BackHome
Refresh: OffView Personal Schedule
Individual Submission Summary
Share...

Direct link:

Engineering Program Culture: A Comparative Analysis of Three East African Universities

Wed, March 26, 1:15 to 2:30pm, Palmer House, Floor: 3rd Floor, The Kimball Room

Proposal

Introduction & Conceptual Framework
In this empirical study, we asked the following research question: How do undergraduate women in East African universities describe the organizational culture of engineering programs at their universities? To answer this question, we use Godfrey and Parker’s (2010) cultural dimensions to make sense of interview data from three public universities in Kenya, Rwanda, and Uganda.

Methods
We used a concurrent, mixed methods study design to collect survey and interview data over a two-year span (i.e., fall 2022–spring 2024). The principal investigator (PI; Author 2) collaborated with co-PIs based in Kenya, Rwanda, and Uganda (Authors 3–6). Each co-PI hired students or alumni at their respective universities to collect data.

For the quantitative phase, 150 undergraduate students (50 participants each from the University of Nairobi or UoN, University of Rwanda or UR, and Makerere University or MU) completed a 75-item questionnaire on their perceptions, attitudes, and program satisfaction. For the qualitative phase, 60 students (20 per campus) participated in one-on-one, in-person interviews about their experiences with their university and engineering program. For this proposal, we present the qualitative findings.

Data Analysis
Data was analyzed using an inductive coding approach (Thomas, 2006). After transcribing 60 audio files using a professional transcription service, transcripts were uploaded to Taguette, a cloud-based data analysis software. The research team generated initial codes through a close line-by-line reading of the data, meeting weekly to discuss emerging themes and clarify recurring concepts.

Findings
Qualitative data analysis yielded two major themes, reported using subject-headings.

1. Collaborative vs. Competitive Engineering Program Culture
Participants highlighted differences in engineering program culture across the three universities. Most students at MU and UR described a welcoming, collaborative environment, while those at UoN noted a competitive culture, often favoring male students.

A quote from an MU student (#5) exemplified the program’s collaborative culture, while also hinting at the role of merit in that collaboration:

“Well, I think it's collaborative. It is definitely not sexist. If you are an outstanding student and if you show interest, I think the lecturers, the head of departments, those people that are in my department, if you show that you're interested in the course, they're going to always give you a hand, give you opportunities, show you opportunities to take.”

This was echoed in the student experiences at UR when one student (#6) shared:

“In our department we have [redacted name of office on campus] which is collaborative. … So he explain everything about the university and the academic progress so that we are aware of everything. So it's somehow collaborative and we feel them.”

UoN students, however, emphasized the competitive nature of their programs. A quote from one student (#7) captured this well:

“... it's kind of biased in terms of gender because of the leadership we have. A lot of men are holding the big posts [leadership roles] so women are not really represented. And I can see why women can even opt not to vibe because the men are usually of high character and they're really alpha in the way they talk.”

Students at MU and UR described their program culture as collaborative, attributing it to supportive communication from department heads and faculty. In contrast, UoN students indicated that their competitive culture is also marked by gender bias.

2. Different Ways of Navigating Engineering Programs
We observed notable differences in how students discussed their program experiences. Specifically, reports varied on how women students were treated by male lecturers and peers, somewhat in contrast to the overall program cultures. At MU and UoN, students frequently navigated gender stereotypes within the engineering program culture. In contrast, students at UR reported better access to opportunities and support for women in the field.

One student (#16) at MU stated that women are expected to act like men in her engineering program. When asked about her reaction to that notion, she elaborated: “You have to adapt because the standard of delivery is more masculine. Yeah. So you have to adapt.”

Similarly, a UoN student (#19) discussed how she managed gender discrimination in the classroom. She mentioned that some men lecturers made sexist comments like “... you are a woman, so you don’t know what you are doing. It's okay if you don't know the answer, because you are a woman.” To address this discrimination, she created a support group for women students called “Queens of Infrastructure” and explained its purpose:

“That group was meant to share secret codes or something, just in case we feel harassed by maybe a lecturer, or a male student. So yeah, because you can't respond to a lecturer in class, so we used to come to this group, and then talk with the girls.”

UR students often highlighted opportunities and support specifically for women in the field. One student (#12) remarked, “I enjoy different opportunities which come related to women, especially attending trainings which are rooted to women and getting new skills and knowledge.” Another student (#10) noted that these opportunities were linked to governmental support, saying: “... our government try to give chance to the women to make them included.”

Despite differing reports on program culture, students at MU and UoN dealt with gender discrimination in various ways – by adapting to fit in or by forming peer support groups. In contrast, students at UR emphasized the benefits they experienced as women, reflecting the reported collaborative culture.

Scholarly Contribution
Building on literature exploring the impact of engineering culture on Black women’s engineering identity development (Ross et al., 2021; Farrell et a., 2021; Brawner et al., 2015), our findings extend the applicability of the cultural dimensions (Godfrey & Parker, 2010) to East Africa. We identify tensions between the engineering way of doing and acceptance of difference, revealing that despite a collaborative culture, women students often face pressure to conform to male behaviors and have their potential dismissed by male lecturers. In this digital age, our study also suggests the importance of aligning cultural dimensions to foster a positive engineering culture in in-person and online modalities.

Authors