We Need More Than a Few Female Engineers
Guest author: Marilyn Spink, P.Eng.
To resolve the chronic under-representation of women in the engineering profession, in my mind, it’s not enough to simply be a woman engineer. Don’t get me wrong: role models of women engineers are absolutely needed because young women cannot be what they cannot see.
“You can’t be what you can’t see.”
— Marian Wright Edelman
However, resolving any problem requires concrete action and for me, this has meant making numerous personal efforts throughout my career. My personal actions have ranged from encouraging female engineering graduates to see value in and then helping them to obtain their PEO licenses, through to having difficult conversations with engineering peers about workplace biases and yes, how to navigate them. I was also one of the founders of the Women in Mining Trailblazer Award which was designed to celebrate women in the Canadian minerals industry who have broken down barriers and lifted other women up in the mining industry. My efforts also have included providing support (with hours of personal time) to female engineers to encourage their retention in the profession — sometimes begging them not to leave — and in some instances putting my own career at risk to ensure workplaces are welcoming for female engineers. I know many other leaders — women engineers and male allies — who have done similar work.
The supply is not the problem
With respect to Engineers Canada’s 30 by 30 initiative, the goal of which is to raise “the percentage of newly licensed engineers who are women to 30 percent by the year 2030”, did you know that the supply of women engineering graduates (the so-called “pipeline”) is not the issue? That if we could magically license all the 2018 female engineering graduates from Ontario’s CEAB accredited programs, we’d have 30 by 30 now? Further, this does not include reaching out to international engineering graduates who are female, many whom are under-employed or unemployed, to just get them licensed. I am frustrated that this under-represented group seems to get little attention in the 30 by 30 discussions.
These quotes echo in my head as I myself struggle with how to define and resolve the chronic under-representation of women in the engineering profession. Why, as a profession, do we focus so much of our energies and resources on programs for children? Is it because we are struggling with the complexity of the problem and deep changes needed to move the needle? Are we avoiding difficult conversations? Is it a lack of leadership? Is it a power struggle? While Go ENG Girl and many similar science outreach organizations do great work, have these efforts been effective in increasing the numbers of women engineers? These programs may only solve part of the problem. The Canadian Science Policy Centre and the Ryerson Faculty of Science Roundtable Summary Report on Equity, Diversity, and Inclusivity in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) reports that:
“Workshops for women in STEM and science camps for girls, will not change participation rates of women and under-represented groups in STEM unless the culture and workplace also increase accessibility by removing systemic barriers and bringing in accountability and consequences.”
That is, unless chronic biases — unconscious or not — are removed in engineering workplaces, we will continue to struggle to increase the number of women engineers.
There’s a hole in the bucket…
As the song goes; there is a hole in the “female engineer bucket”, dear Liza, dear Liza! Simply trying to pour more women into this bucket to raise the level has not been successful in increasing the representation of women in the profession. I admit that in the past I myself fell into the trap of thinking, “If we can just get girls excited about engineering” and “If more women enrol in engineering programs, the problem will be solved!” But in reality, increasing the numbers of women in undergraduate programs does not tackle the reasons why so few women become licensed, which remains at a dismal at 12%. The number of newly licensed women Engineers in Ontario is actually slipping backwards. As a profession we can’t keep doing the same thing and expecting different results. Isn’t this the definition of insanity? We need to understand the reasons why by gender. Until we have an understanding, this “hole” will result in women continuing to leave the profession — or not seeking to be licensed in the first place — and we will continue to struggle to reach equity in the engineering profession. I challenge our profession to think smarter, not just rely on a few working harder.
It was positive to see a recent Engineering Dimensions issue celebrating women engineers as it is a step in the right direction. However, opportunities were missed to describe concrete actions our profession has taken, is taking, and will take to get women licensed and retain them in the profession. I don’t have all the answers but as an entire profession we must start having conversations about this elephant in the room and stop skirting the issue (pardon the pun)!
As I write this, I have broken one of my own rules, which is not to use the terms “woman” and “engineer” together. I am tired of hearing people use the phrase “female engineer” but had to use it in this article for obvious reasons. When people ask me what I do for a living, I say I’m an engineer. I don’t qualify it with “female” or “woman” because that completely reinforces the stereotype that engineering is by default a male industry and further reinforces that women are somehow “outside” of the word engineer. Just as a society has evolved the descriptions of “fireman” to “firefighter” and “policeman” to “police officer”, it is high time to simply start saying engineer. We don’t need to qualify the term with qualifiers denoting male or female — or any other gender identity for that matter.
Our profession must support women as equally as men are supported after graduation until they are licensed, and then provide additional supports to retain them in the profession. I am confident and convinced that this is where our efforts and resources must be spent. We must develop concrete strategic actions which are measurable, and those tasked with actions must be made accountable, with consequences, if we truly want to move the needle and finally address the chronic under-representation of women in the engineering profession. Otherwise, we’re just going to be having the same conversation another 30 years from and the profession may have more “Disagreeable Women and Male Allies” to contend with.
This post was guest authored by Marilyn Spink, P.Eng., a professional engineer with over 25 years of operations, sustaining and capital projects and management consulting experience in heavy industry, mainly focusing on large complex project execution in the Mining, Mineral Processing, and Metals refining sectors.
Spink specializes in efficient engineering workflows and strategies for project success such as plant modelling/layout, engineering design/information systems, multi-discipline design coordination, engineering management/sequencing, optimization of existing client operations, constructibility, maintainability, capital cost planning for brown and green field project execution including hot and cold commissioning.
She is a strategic thinker, Corporate Governance advocate and passionate supporter of Technological Education! She is a member of the Engineering Change Lab’s diversity initiative.
