Feminist Perspectives in Engineering Education: A Teaching Initiative for Structural Change

Practice Paper Recommended citation: Fiedler, L. A. P. (2025). Feminist Perspectives in Engineering Education: A Teaching Initiative for Structural Change. In Kangaslampi, R., Langie, G., Järvinen, H.-M., & Nagy, B. (Eds.), SEFI 53rd Annual Conference. European Society for Engineering Education (SEFI), Tampere, Finland. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17631234. This Conference Paper is brought to you for open access by the 53rd Annual Conference of the European Society for Engineering Education (SEFI) at Tampere University in Tampere, Finland. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License. Feminist Perspectives in Engineering Education: A Teaching Initiative for Structural Change 1.1 L. Fiedler a, 1 a Technical University Berlin, Berlin, Germany, 0000-0001-7734-9903 Conference Key Areas: Diversity, equity and inclusion in our universities and in our teaching; engineering ethics education Keywords: feminist engineering, DEI, constructionist, student participation ABSTRACT This paper presents and evaluates a teaching initiative developed within the oneyear project Feministische Technikethik in Lehre und Forschung (FeTe), which aimed to enhance gender sensitivity in engineering education at the Faculty V – Mechanical Engineering and Transport-Systems at the Technical University Berlin. The initiative was designed in response to the persistent underrepresentation of women in engineering and sought to implement student-led strategies to address these disparities. The project was structured in two phases. In the first phase, students participated in a seminar where they explored theoretical perspectives on the co-construction of gender and technology, examined gender inequalities in engineering education and practice, and studied feminist design methods aimed at addressing these issues. In the second phase, students engaged in hands-on projects, developing materials to promote gender sensitivity in engineering education. Following a constructionist approach, they designed their own strategies to tackle gender inequality. This paper details both the structure and content of the project to provide a framework for those interested in adopting a similar approach. Additionally, it evaluates the project's successes and challenges. The findings highlight the importance of fostering an open space for discussion, which requires actively addressing power dynamics within the university and the seminar itself. Furthermore, the paper critiques the limited long-term sustainability of such initiatives due to temporary funding. Finally, it examines the politicization of gender-related terminology and its implications for similar initiatives, advocating for sustained institutional commitment to integrating gender-sensitive perspectives into engineering education and practice to ensure lasting impact and structural change. 1 INTRODUCTION Engineering education and practice is lacking female representation and participation. To make this concrete, this paper refers to Faculty V – Mechanical 1 Corresponding Author L. Fiedler [email protected] Engineering and Transport-Systems at the Technical University Berlin: In 2025 only 28,4 per cent of tutors were female and 22,8 percent of research assistants (Hoster, 2025). Regarding the percentage of students and professorships, the latest data available is from 2020. In that year, only 18,8 percent of the students where female and only 12,8 percent of the W3 professorships (Derda et al., 2022). This low proportion of women at the Faculty V – Mechanical Engineering and TransportSystems at the Technical University Berlin is comparable to the overall university landscape. Although this problem has been addressed and measures have been put in place to promote women in the engineering science, the numbers are not improving. This is, because engineering education and practice itself is constructed in a way that is excluding women. It is not neutral, but infused with sexist sociocultural practices that deter women (Hipólito et al., 2023; Riley, 2013). Therefore, it is not enough to demand a better quota of women, but systematic changes are needed within the university landscape (Harding, 1987; Loh, 2019). To initiate such a change, the Faculty V – Mechanical Engineering and TransportSystems established the Women's Promotion Plan (own translation) in 2020. One component of this plan includes funding opportunities for projects aimed at promoting gender equity. In August 2023, the project Feministiche Technikethik in Lehre und Forschung 1 was proposed, approved, and subsequently implemented from April 2024 to March 2025. In this paper, I present the teaching concept of the project and evaluate both its successes and areas for improvement. The project was structured in two phases. The first phase consisted of a block seminar in which students engaged in an interactive learning experience. This provided insights into the underrepresentation of women in engineering education and practice while introducing the concept of technology as a sociotechnical system. During this phase, students were regarded as experts, as they possessed first-hand knowledge of their study programs. They were encouraged to critically examine and identify areas in which engineering education lacks emancipation and gender equity. The second phase was more practice-oriented, as students developed educational materials to promote gender equity in engineering beyond the duration of the seminar. In this phase, students transitioned from participants to creators, designing materials and initiatives aimed at fostering long-term change. The objectives of this one-year project were articulated in three key steps, specifically targeting students of the Faculty V – Mechanical Engineering and Transport-Systems: 1. To raise awareness of the persistent gender inequalities in engineering education and practice. 2. To highlight the ways in which engineering is embedded in sociotechnical systems and contributes to the construction of gender. 3. To develop hands-on materials and initiatives that address and challenge gender inequities in engineering education. Overall, the project is considered a success, and an expansion is recommended. Accordingly, the description in section two serves as a guide for those interested in implementing a similar teaching approach. In sections three, this paper offers a 1 https://www.tu.berlin/philtech/studium/methoden-der-feministischen-technikethik broader evaluation of the potential and limitations of projects like this. However, the experiences of this project, while promising, are somewhat limited due to the small number of participants. 2 CONTEXT AND PRACTICAL WORK 2.1 The Seminar In summer 2024, the two-week block seminar was conducted with eight students of diverse study programs participating – six of whom identified as female and two as male. The seminar awarded six ECTS credits. Two project groups submitted a final project, which will be discussed in detail in section 2.3. The low number of participants was likely due to its limited visibility. The seminar was not listed in official module and seminar catalogues. Additionally, students were only able to apply their credits toward the “free choice” module, which permits a limited number of credit points depending on the study program, further reducing incentives for participation. The primary goal of the seminar was to raise awareness of the embedded power structures within engineering education and practice at the university. The seminar covered three key theoretical topics: The first topic of the seminar introduced foundational theoretical perspectives, emphasizing that gender and technology are co-constructing each other: gender is embedded in technology, and technology, in turn, shapes the social construct of gender (Ebeling, 2006; Wajcman, 2010). This framework aligns with the conceptualization of technology as a sociotechnical system (Bijker et al., 1987), wherein technological developments both reflect and transform social structures. Students engaged with key theories from Science and Technology Studies (STS), with a particular emphasis on feminist STS perspectives, such as Bath, 2009; Michelfelder et al., 2017; Pawley, 2012; Riley, 2020; Wajcman, 2004. The central objective of this section was to challenge the binarity between technical and nontechnical domains, which has been identified as an artificial distinction (Downey, 2005). Instead, students were encouraged to critically examine how technology, its development, and associated research practices shape and redefine social constructs such as gender. The second topic of the seminar shifted focus toward engineering education and practice at the Technical University Berlin. This focus facilitated a concrete analysis of gender disparities. The primary objective of this section was to confront students with the realities of gender inequity in engineering academia. The students shared personal experiences and acted as experts in identifying discriminatory structures within their academic environment. For instance, students discussed an exercise sheet from a Mechanics module, in which the trajectory of a basketball was to be calculated. The illustration clearly shows a man throwing a basketball and the text indicates that the player is male. The students criticized this depiction, because it refers to gender stereotypes and excludes women (see Figure 1). Furthermore, students talked to experts, such as the Women and Gender Equality Officer. Her presentation, which addressed power structures and personal experiences of discrimination, was particularly impactful. The seminar teacher observed an atmosphere of tension and frustration among students. Figure 1: Excerpt from the exercise sheet of the advanced mechanics module for engineers, illustrating gender bias within course materials. To counteract feelings of helplessness and channel them into constructive action, the final topic of the seminar introduced design methodologies. These included degendering design (Bath, 2009) as well as approaches that have been influenced and further developed within feminist discourse, such as value-sensitive design (Grunwald, 2019) and participatory design (Rommes, 2014). The overarching theme of these approaches can be well-described by Harding: “But the feminist challenges reveal that the questions that are asked – and, even more significantly, those that are not asked – are at least as determinative of the adequacy of our total picture as are any answers that we can discover.” (Harding, 1987, p. 7) Hence, these design methods aim to reveal hidden gender biases and discrimination by changing the way engineering work is viewed. While they were originally created to support fair technology design, the seminar also examined how they could help create more inclusive structures in engineering education. This theoretical foundation was supplemented with practical case studies, highlighting both bestand worst-practice examples of gender-sensitivity initiatives in engineering. Notable best-practice examples included the Gender and Diversity Toolbox developed by Freie Universität Berlin. 1 In contrast, the seminar critically examined the film Henry’s Daughters, produced by the National Institute for Engineering Ethics and critiqued by Riley et al. (2009), as an example of problematic gender representation in engineering discourse. 2.2 Practical Work In addition to the theoretical framework, the seminar provided students with handson experiences. Such practical engagement can serve as a critical learning moment, aligning with Costanza-Chock’s call “for pedagogies of design justice in concrete experience, with all its attendant messiness, rather than in abstract theories about education” (Costanza-Chock, 2020, p. 177). To facilitate this experiential learning, students were given disposable analog cameras and tasked with photographing everyday objects that exhibit gendered characteristics in some way. The assignment was intentionally open-minded to encourage students to observe their surroundings without predefined constraints. Prior to the exercise, students were introduced to a range of examples from CriadoPerez’s Invisible Women (2020) to illustrate how commonplace objects are often designed with implicit gender biases. The three most compelling images were framed and displayed at the wall as a visual reminder of the ways in which everyday technologies both shape and reflect gender 1 Toolbox Gender und Diversity in der Lehre: Startseite perceptions. The photo selected as the most illustrative example depicted a pink portable toilet by the company Wölkchen. 1 Portable restrooms are commonly placed at construction sites, a work environment traditionally associated with men. The pink Wölkchen toilet, by contrast, serves as a deliberate statement promoting gender inclusivity. It playfully challenges existing gender stereotypes, demonstrating that engineering is not merely a technical discipline but one that must account for the social complexity of accessibility, workplace inclusion, and equitable infrastructure (Faulkner, 2007). This practical illustration of seminar concepts had a more lasting impact on students than reading and discussing literature alone could achieve. 2.3 Student-Led Projects Beyond engaging in theoretical discussions and practical observations, students also developed their own applied projects, forming the second major component of the seminar. The goal was to produce material that helps to raise gender sensitivity in engineering education. Students were encouraged to take a constructionist approach and devise their own strategies to tackle gender inequality (Psenka et al., 2017). Two projects were ultimately submitted. They are available online at https://www.tu.berlin/philtech/studium/methoden-der-feministischen-technikethik. One group developed a gender-sensitivity guideline for tutors in one of the basic mechanics modules for engineers. This is a basic module that hundreds of students across various engineering disciplines must complete each semester. Since weekly tutorials are a key component of the module, tutors are crucial contact persons for students. As a result, ensuring that tutors are trained in gender-sensitive pedagogy is of significant importance. The guideline created by the students offers an engaging introduction to gender sensitivity, incorporating multimedia elements such as a video, a quiz, and illustrative examples, such as the excerpt from an exercise sheet, illustrated in Figure 1. These resources demonstrate how tutors can make their teaching practices more inclusive. The long-term goal is to integrate this guideline into the onboarding process for new tutors, thereby institutionalizing gender sensitivity within the faculty's teaching practices. The second student group created an Instagram account dedicated to gender equity in engineering education. The account was regularly updated with content such as literature recommendations, contact information for relevant university offices, and personal experience reports. The peer-led initiative should facilitate student dialogue and provide support for those who encountered challenges in their academic environment. However, the account became inactive after the seminar concluded. Given that Instagram is a fast-paced medium requiring continuous content generation, the project did not prove sustainable in the long term. Nonetheless, the content created – visually compelling and well-structured materials on gender sensitivity – could be repurposed. 3 RESULTS AND INSIGHTS This section assesses the overall impact of the project and reflects on the challenges associated with implementing initiatives of this nature. 1 https://woelkchen-frische.de/ 3.1 Systematic Change I began this paper by outlining the lack of female representation at the Faculty V – Mechanical Engineering and Transport-Systems. Although, the faculty initiated a series of measures and provided a lot of money to increase the proportion of women (Derda et al., 2022), these efforts have not led to a significant increase in the proportion of women. This reflects a long-standing challenge in engineering education: “Despite massive efforts in recruitment and retention, engineering education today is not significantly more diverse in terms of gender, ethnicity, and other demographics than a generation ago.” (Leydens & Lucena, 2018, p. 10). Recognizing these persistent disparities, the project adopted a new approach to promote gender equity within the faculty. Rather than relying on top-down policy interventions, the project was designed to empower students to develop initiatives they personally deemed valuable. This student-led approach positions students as experts in their own educational experiences and allows them to create measures tailored to their specific needs. In this respect, the project aligns with the framework of Engineering for Social Justice (E4SJ): “Our approach goes where few have gone before: into the heart and soul of the engineering curriculum, the place where much of a young engineer’s identity is forged and formed” (Leydens & Lucena, 2018, p. 10). 3.2 Address Power To do so, it is essential to acknowledge the power structures inherent within the university and teaching. A central theme of the seminar was the examination of power – both its use and misuse – and its discriminatory structures. However, it is equally important to recognize that the teacher herself holds a position of power. She is responsible for grading the students, thereby influencing their academic and professional future. This dynamic has the potential to inhibit an open discussion. To address this concern, the teacher explicitly acknowledged her position of authority at the beginning of the seminar, as recommended by Costanza-Chock: “Privilege and power never go away, but a design justice studio can become a place where they are explicitly recognized, acknowledged, and discussed.” (Costanza-Chock, 2020, p. 196). While power structures persist, making them explicit and outlining their limitations can help mitigate their influence. Although the teacher holds grading authority, students are not without agency; they have the ability to evaluate the teacher or file complaints if necessary. This issue is closely linked to another complex aspect of the project: the seminar’s atmosphere. Students were encouraged to share personal experiences and discuss sensitive topics. One male student, for instance, posed the question of how to appropriately respond when witnessing discrimination against a female student. Should he intervene without being asked, or would that itself be intrusive? Such questions are highly nuanced and context-dependent, underscoring the necessity of communal dialogue. While no definitive answers exist, the mere willingness to engage in such discussions reflects a high level of trust among students and between students and the teacher. Creating an environment where participants felt comfortable sharing personal experiences was one of the seminar’s greatest challenges. However, as student evaluations indicate, fostering a safe and inclusive space was essential to the seminar’s success. One student noted in an anonymous evaluation: “The familiar atmosphere lowered the threshold for participation and encouraged discussion.” 1 Another student wrote: “The working environment was very positive and inclusive, creating a space for stimulating group discussions in which all seminar participants took part.” 2 3.3 Organisational Barriers Lee and Faulkner identified several organisational failings that hinder implementing initiatives such as the Feministische Technikethik seminar (Lee & Faulkner, 2010). The first failing they highlight is that “policies are not adequately publicised and promoted” (Lee & Faulkner, 2010, p. 91). This was evident in the project. The seminar was not well-publicized, as it was not formally integrated into the engineering curriculum. In addition, the project was approved shortly before the start of the semester, so there was little time to advertise the project to students. As a result, most students were unaware of its existence. The second potential failure is that “changes in organisational practice are often necessary in order to achieve policy objectives” (Lee & Faulkner, 2010, p. 92). This, as well, was a challenge within the project. For example, because the seminar was only recognized within the elective category, it had limited appeal. Addressing such structural barriers requires changes in institutional practices. For example, as suggested by Loh in his plea for a feminist technoscientific utopia, courses such as this should be compulsory for engineer students (Loh, 2019). The third potential failing is that the “managers often impede the uptake of equality and diversity policies” (Lee & Faulkner, 2010, p. 92). However, this institutional resistance was no issue in the project. On the contrary, the seminar was generally well-received. For instance, the proposal to integrate the student-developed tutor guideline into the onboarding process for new tutors was met with enthusiasm by the module coordinator. The fourth failure raised by Lee and Faulkner is the ”dearth of any rigorous monitoring and evaluation of the implementation” (ibid. p. 92). In this regard, I believe the project successfully circumvented this challenge. The seminar’s outcomes were documented and published on the institutional website, ensuring transparency and accessibility. Furthermore, assessments such as this paper contribute to ongoing evaluation and reflection on the project’s effectiveness. One final challenge they identify is the “lack of resources” (ibid. p. 93). However, in this case, I am pleased to report that the faculty provided sufficient funding to support the project. However, financial support is typically allocated on a projectspecific and time-limited basis. Once a project concludes, its continuation is not guaranteed, and its outcomes risk being overlooked or abandoned. For example, the Instagram account created during the seminar became inactive as soon as the semester ended. Furthermore, the seminar will not be repeated next semester, because there is no funding for the teacher. In this respect, although money has been made available for the creation of a teaching concept, there is a lack of money for the long-term implementation of the concept. Initiatives like this project rarely produce final, self-sustaining products. Rather, they represent ongoing processes that require continuous engagement to achieve long-term institutional impact. 1 Original: „Die familiäre Atmosphäre hat die Hemmschwelle gesenkt und zum Mitdiskutieren angeregt.” 2 Original: „Das Arbeitsklima war sehr positiv und inklusiv gestaltet, so dass ein Raum für anregende Gruppendiskussionen entstand, der von jedem/-er Seminarteilnehmerin genutzt wurde.” 4 CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS I would like to conclude this paper on the Feministische Technikethik project with some general reflections on strategies for enhancing gender sensitivity in engineering education and practice. First, I must address the term feminist. During the planning phase of both the project and the seminar, I was frequently asked whether it was necessary to include the word feminist in the project and seminar title. This hesitation is comparable to the experience of Leyden and Lucena with the term social justice. They observed that “some engineering faculty can struggle with the term social justice” (Leydens & Lucena, 2018, p. 14), and I believe the same applies to the term feminist. Riley, as well, describes this as problematic: “feminism is maintained as a bad word in engineering as in engineering ethics.” (Riley, 2013, p. 197). Nonetheless, she argues that “claiming and naming feminist ethical approaches may be the only way we can broach certain topics with integrity and accountability.” (Riley, 2013, p. 203). I strongly agree and remain committed to using the term feminist. Its fundamental meaning – advocating for an equitable and just society – aligns with the goals of this project. To abandon the term simply because it has been co-opted by right-wing discourse would seem misguided. Nonetheless, this issue is part of a broader societal debate, particularly discussed in the United States, where frameworks such as the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) have been banned by the Trump administration. In response, the University of Alberta in Canada has abandoned the DEI framework and replaced it with the terms Access, Community, and Belonging. The university justified this decision by arguing that DEI had become too polarizing and divisive. However, I firmly believe that rebranding the framework does not address the underlying issue. These new terms, too, will inevitably become politicized, as the core problem are not the words themselves but the societal tensions surrounding them. Furthermore, the debate in the USA frighteningly makes clear that funding programs for gender-sensitive education and research are not a matter of course and that funding can be cut at any time (Kozlov & Mallapaty, 2025). Therefore, to underscore the necessity of such initiatives, I would like to conclude with one of the most striking observations from this project. The students who participated in the seminar were already highly aware of gender issues in engineering research, education, and society at large. Yet, despite their prior knowledge, they were still deeply shocked by the content presented in the seminar. One student, for instance, remarked in the evaluation: “It is not surprising, but it is always shocking to see how deeply ingrained social and gender-specific norms are in every aspect of life and the far-reaching consequences they have.” 1 This reaction highlights a critical issue: even among individuals who are already sensitized to gender disparities, awareness remains insufficient. This underscores the urgent need for continued efforts to address these challenges in engineering education and beyond. 1 Original: „Nicht überraschend, aber erschreckend finde ich immer wieder, wie verfestigt soziale und geschlechtsspezifische Normen in jeglichen Bereichen verankert sind und was sie für eine Tragweite haben.”