The research reported here contributes to understanding how student engineers on an engineering campus in the US mid-continent not only talked about the kinds of people recognized as engineers on campus, but also juxtaposes their talk about "campus engineer identities" with two students' ways of presenting themselves as engineers through engineering project teamwork to argue that campus engineer identities framed on-campus interpretations of actions, and ultimately that identity production was a complicated process through which campus engineer identities (cultural knowledge learned on campus) provided a lens of meaning through which to "recognize" (or not) performances of engineer selves as engineers. This research adds to conversations about identity in practice, especially identity production in science education, by suggesting the importance of cultural forms for belonging, especially at an obdurate site of science practice like the campus studied.

Not all student teams are created equal. Some manage to produce excellent engineering results, others fabricate it. Social interactions in some teams are respectful, while on other teams some members expect others to carry the load, but take credit for it later. With engineering teamwork becoming more prevalent on engineering campuses, knowing more about student design teams that work is especially important. This article uses two teamwork cases from a large-scale ethnographic study of an engineering design program to describe not only the ways that student engineers practiced design teamwork, but also how campus culture reached into social interactions between teammates via engineering identities produced on campus. A model for effective teamwork emerged that implies producing high quality engineering products, and doing so through respectful social interactions. Implications for teaching about teamwork, teaching with teams, and thinking about ways to change campus cultures to better promote design engineering are developed.

Women student engineers' and professors' classroom experiences, especially their everyday interactions with men student engineers and professors, can be negative. This ethnographic study of the discourse used by professors and students during a sophomore design class demonstrates that some women's difficulties are the result of cultural features of engineering that are only rarely open to redefinition by women. In spite of many engineering educators' sincere commitments to improving women's experiences in engineering education, these cultural features diminish the successes of reform‐minded engineering education. I detail how discourse in whole‐class and teamwork settings indicated the cultural norms of engineering talk and how this discourse reinforced traditional practices that were only rarely open to revision. Also, I comment on the use of ordeals in this classroom. My findings suggest that engineering education must change before inclusion of women is realized. In particular, I suggest the changes needed are complex and include 1) more communication about the ways that cultural norms impact women and other marginalized groups, 2) forums where participants can speak openly without fear of retaliation, and 3) attention to changing those policies and practices that send narrow messages about who engineers are and what engineering might be.