Analyzing Signals of (In)equity and Power in Engineering College Internship Advertisements

Abstract

Gendered and racialized barriers play a significant role in undergraduate students' interest and persistence in engineering. While sexist and racist environments have been widely investigated in engineering academic settings, the impediments to equity in work-related engineering socialization experiences are far less explored. Specific to undergraduate students' work settings, internships serve as anticipatory socialization experiences where students learn what it is like to work in certain fields. Yet, little is known about the cues that sponsoring companies provide to potential interns about organizational ideology and power. Drawing from 122 advertisements for college engineering internships, this study explored companies' language and linguistic tools in ads. Within a framework of signaling theory and feminist critical discourse analysis, we used document analysis to examine organizational statements of equal employment and diversity as well as (implicitly gendered and racialized) power structures signaled by linguistic tools (e.g., nominative personal pronouns). Findings reveal a lack of specificity in companies' explicit statements, suggesting that "diversity" language evades identifying concrete equity efforts. Further, results illustrate the complex nature of how companies used linguistic tools to promote their own diversity values and position interns' agency. Leveraging a feminist lens, we discuss how leaving inclusive practices and power structures unnamed may signal a performative commitment to equity. We conclude with implications for higher education researchers, practitioners in career services, and employers recruiting college interns.

"Barbed-Wire Boundaries": Hidden Curriculum, First-Generation and Low-Income Engineering Students, and Internship Acquisition

“…However, internship recruitment and hiring is a social and discursive process requiring the applicant to interact with a plethora of individuals, such as company representatives, recruiters, and hiring managers, that have significant power over their success in the internship recruitment process, and therefore, their future careers (Bowen et al, 1991;Holzer et al, 2006). Previous studies have sought to elicit how the social nature of hiring, as well as social networks for referral and opportunities, contributes to a racialized, gendered system that disadvantages marginalized people (Bowen et al, 1991;Holzer et al, 2006;Gemkow and Neugart, 2011;Moss-Pech, 2021;Wofford and Smith, 2022). The discursive social norms around preparation, presentation, professionalism, and cultural standards in recruitment spaces all contribute to a complex, often implicit cultural landscape for students, particularly marginalized students, to navigate.…”

Anticipated chilly climate for women: the development and validation of a measure

“…This is reflected in findings that gendered language in job ads translates into gender segregation (Tokarz and Mesfin, 2021), with women ending up in jobs that tend to have lower pay, sustaining and reinforcing the gender pay gap (Arceo-Gomez et al, 2022). Similarly, gendered wording in ads for college engineering internships were perceived to signal gendered and racial power structures and a performative commitment to equity (Wofford and Smith, 2022). Finally, women are less likely to apply for jobs when gendered language is used because they expect lower levels of belonging (Hentschel et al, 2021).…”

“Do I even belong?”: Internships as gendered career socialization experiences in engineering.

“…For students who face minoritization in engineering, internships may be yet another venue of bias, discrimination, and oppression in the field. Inequities are observed from the outset, beginning with gendered and racialized language in engineering internship ads (Wofford & Smith, 2022). Once in internships, women in engineering are perceived as less competent than men (Reilly et al, 2017), feeling an obligation to work extra hard to prove their ability, whereas men are assumed to be competent (Fifolt & Searby, 2010; Lapan & Smith, 2023).…”