computer Science at The University of Texas, Dallas. Previously, she served as the dean of the Frank Batten College of Engineering and Technology at Old Dominion University and department head and professor of engineering education at Virginia Tech. Dr. Adams held faculty and administrative positions at Virginia Commonwealth University and the University of Nebraska–Lincoln. Her research interests include broadening participation; faculty and graduate student development; team effectiveness; and quality control and management. In 2003, Dr. Adams received the CAREER award from the Division of Engineering Education and Centers of the National Science Foundation. She has worked with numerous colleges and universities, government agencies, and nonprofit organizations on topics related to graduate education, mentoring, faculty development, and diversifying STEM. Dr. Adams is an honors graduate of North Carolina A&T State University, where she earned a B.S. in mechanical engineering in 1988. In 1991, she earned a M.E. in systems engineering at The University of Virginia and a Ph.D. in interdisciplinary engineering at Texas A&M University, concentrating in industrial engineering and management. She is a fellow and a past president of the American Society for Engineering Education.
David Fonseca Escudero, Ph.D., university full professor, coordinator of the graphic representation area, department of architecture, La Salle, Ramon Llull University
David Fonseca Escudero, Ph.D., is a university full professor and academic tutor at La Salle, Ramon Llull University. He belongs to the technology enhanced learning line of the group, recognized by the Generalitat de Catalunya Human Environment Research. Previously, he was the coordinator of the Group of REsearch on Technology Enhanced Learning, or GRETEL group. He is the coordinator of the graphic representation area in the department of architecture at La Salle. He earned a technical telecommunications engineer degree at URL, a master’s in geographic information systems at the Universitat de Girona, a bachelor’s degree in audiovisual communication at Universitat Oberta de Catalunya (UOC), a master’s in advanced studies at URL, an official master’s in information and knowledge society at UOC, and a Ph.D. in multimedia at URL. Dr. Escudero has coordinated more than 50 local, national, and international projects, including technology transfer and funded research projects. He currently participates in program or scientific committees for more than 15 indexed journals and congresses and organizes workshops, special issues, and invited sessions in different scientific forums related to technological systems and methodologies. He is a coordinator of CreaSTEAM (an Erasmus+ Key Action 2 project, 2020-23, of the European Union), a consortium of multiple partners focused on applications in STEM research to address diversity gaps.
Alicia García-Holgado, Ph.D., associate professor of computer science, Universidad de Salamanca; social responsibility and inclusion lead of the university’s GRIAL research group; board member of the Women in Computing Committee of the Scientific Society of Spanish Informatics
Alicia García-Holgado, Ph.D., earned a degree in computer sciences, an M.Sc. in intelligent systems, and a Ph.D., cum laude, at the University of Salamanca (USAL). She is an associate professor in the university’s computer science department. She has been a member of the GRIAL Research Group of the University of Salamanca since 2009, where she leads the research line called Social Responsibility and Inclusion. She is a researcher of international impact at the Universidad Nacional de San Agustín, Arequipa, Peru. She is also a board member of the Women in Computing Committee of the Scientific Society of Spanish Informatics and a sub-coordinator of the CLEI (Latin American Centre for Computer Science Studies) Community for Latin American women in computing. Her research is related to the development of technological ecosystems for knowledge and learning processes management in heterogeneous contexts, and the promotion of diversity and inclusion in STEM with a particular focus on engineering and technology.
Carina González, Ph.D., full professor, department of computer engineering and systems and chair of the Women Studies Research Institute, Universidad de La Laguna, Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Spain
Carina González, Ph.D., a senior member of IEEE, earned a Ph.D. in computer science at the University of La Laguna (ULL) and a Ph.D. in social sciences and education at the University of Huelva. She is a full professor at the department of computer engineering and director of the Women Studies Research Institute at the University of La Laguna. Her research interests include applying artificial intelligence and human-computer interaction techniques, adaptive interfaces, and videogames in education; gamification; e-learning best practices; and gender studies. Her current research interests include interaction design; human factors and user experience in educational software and videogames; cognitive factors; and gender and inclusive approaches in technology.
Karen J. Horton, P.E., professor of mechanical engineering technology (retired), The University of Maine; member, SWE Research Advisory Council
Karen J. Horton, P.E., is a retired professor of mechanical engineering technology at The University of Maine and a licensed professional engineer in Maine. Prior to her academic appointment, she was a mechanical engineer at Bath Iron Works, a shipbuilding firm in Maine. Her first engineering position was at the Naval Coastal Systems Center in Panama City, Florida. She served as the interim director and co-principal investigator on the 2010, $3.5 million UMaine National Science Foundation ADVANCE Institutional Transformation grant to increase recruitment, retention, and advancement of women faculty in STEM and social and behavioral sciences. She served on the Society of Women Engineers senate and as an advisor of the award-winning UMaine SWE Collegiate Section. She previously served as the first SWE representative to ABET, the engineering accreditation board. She holds an M.S. in industrial mathematics from the University of Kaiserslautern, Germany; a B.S.E. in mechanical engineering, summa cum laude, from Arizona State University; and a B.S. in education from the State University College at Oneonta, New York. She is the recipient of the 2010 SWE Outstanding SWE Counselor award and the 2012 UMaine Presidential Public Service Achievement Award.
Peter Meiksins, Ph.D., emeritus professor of sociology at Cleveland State University, past lead author of SWE Magazine’s annual review of the literature on women in engineering and science; member, SWE Research Advisory Council
Peter Meiksins, Ph.D., is emeritus professor of sociology at Cleveland State University. He previously served as professor of sociology, director of the honors program, and vice provost for academic programs. He is co-author (with Peter Whalley) of Putting Work in Its Place: A Quiet Revolution (Cornell University Press, 2002) and (with Stephen Sweet) of Changing Contours of Work, 4th edition (Sage, 2021). From 2011 to 2023, he served as the lead author of SWE Magazine’s annual review of the social science literature on women in engineering and technology. He earned a B.A. at Columbia University and a Ph.D. at New York University, Toronto.
Milagros Sáinz Ibáñez, Ph.D., researcher, the Internet Interdisciplinary Institute (IN3) at the Universitat Oberta de Catalunya
Milagros Sáinz Ibáñez, Ph.D., is a researcher at the Internet Interdisciplinary Institute (IN3) at the Universitat Oberta de Catalunya. She is a psychologist specializing in gender stereotypes and roles; academic motivation and choice of studies in adolescence; gender and attitudes towards technology; and careers in technology. Dr. Ibáñez’s research and development activities focus on the motivational and psychosocial factors behind the vocational segregation of girls and boys from secondary education on, including family and school influences on study choices; gender role development during adolescence; gender stereotypes about ability self-concepts, achievement, and task-choices; gendered construction of careers and occupations; and secondary school teachers’ and students’ attitudes toward technology and technological subjects. Dr. Ibáñez was a pre-doctoral research fellow at Stanford University and the Technical University of Berlin, and a postdoctoral research fellow at the University of Michigan Institute for Social Research and the department of education foundations of the University of South Africa. She has received research grants from competitive public sources, including José Castillejo Spanish Ministry of Education and the BE Grant by the Generalitat of Catalonia. Dr. Ibáñez leads the research group GENtic (Gender and ICT: Researching Gender in the Network Society). Her research has been published in prestigious academic journals including Sex Roles and Journal of Career Development.
Daniel Riera Terrén, Ph.D., university full professor and dean of the computing, multimedia, and telecommunications department, Universitat Oberta de Catalunya
Daniel Riera Terrén, Ph.D., holds a Ph.D. in computer science from the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB), awarded with the special prize by the computer engineering department. After receiving a research scholarship from the Spanish government, Dr. Terrén worked in the university’s computer engineering department before spending a year as an academic visitor at Imperial College of London. Later, he joined the Universitat Oberta de Catalunya or UOC, where he designed and directed the master’s degree program in bioinformatics and biostatistics. He was then named director of the bachelor’s degree in computer engineering. Currently, Dr. Terrén is the dean of the computing, multimedia and telecommunications department. His research focuses on modeling, simulation, and optimization of combinatorial problems using techniques from artificial intelligence and operations research. He currently leads the ICSO@IN3 group, which is affiliated with the IN3 research center. Together with his department teammates, the UOC equity committee and the GenTIC research group, he works to fight the horizontal segregation in STEAM careers. This includes awarding equity prizes, prizes to the best final projects in the field of equity, academic axis of the UOC equity plan, etc. Dr. Terrén is interested in scientific dissemination, especially in the relationship between people and technology participating in the Tecnología++ blog and the Despacho 42 podcast.
Bevlee Watford, Ph.D., P.E., professor of engineering education, associate dean for equity and engagement, and founding executive director of the Center for the Enhancement of Engineering Diversity, College of Engineering at Virginia Tech; member, SWE Research Advisory Council
Bevlee Watford, Ph.D., P.E., is a professor of engineering education, associate dean for equity and engagement, and the founding executive director of the Center for the Enhancement of Engineering Diversity (CEED) at the College of Engineering at Virginia Tech. She holds a B.S. in mining engineering, and an M.S. and a Ph.D. in industrial engineering and operations research from Virginia Tech. In 2019, she was named the founding associate dean for equity and engagement. Dr. Watford’s research activities have focused on the recruitment and retention of students in engineering, with a particular emphasis on underrepresented students. An active member of the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE), she chaired the diversity task force that resulted in the creation of the ASEE diversity strategic plan and the ASEE diversity, equity, and inclusion committee. In 2010, she was elected a fellow of ASEE. She served as ASEE president for the 2017–2018 year. Dr. Watford was the 2004–2005 president of the Women in Engineering ProActive Network (WEPAN) and has served on the board of directors of the National Association of Minority Engineering Program Administrators (NAMEPA). In 2023, Dr. Watford was one of eight new appointees named to the National Science Board by President Joe Biden.
Workplace:
Carlotta M. Arthur, Ph.D., executive director of the Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education at the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Washington, D.C.; member, SWE Research Advisory Council
Carlotta M. Arthur, Ph.D., is the executive director of the Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education (DBASSE) at the U.S. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. She came to the National Academies from the Henry Luce Foundation, where she directed the program for Women in STEM and developed the foundation’s STEM Convergence grant portfolio. Previously, Dr. Arthur held various positions in philanthropy and academia and engineering roles in the aerospace and automotive industries. She is a member of the Society of Women Engineers Research Advisory Council, the Smithsonian National Museum of American History Lemelson Center for the Study of Invention and Innovation Advisory Board, the Jacobs Institute Steering Committee at Cornell Tech, and the International Society of Service Innovation Professionals Strategy Council. Dr. Arthur served as a working group member for the Council on Competitiveness National Commission on Innovation and Competitiveness Frontiers. The first Black woman to earn a B.S. in metallurgical engineering at Purdue University, she later earned a Ph.D. in clinical psychology at the State University of New York at Stony Brook and is a licensed psychologist. Dr. Arthur is a 2020 recipient of the STEMconnector Million Women Mentors Trailblazer Award and a 2023 recipient of Purdue University’s Distinguished Engineering Alumnae Award, the highest award the School of Engineering offers.
Núria Bayó Puxan, Ph.D., director of programmes, Barcelona Institute of Science and Technology (at the time of the roundtables)
Núria Bayó Puxan, Ph.D., was the director of programs at Barcelona Institute of Science and Technology (BIST) when the roundtable took place. During her time at BIST, shed led programs to promote collaborative research, professional development of researchers, and science education for society within the institute’s community. She recently joined the government of Catalonia to reinforce the contribution of universities and research centers in working together with government, industry, and society to solve complex and relevant challenges. She earned a doctorate at the University of Barcelona and the Biomedical Research Institute (IRB Barcelona). Dr. Puxan worked as a postdoctoral researcher for two years at McGill University and the University of Montreal, and for two years at the ETH Zurich. She then worked as a researcher at a spinoff company for a year and later moved to IRB Barcelona to lead research projects to be transferred to the market. She has postgraduate degrees in innovation management (UB) and entrepreneurship (from the University of California, Berkeley) and a master’s degree in project management (from La Salle) and leadership for high-performance teams (CAR-EADA).
Diane Foley, executive director, digital technology, Raytheon’s Intelligence & Space business (now part of RTX); member, SWE Research Advisory Council
Diane Foley is executive director, digital technology at Raytheon’s Intelligence and Space business and is responsible for digital technology program execution across the sector. Raytheon is now part of RTX. She is a committed advocate for diversity, equity, and inclusion. She is currently the global leader for the Raytheon Technologies’ women’s employee resource group called RTX WISE (Women Inspiring Success and Empowerment). She is a life member of the Society of Women Engineers, represents Raytheon on SWE’s Corporate Partnership Council, and is a member of the SWE Research Advisory Council. She holds an MBA from Fairleigh Dickinson University and earned a B.S. in mechanical engineering at The Cooper Union. She earned certificates in both diversity and inclusion and executive women in leadership at Cornell University.
Peter Meiksins, Ph.D., emeritus professor of sociology at Cleveland State University, past lead author of SWE Magazine’s annual review of the literature on women in engineering and science; member, SWE Research Advisory Council
Peter Meiksins, Ph.D., is emeritus professor of sociology at Cleveland State University. He previously served as professor of sociology, director of the honors program, and vice provost for academic programs. He is co-author (with Peter Whalley) of Putting Work in Its Place: A Quiet Revolution (Cornell University Press, 2002) and (with Stephen Sweet) of Changing Contours of Work, 4th edition (Sage, 2021). From 2011 to 2023, he served as the lead author of SWE Magazine’s annual review of the social science literature on women in engineering and technology. He earned a B.A. at Columbia University and a Ph.D. at New York University, Toronto.
Rachel Palmén, Ph.D., senior researcher, Internet Interdisciplinary Institute (IN3 — UOC) in Barcelona
Rachel Palmén, Ph.D., is a senior researcher at the Internet Interdisciplinary Institute at the Universitat Oberta de Catalunya (IN3 – UOC) in Barcelona, Spain, where she is part of the Gender and ICT research program. Her current research interests include gender equality and science, specifically the implementation of inclusive gender equality plans and policies from an intersectional perspective. Dr. Palmén has worked on various projects funded by the European Commission. She formed part of the Evaluation Framework for Promoting Gender Equality in Research and Innovation or EFFORTI project, which developed an evaluation framework for promoting gender equality in research and innovation and coordinated 19 case studies on gender equality interventions in research and innovation throughout Europe. She worked on the TARGET project, the findings of which are available in the book she co-edited, A Reflexive Approach to Structural Change. Dr. Palmén formed part of the ACT-on-Gender project, which established eight communities of practice for advancing gender equality in research and innovation, the findings of which are charted in the book she co-edited, A Community of Practice Approach to Improving Gender Equality in Research (Routledge, 2023). She also took part in the FP7 GenPORT project. She is currently coordinator of INSPIRE: The European Centre of Excellence on Inclusive Gender Equality in Research and Innovation, a four-year, $5 million Horizon Europe project with 14 partners in Europe and Latin America.
Lilia D. Tapia Mariscal, assistant professor, researcher, department of electronic engineering and computers, Universidad de Córdoba, Spain; Ph.D. student, agricultural, food, forestry, and sustainable rural development engineering
Lilia D. Tapia Mariscal is an assistant professor researcher in the department of electronic engineering and computers at the University of Córdoba, Spain, and a Ph.D. student in agricultural, food, forestry, and sustainable rural development engineering. Her passion for science, technology, and feminism led her to train in gender studies. In 2019, she earned a master’s degree in gender equality at the University of Castilla La Mancha, focusing on scientific dissemination with a gender perspective. She is currently developing studies on algorithmic gender discrimination and the awakening of scientific vocations in STEM. She belongs to the gender commission of the University of Córdoba, the Association of Women Researchers and Technologists of Andalusia (AMIT), and the board of directors of the Federation of Neighborhood Associations Al-Zahara, working in the transversal gender plan. She is the author of the book Guide and Glossary of Good Practices for the Non-sexist Use of Language: From a Perspective of Neighborhood Associations, and a book chapter, “Inclusive Ways to Understand and Disseminate Science,” in Methodological Construction to Disseminate Science and Technology with A Gender Perspective. On March 8, 2023, she received an award in the science and technology sector for various studies on scientific dissemination with a gender perspective, algorithmic gender discrimination, and the awakening of scientific vocations in STEM. This award acknowledged the development and implementation of workshops with a gender perspective and her coordination work this year in the initiative “A Scientist in Your Andalusian School,” which aims to make visible the career of women scientists and technologists through experimentation and visibility among primary school students.
Rishelle Wimmer, senior lecturer in information technology and systems management, Fachhochschule Salzburg University of Applied Sciences; member, SWE Research Advisory Council
Rishelle Wimmer is a senior lecturer in information technology and systems management at Fachhochschule Salzburg University of Applied Sciences. She studied systems analysis and operations research engineering at Cornell University. Wimmer completed graduate and postgraduate studies in education sciences, psychology, and sociology at the University of Salzburg, Austria. Her research interests concern the inclusion and exclusion of underrepresented people in engineering education. Wimmer is a fellow at Duke University’s Identity in Computing Group; a fellow at the Stanford University d.school (Hasso Plattner Institute of Design) for faculty innovation in higher education; and serves on the board for the Ditact IT summer school for women in Austria. She is currently the Salzburg University of Applied Sciences Society of Women Engineers faculty advisor and a member of the SWE editorial board and the SWE Research Advisory Council.
SWE Staff and Consultants
Anne Perusek, SWE emerita director of editorial and publications
Anne Perusek is the emerita director of editorial and publications for the Society of Women Engineers. She has extensive experience directing and executing editorial mission and strategy in both print and digital, having worked in association, business press, newspaper, and academic publishing environments — plus a stint as a freelancer, during which SWE was one of her clients. Perusek was responsible for all operations in creating and producing the print and digital award-winning SWE Magazine and other communications, including podcasts related to magazine content, special issues, and projects. Perusek earned a B.A. in sociology/anthropology from Hiram College as well as a B.A. in art history, with additional study at Case Western Reserve University.
Roberta Rincon, Ph.D., SWE director of research and impact; member, SWE Research Advisory Council
Roberta Rincon, Ph.D., is the director of research and impact for the Society of Women Engineers. She is responsible for overseeing the research activities for the organization, including collaborative research projects with external researchers and dissemination of SWE research through academic conferences, the SWE research website, and the annual SWE State of Women in Engineering magazine issue. She is co-founder of the Women of Color in Engineering Collaborative, whose mission is to work cooperatively with other organizations to provide resources to create a supportive, encouraging, and inclusive environment in the engineering workplace. Her SWE research centers on equity issues in STEM education and the workplace, with studies on gender bias, the development of an engineering identity, and the community college transfer pathway. Prior to joining SWE, she worked in higher education policy research and on programs focused on faculty productivity and student success. She earned a B.S. in civil engineering at The University of Texas at Austin, an MBA and an M.S. in information management at Arizona State University, and Ph.D. in educational policy and planning at UT Austin.
Bénédicte Losseau, partner, Exempla Management Consulting
Bénédicte Losseau is a partner at Exempla Management Consulting. She has more than 15 years of experience working with associations on global events online and in person, from strategy, business model, and design to content development, sponsorship planning, marketing campaigns, and operational delivery. She works on development projects in Europe involving strategic activities; educational programs; membership and corporate partners recruitment campaigns; marketing and communications; and awareness-raising operational and administrative matters for associations in Europe.