. .. .13“. .3 .ux .. .12 .3 . .1 ‘l : v-‘vvi‘. 1.“, .o r»; J...“ um . ..;‘. nth was 200 ’1 This is to certify that the dissertation entitled COOPERATIVE ENGINEERING STUDENTS’ IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT: PERCEPTIONS OF SOCIALLY RESPONSIBLE LEADERSHIP presented by Amy Radford-Popp has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for the Ph.D. degree in Higher, Adult, and Lifelong Education Mdjbr Professor’s Sibnature l3 ’ OI ’ 0L? Date MSU is an Affinnative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution — —<-I-0-l-u-o-v-I-o-o-I-O-I-n-u--u-o-o--v-a-I-o-I-I-o-I-o-l-n-u-l--o-o-I- ~ LIBRARY ' Michigan State University PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due. MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested. DATEDUE DAIEDUE DAIEDUE 6/07 p:/ClRC/DateDue.indd-p.1 — “—fl—ma—_¢.-M_r_—. A. . COOPERATIVE ENGINEERING STUDENTS’ IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT: PERCEPTIONS OF SOCIALLY RESPONSIBLE LEADERSHIP By Amy Radford-Popp A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Higher, Adult, and Lifelong Education 2006 ABSTRACT COOPERATIVE ENGINEERING STUDENTS’ IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT: PERCEPTIONS OF SOCIALLY RESPONSIBLE LEADERSHIP By Amy Radford-Popp This study examined the identity process of becoming an engineer, as well as the phenomenon of socially responsible leadership as understood by cooperative engineering students. The experience of cooperative education was selected due to its multi-level context. Students were not asde specific questions about the effect or influence of their cooperative experience on their perspectives per se, however, as cooperative education students it was believed that they had multiple frames of reference from which to describe their emerging identity as engineers because they had more than classroom learning. As The Engineer of 2020 calls for future engineers to be prepared to serve in leadership roles, to be global citizens, and to be ethically grounded (National Academy of Engineering, 2004), it is a critical time to explore the phenomenon of socially responsible leadership as it relates to what it means to be an engineer. The definition of social responsibility for this study is a personal commitment to the well-being of people, a shared world, and the public at large (Berman and LaFarge, 1993, p.7; Komives, et al., 1998, p.15). This qualitative study of ten cooperative engineering students used a constructivist approach to data collection because of the interest in understanding students’ meaning making about becoming an engineer, and the influence of socially responsible leadership behavior. The findings reflected the emerging identity of what it means to become an engineer including: the importance of service to the profession and the community, as well as ethics in their own decision-making processes. Individuals attempted to balance these different aspects of expectations upon them, but, sometime struggled to find their voice regarding their own values, especially in their current student status. Participants identified three levels of understanding regarding socially responsible leadership including: one’s individual identity, relationship to others, and connection to the community. They shared characteristics and aspects of social responsibility and leadership from their engineering perspective, even though the terms “social responsibility” and “leadership” were not familiar to them. The themes that emerged included aspects of identity development, professional competency, the identification of socially responsible behavior, and the ability to make sense of leadership. Copyright by AMY RADFORD-POPP 2006 DEDICATION Courage is the most important of all virtues, because without it we can’t practice any other virtue with consistency. ~ Maya Angelou To my grandparents, Samuel Jones Radford, Anna Marie Radford, Dorothy Cecelia Hensler, and James B. Hensler, whose hope it was for their grandchildren to get an education. And to my husband, family and friends for their faith, love, and support of me throughout my personal and professional journey. Also, to my nieces and nephews, and any other students and youth that I have encountered along the way for helping me to be courageous and believe that I can make a difference. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS One ’3 Iifework, I have learned, grows with the working and the living. Do it as if your life depended on it, and first thing you know, you ’II have made a life of it. A good life too. ~ Theresa Helburn Although my journey started many years before, I am so thankful for the love and support of my husband and best friend, Steve, for he was there to offer support, love, patience, and faith in my ability to make a difference. To my mother, Kathie, and father, Lee, and my brother, Pete and his family (Keri and the girls), thank you for your love and support throughout this long road. To my new family, Betty, Rich, Wayne, Bea, Bryan, Chris, Janet, Matt, Jackie, and Ken thank you for welcoming me into your lives and for helping me to keep everything in perspective. To all my nieces (Lauren, Ella, Samantha, Amanda, Sarah, and Lizzie) and nephews (Michael, Jonathon, and Joey) for you inspired me to always remember the value of education, my commitment to student learning and development, and that dreams are indeed possible. Know that you are the future and that you can achieve whatever goals you set for yourself. My advisor, mentor, and committee chair, Dr. Marilyn Amey, was essential to my success in completing this research study. I feel very fortunate to have had her guidance and expertise throughout this process. Thank you Marilyn for your constant encouragement, your faith in my abilities, your positive attitude, and your constructive feedback that helped me improve my writing and become more confident in my identity as a researcher. Your dedication and commitment to my success personally and professionally was simply overwhelming. Please know that you made a difference in my vi life and that I can only hope to be a mentor to others as they face their own professional journey. I also want to recognize my other committee members Dr. Kris Renn, Dr. John Dirkx, and Dr. Melissa Baumann for their time, dedication, expertise, and support for my research study and success as a scholar practitioner. In addition, I am very thankful to all the faculty members and colleagues whose guidance and support helped me to face the challenges of the program and remind me of the transformative nature of the dissertation process. For the many mentors, colleagues, and friends that helped to shape my professional development and higher education practice. Although there are too many to list, I must acknowledge Dr. Linda Windle, Dr. Tiffany McKillip-Franks, Dr. Mark Denke, and Dr. Cindy Helman that I have encountered throughout the different stages of my professional journey. Your friendship, encouragement, and belief in me is something that I will forever be grateful. Through your role modeling, I commit myself to be a mentor toothers in their professional development process. I must also acknowledge the supportive friends, colleagues and supervisors within the College of Engineering that supported me in my writing and research process. Last, but certainly not least, I thank all the students that I have encountered through the years. I am thankful for all that I have learned from you to become the kind of educator that I am today. I especially want to thank the cooperative education students that participated in this study for their authenticity and belief that engineers can make a difference in the world. vii TABLE OF CONTENTS KEYTOABBREVIATIONS........... ................................................................. xi LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................... xii LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................ xiii CHAPTER ONE Background of Study... . .. ................................................................................... 1 Purpose ofthe Study.......... .............................................................................. 10 Research Questions... ... .. ................................................................................. .11 Need for Study... ............................................................................................ 12 CHAPTER TWO Socially Responsible Leadership ........................................................................ 15 Defining the Phenomenon .............................................................................. l6 Non-Hierarchical Leadership .......................................................................... 18 Previous Studies. .............................................................................. 20 Social Change Model of Leadership Development ........................................ 21 Engineering Education” .. ............................................................................ 24 A Call for Non-Technical Skills ..................................................................... 26 Engineering Ethics. .. .............................................................................. 29 Engineering Code of Ethics ............................................................................ 30 C00perative Education. . . . . . . .. ............................................................................ 32 Call for Research. . . . . . . ............................................................................... 34 Lack of Social Awareness ............................................................................... 35 Conceptual Framework... ... .............................................................................. 36 Sensemaking Theory. .......................................................................... 37 Chickering’s Vectors Model... ..................................................................... 40 CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY................ ............................................................................ 42 Site Location.............................. 43 Participants... .............................................................................................. 45 Data Collection” .. ....................................................................... 46 Socially Responsibility Leadership Scale- Revised ......................................... 47 Individual Interviews” ............................................................................. 47 Data Analysis. .......................................................................................... 49 Researcher Role .. ....................................................................... 50 Assumptions of Researcher ............................................................................. 51 viii CHAPTER FOUR FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION........... ............................................................. 54 Cooperative Engineering Student Profiles .......................................................... 55 Knsten56 Jack 56 Andrea57 Wendy.................... .................................................................................. 57 Kyle58 John 59 Don59 Tommy.. 60 Matt. 60 Identity Development ....................................................................... 62 Socialization Process. ..................................................................... 65 Ethical Development... .................................................................. 68 Intemalized Professional Development ......................................................... 73 Professional Competency“ ............................................................................... 75 Developing Competence ............................................................ 75 Decision-Making Role.......... ...................................................................... 78 Non-Technical Skills......... ......................................................................... 81 Multicultural Competence ............................................................................. 85 Work Culture Expectations ............................................................................ 88 Socially Responsible Behavior ........................................................................... 94 Trust/Confidentiality. . . . . . . . . .......................................................................... 95 Safety Standards......... ................................................................................ 97 Lessons From the Past... ... ... ..................................................................... 100 Leadership Sensemaking... .............................................................................. 103 Understanding Leadership .......................................................................... 104 Engineers as Leaders..... ............................................................................ 106 Self-Identification as a Leader .................................................................... l 11 Socially Responsible Leadership ................................................................ 114 Being a Change Agent ............................................................................. 115 MakingaDifference............ ................................................................ 117 IssuesofRisk............ ........................................................................... 120 Factors Influencing Socially Responsible Leadership ...................................... 122 Personal Influence .................................................................. 122 Academic Factors .................................................................. 126 Professional Emphasis ............................................................. 129 CHAPTER FIVE IMPLICATIONS, LIMITATIONS, AND CONCLUSION .............................. 132 Theoretical Implications... ... ........................................................................... 132 Student Learning and Development ............................................................. 132 Meaning-Making Process ....................................................................... 133 The Millennial Generation ...................................................................... 134 ix Professionalism in Engineering ................................................................... 135 Professional Attributes ............................................................................. 136 Corporate Social Responsibility ............................................................... 137 Leadership Education. . . . . . . .. ....................................................................... 138 Student Engagement... ............................................................................ 139 Social Change Model ........................................... - .................................... 139 Leadership Identity Development Model ................................................ 142 Practical Implications. . . . . . . . . .. ......................................................................... 143 Engineering Educators. . . . . . . .. ..................................................................... 143 Curricular Experience ........................................................... 144 Co-Curricular Initiatives .......................................................................... 145 Cooperative Education Educators ................................................................. 147 Preparation Programs ............................................................................... 147 Supervisor Relationship ........................................................................... 148 Processing the C00perative Experience ................................................... 149 Leadership Educators... ... . .. .. .................................................................... 150 SocialJustice..................... ................................................................ 150 Career Development. . . . . . . . ..................................................................... 151 Future Research ......................................................................... 152 Limitations ofthe Study.............. ................................................................. 159 Conclusions........................ 161 APPENDICES... .. ............................................................................ 175 Appendix A- ABET 2000 Criteria Three Outcomes ....................................... 175 Appendix B- SCM of LD Connections of Values Diagram ............................ 176 Appendix C - SCM of LD Interaction Table .................................................... 177 Appendix D - Invitation Letter to Study Participants ....................................... 178 Appendix E - Informed Consent Information ................................................... 179 Appendix F - Participant Information Sheet ..................................................... 180 Appendix G - Social Responsibility Leadership Scale-Revised Inventory ..... 181 Appendix H -Instructions for Completing the SRLS Instrument ..................... 184 Appendix I — Individual Interview Protocol Guide .......................................... 185 ABET ACCE ASEE CEA CED CEO CSR CQI EC-2000 HERI IEEE ISPE LID NASA NCCE NCEES NSPE SCM SRL SRLS-R KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology Accreditation Council for Cooperative Education American Society of Engineering Education Cooperative Education Association Cooperative Education Division Corporate Executive Officer Corporate Social Responsibility Continuous Quality Improvement Engineering Criteria 2000 Higher Education Research Institute Institute of Electrical Electronics Engineers International Society of Pharmaceutical Engineers Leadership Identity Development model National Aeronautics and Space Administration National Commission for Cooperative Education National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying National Society of Professional Engineers Social Change Model Socially Responsible Leadership Socially Responsible Leadership Scale-Revised xi LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Summary of SRLS-R inventory high and low construct scores ........... 49 xii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Conceptual Model, Identification of becoming an engineer ................... 63 xiii CHAPTER ONE Introduction Background of the Study The National Leadership Dialogues held in 2002 emphasized that students need to be involved in identifying their own opportunities for student engagement, and that efforts to re-engage students in social change must begin by learning more about how students understand social responsibility (London, 2003, p. 29). Sylvia Hurtado, the former chair of the Center for the Study of Higher and Postsecondary Education at the University of Michigan, is concerned that “the crisis we face is that we haven’t raised the expectations of our students beyond that of self-interest” (London, 2003, p. 49). As students are challenged to think on a higher level in relation to others and society at large, issues related to their personal ethics and internal values can impact their understanding of themselves, their relationships, and their community. This study questions how well our institutions are doing in creating the right atmosphere for this kind of higher level learning to occur. The Association of American Colleges and Universities (2005) created liberal education outcomes, which focus on student achievement in college. The outcomes were affirmed by both the academy and employers and focused on critical thinking, quantitative literacy, communication skills, ethical reasoning, and civic engagement, all found within the engineering curriculum. Also, aspects of knowledge, intellectual and practical skills, and individual and social responsibility are addressed. Roger Herman, CEO of the Herman Group, stated “in the future we’ll need more workers who can think, collaborate, create, solve problems, communicate and lead. Demand will be high for those who have learned how to learn; have a multidisciplinary education, and can adapt to the unknown” (p.13). The engineering curriculum strives to infuse these qualities in an effort to promote competent engineers through the accreditation process. Hence, this call from the academy, as well as from employers to produce college graduates with a sense of social responsibility, intellectual and practical skills, knowledge of human cultures, and of the natural, and physical world establishes further support for this study. Social responsibility, viewed as a multidimensional phenomenon, emphasizes the experience and appreciation of our interdependence and connectedness with others and our environment (Berman and LaFarge, 1993). The definition of social responsibility is marked by the adolescent’s need for experiencing generativity, casting one’s mark as an individual, and clarifying one’s role in an ever widening social context (Berman, 1997). Komives, Lucas, and McMahon (1998, p. 14) stated that leadership should be practiced in such a way as to be socially responsible. They discussed that this kind of social responsibility was involved both in the outcomes and content of the group’s purpose, as well as in its process. Since social responsibility (Berman and LaFarge, 1993, p.7; Komives, et al., 1998) involves a personal commitment to the well-being of people, a shared world, and the public at large, it is a topic for further investigation in the practice of engineering, specifically related to a student’s preparation personally and professionally for practice. In the National Academy of Engineering report on the Engineer of 2020 (2004), aspirations for the future of engineering consist of creating engineers who “are broadly educated, see themselves as global citizens, can lead in business and public service, as well as in research, development and design, and are ethical and inclusive of all segments of society” (p. 59). Specific skills identified in the report emphasize analytical, creativity, ingenuity, professionalism, and leadership. As this report envisions engineering, my study looking at socially responsible and leadership behavior seems directly aligned with the future needs of engineering education. A A recent study regarding the development of socially responsible leadership (SRL) in male undergraduates defined SRL as “ethically driven behavior that serves others and holds self and others accountable (and responsible) for their actions” (Harlander, 1998, p.43). Harlander identified various characteristics as significant to the process of socially responsible leadership (Central/Midwest University Leadership Collective) including: ethics, a common good, as well as individual and collective leadership. The qualities that Harlandar found relate to the profession of engineering, and specifically to ethical behavior and to serving the common good. My study explored how cooperative engineering students make sense of their role as socially responsible leaders. The National Society of Professional Engineers (N SPE) published the book, Engineer Your Way to Success (McCarthy, 2000), in which some of America’s top engineers shared advice on what they think are the nine key factors for success in the engineering profession. Integrity was viewed as one of the most important factors that determine success (McCarthy, 2000). However, the book addressed the “erosion” in recent years of “the respect for the principles of integrity” (p. 71). The author emphasized the importance of finding an environment that cultivates integrity as critical to one’s success. One of the participants interviewed in the book described “leaving a six figure job because his boss lied to him, and he felt he was being used” (p. 73). A professional who does not encourage integrity in the workplace and in the decision-making process could be extremely detrimental to one’s success. The participants in the NSPE book believed that one should leave an environment at the first sign of unethical or questionable integrity issues. Another industry engineer stated I think integrity is the most important of all the factors of success. An engineer is in a fiduciary position. The community trusts his/her judgment. An engineer has to balance the public interest with the company’s and the client’s interests. In the final analysis, what is being designed must work, and it must be what is needed, not just technically, but socially, too. That’s why integrity is the key. You’re not just in an advisory position with your client. You were hired to make all aspects of a project work. (p. 72) Most new engineering professionals probably do not plan for the day when they would be on the opposite end of a lawsuit because of a decision they made. However, historical major engineering incidents reinforce the cultural norms in which engineers cannot afford to overlook their professional and ethical responsibility. The book Engineering Ethics (Fleddermann, 2004) states that this increase in awareness of ethical responsibility has led to nearly every major corporation establishing a so-called ‘ethics office’ that has the responsibility of ensuring that employees have the ability to express their concerns about issues such as safety and corporate business practices in a way that protects them from acts of retribution (p. 3). These ethics offices attempt to cultivate an environment that encourages ethical behavior and decision-making in an effort to head off problems before they begin. It is not just professional engineers who are aware of and concerned about ethics and social responsibility; these issues are also being discussed among faculty in engineering education programs. In 1998, the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) published in draft form the ‘Engineering Criteria 2000’. Criteria 2000 was formally adopted in 1997 and by the fall of 2001 , all engineering programs were accredited using Criteria 2000 (Herkert, 1999). These criteria represent a shift in the ABET philosophy to a process that is based on campus based intentional outcomes that are assessed on a continuous basis. Through this criteria revision, those in engineering education recognized the need for increased attention in the curriculum to ethical responsibilities. However, consistent messages about ethics education are still needed. The specific area of the Criteria 3 program outcomes (Appendix A) in Criteria 2000 addressed various program expectations for graduates from university engineering programs. The outcomes from Criteria 3 that are associated most with a student’s experience as a socially responsible leader consist of the following: (d) to have an ability to function on multi-disciplinary teams; (I) to have an understanding of professional and ethical responsibility; (g) to have an ability to communicate effectively; and (h) to have the broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global and societal context. (Herkert, 1999, p. 1) Hence, if institutions are stating that graduates can demonstrate these skills related to social responsibility, then they should be held accountable for these goals. The intention of my study was to learn what it means to cooperative engineering students to be socially responsible leaders through their own understanding of social responsibility, as they relate to others, and their role within society. Therefore, it was intended for this research to help inform the program outcomes described through the ABET accreditation process. Although the significance of ethical responsibility is evident in the accreditation criteria, the field of engineering education is cynical about promoting ethics education. Some engineering educators were indifferent toward ethics initiatives, which manifested into an inertia of professional societies that emphasize ethical issues, a lack of faculty commitment to including ethics in the curriculum, and a lack of students’ desire for learning such material (Herkert, 1999). This acknowledgement of inconsistency regarding ethical education and social responsibility, while at the same time that corporate environments’ demand for an understanding of socially responsible and ethical behavior were at increasing levels, tends to call into question how educators are preparing engineering students for practice. As students become oriented to the profession and learn its norms and values from their faculty, and those with whom they interact through internships, coops, and professional associations, some of this same dissonance could result in confusion for students in how they should think about ethics and social responsibility. Consequently, it raises concern as to what it means to our students to be socially responsible leaders. While it is critical for engineers to have the technical skills of science and math, the non-technical skills such as communication, problem-solving, and critical analysis are crucial, as well. Also important is an ability to work in a group or community, and to pass on knowledge to the next generation. John Dewey (1999) argued that non-technical skills are equally as important as the technical skills that students develop, and that soft skills are not covered in the classroom education that many coop students receive. He believes, “it was the charge of coop employers, in many cases, to give students the opportunity to develop these skills during the coop work experience” (p. 26). He emphasizes teamwork, responsibility, and leadership as critical areas of “soft skills” that students should develop. Students who choose to be engineers need to realize the personal and social responsibility to which they are committing. The formative exposure to these values and understandings comes during the college years, when one is immersed in studying the discipline and engaging with a broad range of engineering faculty, practicing engineers, and a host of “real-life” engineering issues and problems. Therefore, how do engineering educators prepare undergraduate students to engage in the dialogue about social responsibility, as well as to take ownership of the significant decisions that they make in regard to the practice of engineering? Even though it is rare to see practicing engineers described in literature as leaders, these professionals historically have been the risk-takers, the outside of the box thinkers, and those committed to the improvement of quality of life issues in which society has become accustomed. Engineers are professionals. Professionals are leaders. To lead you need to understand the origins of your profession. The stories of history give you the foundation you need, as you learn from the great innovators and see how they handled all aspects of problem-solving. Such broad learning can greatly help your career and aid your development as a leader in your profession. (Oakes, Leone, & Gunn, 2002, p. 1) Richard McCuen (1999), an engineering professor at the University of Maryland-College Park, described the importance for engineering students to have leadership capabilities. His article emphasized leadership as knowledge and skills that an individual uses to motivate others, to recognize possible actions, to make decisions, to promote high ethical standards, to communicate with others, and to have confidence in one’s abilities. He believed that including intentional leadership development for engineering students enhanced engineers’ confidence in assuming more leadership responsibility in society. Oakes et a1. and McCuen support The Engineer of 2020 (National Academy of Engineering, 2004) vision regarding the preparation of engineers to be leaders in society. Therefore, this provides further rationale for this current study to explore the intersections of social responsibility and leadership for undergraduate cooperative engineering students. The engineering profession cultivates organizational and societal leaders on an ongoing basis. Although engineers are recognized in their practice to be in positions of leadership and decision-making, they typically tend not to talk about themselves as leaders or use the language of leadership education but, rather, to use management terminology. Therefore, I believe that the meaning of socially responsible leadership for engineering students and the creation of a lens through which engineering students can view themselves as socially responsible leaders requires further exploration. This study explored the phenomenon of socially responsible leadership as it was understood by undergraduate cooperative engineering students. Although more attention towards leadership education seems to be happening at the college level, the successful integration of leadership into the educational experience, including students in engineering, has not yet been accomplished (N emetowicz and Rosi, 1997, p. 7). My research study seeks to do just that. I examine how we integrate leadership education into the academic experience, looking through the lens of a cooperative engineering education. In spite of the ABET criteria, there is a dearth of research that looks specifically at this integration within the field of undergraduate engineering education. “People need to be prepared to enter the community and the workplace with expectations for their roles in the process of leadership” (p. 5). As well, students need, “to be prepared for the process of leadership earlier in their lives and in a way that integrates with the rest of their development” (p. 5), which indeed calls for more research regarding a student’s development of socially responsible leadership. When studying socially responsible leadership (Tyree, 1998), it is important to recognize three levels of understanding: self-awareness (individual), relationship to others (relational), and in connection to community (societal). These levels seem to align with the foci of engineering education, as McCarthy (2000) emphasizes the challenge for engineers to responsibly balance constituent interests: those of the individual client, the organization one is employed, and those of society. Applying these interactive levels of understanding social responsibility seems particularly applicable to the constituent balance that McCarthy articulated. Over the last decade, the fast paced spread of knowledge, technology and business practices demanded new requirements for the successfirl business leader (Karp, 2003, p. 15). James Rubin (2000) also emphasizes the impact that the changing face of America is contributing to our understanding of leadership. He believes that a global awareness and a keen understanding of the influences of diversity politically, socially, and economically are required more than ever by today’s leaders. Previously, the hierarchical approach of leadership was expected to get the job done and move ahead as a leader. For leaders in the 21St century, the ability to work collaboratively, think inclusively, and recognize the strengths that all members contribute are the skills that are expected in organizations and corporations (Matusak, 1996; Rubin, 2000). In the context of inclusive leadership, social responsibility includes “an appreciation of the role of service, ethics, values, and diversity; as well as a sense of the common good” (Nemerowicz and Rosi, 1997, p. 129). Environments characterized by inclusive leadership encourage communication of information to be freely shared and emphasize the skill of listening. Value was placed on democratic processes, on honesty and fairness, respect for the individual, and responsibility, as well as accountability. In addition, the philosophy of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) also provides support for this study. Kotler and Lee (2005) define CSR as a commitment to improve community well-being through discretionary business practices and contributions of corporate resources. Hence, the concept of CSR, and the need for students to be aware of issues of social responsibility, establishes a further rationale for this study. In defining socially responsible leadership (Tyree, 1998), it is important to recognize three levels of understanding: self-awareness (individual), relationship to others (relational), and in connection to community (societal). As McCarthy (2000) emphasizes, the engineers interviewed for his book strongly expressed integrity as necessary to one’s success. He also states the challenge that responsibility brings with it, specifically being able to balance all constituents interests: those of the individual client, the organization one is employed, and those of society. Applying these interactive levels of understanding about social responsibility, then, seems particularly applicable to the constituent balance that McCarthy articulated. Purpose of the Study This study strived to inform three different fields of education: engineering, cooperative experience, as well as leadership development. Through review of previous research, there seemed to be a paucity of studies that addressed the intersection of these areas. As well, there was a specific call for qualitative research in the area of cooperative education (C011, 1998; Barnes, 2000). This study examined the phenomenon of socially responsible leadership as it was understood by cooperative engineering students. Thus 10 far, no studies explored this meaning making experience about socially responsible leadership for cooperative engineering students. Research Questions This study investigated the meaning of socially responsible leadership for cooperative engineering students. The primary research question that originally guided the design and formation of the study addressed: 0 What does it mean to a cooperative engineering student to be a socially responsible leader? An additional research question consisted of the following: o What has influenced cooperative engineering students ’ understanding of socially responsible leadership? As data collection and analysis began, findings suggested that before I could get to the students’ understanding of socially responsible leadership, I needed to understand their developing identities as engineers, of which socially responsible leadership may or may not have been a part. Consequently, the research questions that more accurately framed the study and data analyses were: 0 What does it mean to become an engineer? 0 What has influenced cooperative engineering students ’ understanding of what it means to become an engineer? A final question addressed in the study included: 0 To what extent, is socially responsible leadership important to an engineering students ’ identity as an engineer? 11 Need for the Study The specific group of engineering students selected for this investigation, cooperative engineering students, was identified intentionally. The experience of cooperative education was selected due to its multi-level context. Students were not asked specific questions about the effect or influence of their cooperative experience on their perspectives per se, however, as a cooperative education student it was believed that they had various frames of reference from which to describe their emerging identity as engineers because they had more than classroom learning. Students had their own personal experience, the interactions with others in their company, as well as the awareness that their company intersects within the community. As the field of cooperative education celebrates its centennial anniversary, it is a unique opportunity to further explore the experiences of cooperative engineering students. For the purpose of this study, cooperative education was defined as the integration of classroom work and practical industrial experience in an organized program under which students’ alternate periods of attendance at college with periods of employment in industry, business, or government (Heybome, 2002; Wilson, 1971). In order to be considered cooperative education, various components are needed: (a) an off campus experience related to the participant’s field of study; (b) the employment must be a regular, continuing, and essential element in the educational process; (c) some minimum amount of employment and minimum standard of performance must be included for the requirement of the degree presented by the school; and (d) the working experience will ideally increase in difficulty and responsibility as the student progresses through the academic curriculum (Collins, 1971, p. 29-30). 12 Various authors (Barnes, 2000; Howard, 2004; Hutcheson, 1995; Kerka, 1999) proclaimed the need for research regarding the benefits of cooperative education and evidence that shows intended learning outcomes are essential in order to increase credibility. The ways in which students experience the curriculum in regard to their role as socially responsible leaders would provide useful information in support of other national conversations taking place on learning outcomes in light of the centennial anniversary. As employers look for potential employees, they want those with professional activity and experience. National Society for Professional Engineers’ research found the experience of cooperative education to be invaluable in the preparation for new engineers (McCarthy, 2000). One engineer at Georgia Power Co. participated in a coop experience and felt it helped him make choices that some engineers are not able to make until deep into their careers. Another, a director of engineering at a pharmaceutical company shared his view, There are too many people out there that think the world owes them a living when they come out of school. The right attitude just isn’t there. The coop people, on the other hand, value their job. If you don’t value your job, how is the job going to value you? You have to come to the game ready to put water in as well as take it out. I think coops help create an atmosphere that produces a better engineer. (McCarthy, 2000, p. 22) Cooperative education provides an academic experience in which students get to try on self-beliefs and core principles related to socially responsible leadership in a “real world” industry setting. As the researcher, I was curious how students’ meaning of socially responsible leadership evolved from their own understanding to their experience in relation to their work culture, as well as in relation to society. Did their meaning change at all based on others in their core work group? What about based on the mission 13 or culture of the organization? For example, was it an expectation of their work environment for them to act in socially responsible ways? What were the consequences if they choose not to? What about in relation to their organization’s impact on society? In light of these issues, it seems that the concern for coop educators is whether students really get “it”. In other words, do they fully understand their impact on quality of life issues in their role as a practicing engineer? Do they leave our institutions with an integrated sense of who they are at the core, being that of a socially responsible leader? Or do they learn to say the ‘right things’ and in public do what is viewed as politically correct? Hence, when they are pressured, do they instead resort to what is easier or more cost effective versus what is socially responsible? This study provides a space of exploration for students to reflect on these critical questions and issues before they enter into full—time employment. Their cooperative student status enables them to explore these developmentally challenging questions on their vocational journey to being a practicing engineer. l4 CHAPTER TWO Literature Review This literature review found three key areas to inform this research inquiry: socially responsible leadership, engineering education, and cooperative education. Since the main focus of this study included what the meaning of socially responsible leadership to undergraduate cooperative engineering students is, the first part of the literature review identifies and defines the concept of socially responsible leadership. Next, the context of engineering education is discussed regarding the relevance of social responsibility and leadership for the engineering profession. Finally, the specific population of cooperative education was intentionally chosen due to its ‘real world’ setting in which students’ decisions have the potential to impact them as individual practitioners, the organization to which they are affiliated, and society overall. Socially Responsible Leadership The phenomenon of socially responsible leadership has not had an extensive history of research; however, intersections between social responsibility, inclusive leadership, and socially responsible leadership did contribute to the identification of the primary research inquiry. The Higher Education for the Public Good report from the National Leadership Dialogues (London, 2003) acknowledged that higher education has emphasized over the last half century the goals of “preparing students for responsible citizenship,” “developing future leaders”, and “inculcating civic values.” However, the scholars involved in the National Leadership Dialogues assert that only a few schools have successfully made good on these promises over the last half-century” (p. 14). 15 Defining the Phenomenon Komives, McMahon, and Lucas (1998, p. 14) stated that leadership should be practiced in such a way as to be socially responsible. They discussed that this kind of social responsibility is involved both in the outcomes or content of the group’s purpose, as well as in the group’s process. Social responsibility (Berman and LaFarge, 1993, p.7; Komives et al., 1998, p.15) addressees a personal commitment to the well-being of people, a shared world, and the public at large. The concept of social responsibility tends to be interconnected at various levels, so therefore it leads to a more complex definition that incorporates all levels of understanding. One consistency in the literature entails the linkages to inclusive leadership in respect to the phenomenon of socially responsible leadership. In the book, Education for Leadership and Social Responsibility (N emerowicz and Rosi, 1997), the authors clearly established a relationship and common understanding between the experience of inclusive leadership and social responsibility. Value was placed on democratic processes, on honesty and fairness, respect for the individual, and responsibility and accountability. The assumptions consisted of inclusive leadership being that of socially responsible leadership, in which many diverse people unite in the search to define and act on common good goals (p. 15). They highlighted the following qualities (p. 129) as representative of social responsibility: I An appreciation of the role of service, ethics, values, and diversity; and ' A sense of the common good 0 The knowledge of and ability to collaborate with those who are socially and culturally diflerentfi'om oneself; 16 0 An understanding of how to define and promote the collective well being, and the values of justice and equality; and 0 An understanding and use of ethical analyses to evaluate political and personal actions. Today, there is more appreciation of and expectation for one’s ability as a leader to create a collaborative environment, exhibit teamwork qualities, and strive to benefit the common good (Allen, 1990). Thus, I wondered how we are doing as engineering educators in producing students who can articulate and demonstrate the call for socially responsible leadership. Are we intentionally creating opportunities and challenging our cooperative engineering students to learn these skills and prepare for these new organizational norms? Professor, David E. Goldberg (1995), an engineering professor at University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, wrote the book, Life Skills and Leadership for Engineers. He addressed issues that he termed were ‘beneath the surface’ for a successfirl engineering career. He specifically concentrated on the concepts of managing oneself and working with others in a professional engineering environment. The author recognized that most engineers and engineering students seemed to think that the non-technical skills are soft or easy. He argued that although these skills seemed to be ‘common sense or conventional wisdom’, the human side of engineering was much more complex and challenging than one would think (p. 2). Hence, his book discussed strategies for engineering practitioners and students to make leadership and soft skills a priority in their own professional development. Goldberg (1995) shared his own personal experience and reinforced that his education did not prepare him for human relations, life skills, and the leadership aspects 17 of engineering. In his on-the-job training, he needed to educate himself quickly regarding these skills. He admitted to making mistakes along the way that lost him friends, lost his company sales, and mistakes that eventually sent him packing and back to graduate school (p. 52). One of the most critical lessons that he learned regarding good human relations was the need to see things through the eyes of others. Success as an engineer incorporates understanding others around us, a commitment to work within teams and organizations, and an ability to interact effectively with clients and others outside of our organization. Goldberg’s affirmation for leadership skills training reinforces a need for this type of study. His emphasis on seeing things through the eyes of others directly correlates to the definition of social responsibility, therefore inviting further exploration of socially responsible leadership in engineering education. Non-Hierarchical Leadership As engineering education focuses on technical skill development, it was not surprising that the philosophy of socially responsible leadership was not a priority for engineering educators. Another factor that challenges engineering education to prioritize leadership development includes the fact that leadership language does not necessarily resonate with engineers. Instead, the emphasis tends to be on issues related to management and therefore, more often hierarchical forms of leadership. Hence, given this state of affairs, this provided all the more rationale to begin the language of socially responsible, inclusive, or collective forms of leadership development for undergraduate engineering students. For more than 15 years, the hierarchical model of leadership has been challenged as an effective approach to leadership development (Astin and Leland, 1991; Nemerowicz 18 and Rosi, 1997; Peters, 1987). Even though the traditional leadership paradigm (based on positional authority) has been found to be ineffective in meeting society’s challenges, leadership education for college students tends to remain focused on positional/formal leaders (Higher Education Research Institute, 1996; Moriarty and Kezar, 2000). The paradigm shift from leadership as a leader-centric phenomenon to that of a shared experience requires new models of leadership education in the complexity of today’s world (Allen and Cherrey, 2000; Drath, 1998). These new organizationally normed environments are where cooperative engineering students are being placed, therefore what are educators doing to prepare students for their expectations of leadership roles? Educators must respond to a call for action to prepare today’s undergraduates to be tomorrow’s citizens and leaders (Astin, 1996; Clark, 1985; Education Commission of the States, 1986; Komives, 1995). Too much of leadership development has focused on a few positional leaders in formal student organizations, and not enough attention has been given to the leadership capabilities and experiences of all students (Tyree, 1998, p.1). This study invited cooperative engineering students to step back and reflect on their role and ability to be a leader; after all, what does that mean to them? This study hoped to challenge them regardless of their title, to recognize that as a cooperative education student they are in a leadership role and may be called upon at any given time to make decisions that impact society. Astin (1993) emphasized the significance of student—faculty interactions related to positive influences of leadership in college students (p.137). The experience of cooperative education encourages student contact with faculty and placement supervisors, as current professionals and practitioners. One must ask if educators are creating 19 leadership and learning experiences in which students are engaged at a level that challenges their current knowledge and experience in order for meaning making to occur? How can one be more intentional regarding the characteristics of socially responsible leadership in cooperative education experiences? As Hurtado at the 2002 National Leadership Dialogues challenged educators to consider, how does one engage students to think beyond their own self- interest? Previous Studies Various studies attempted to explore the phenomenon of socially responsible leadership. In 1998, a study regarding the development of socially responsible leadership in male undergraduate students occurred at a mid-west university. In the study, socially responsible leadership was defined as ‘ethically driven behavior that serves others and holds self and others accountable (and responsible) for their actions’ (Harlander, 1998, p.43). The characteristics of ethics, gender role, the common good, and individual, as well as collective leadership were identified as significant to this process (Central/Midwest University Leadership Collective). The importance of shifting from a perspective that identified individual leaders to one of a collective approach to leadership development was critical for this mid-west university. His study emphasized that the concept of leadership was more fluid in which individuals moved in and out of leadership roles and that anyone could practice leadership without being in a specific position. Another more recent study (Gustafson, 2004) strove to create a theory of socially responsible leadership through qualitative methods. The author examined the concept of socially responsible leadership through an analysis of interviews conducted with 22 founders of non-profit organizations. His study identified social responsibility as simply 20 ‘life responsibility’ in which we do anything we can on a daily basis to lift those around us. Overall, his study defined social responsibility “as making a contribution to the growth, learning, development, well-being and/or sustainability of other people and the environment” 0 135). I His study identified qualities of socially responsible leaders: showing a positive and unconditional regard for other people; having a strong bias for action; being authentic in one’s actions; exhibiting a passion and resolve to follow their vision; and that being socially responsible was a way of life. Gustafson’s model of socially responsible leadership established three levels of understanding: 1) self-focused; 2) others and self- focused; and 3) a state of interconnectedness. The self level emphasized the perspective of ‘what is good for me?’, while the others and self phase, branched outside of the self and thought about those around one as well. Finally, the level of interconnectedness addressed a person that has integrated his/her mind, body, and spirit in a way that was balanced and mindful of the world around him/her (Guillory, 2000, pp. 71 ~72; Gustafson, 2004, p. 191). Qualities from both the Harlander (1998) and the Gustafson studies that identify socially responsible leadership are aligned with the values found in the Social Change Model of leadership development. Social Change Model of Leadership Development As the need and desire for promoting inclusive leadership and socially responsible environments became obvious, the Social Change Model (SCM) of leadership development emerged as one tool that incorporated these characteristics of socially responsible leadership. The SCM had two essential goals: 1) to enhance student learning and development through greater self-knowledge and leadership competence; and, 2) to 21 facilitate positive social change in an organization or the community (Astin, Astin, Boatsman, Bonous-Hammarth, Chambers, Goldberg, Johnson, Komives, Langdon, Leland, Lucas, Pope, Roberts, & Shellogg, 1996; Tyree, 1998). The emphasis of student learning and development is directly related to this study, as identified by the experience of cooperative education for engineering undergraduates. A closer look at the lens of the SCM of leadership developments seemed appropriate as the core principles of the profession of engineering were primarily about making changes for the betterment of society and performing those as individuals with a level of professionalism and integrity. In 1993, Alexander and Helen Astin applied to the Dwight D. Eisenhower Leadership Development Programs of the US. Department of Education for funding a leadership program. They worked with a team of leadership educators across the country, (known as the “Working Ensemble”) to conceptualize a model of leadership development that would “prepare a new generation of leaders who understand that they can act as leaders to effect change without necessarily being in traditional leadership positions of power and authority” (Astin, et al., 1996, p. 12). In 1996, the Working Ensemble established the Social Change Model (SCM) of Leadership Development, which supports that “leadership is ultimately about change, and that effective leaders are those who are able to effect positive change on behalf of others and society” (Astin, et al., 1996, p.10). As this is the tenth anniversary of the development of the SCM, it was a unique opportunity to explore, while applying it to the engineering field that leadership has yet to be explored. This model of leadership development highlighted the concept that leadership is not based on one’s position or title, but instead is a process toward a desired goal or 22 outcome. The transitional nature of cooperative education seemed to coincide with the intentions of the SCM of leadership development not being position or power-focused. Hence, students may come into a company and be assigned to varied level positions that can still enable them to impact change on behalf of others and society. The SCM of leadership development (Higher Education Research Institute (HERI), 1996; Outcalt, F aris, McMahon, Tahtakran, Noll, 2001) promoted the values of equity, social justice, self-knowledge, empowerment, collaboration, citizenship, and service. In addition, the SCM reflected an inclusive approach because it was designed to enhance the development of qualities in all participants. These values connected to similar characteristics found in Nemerowicz and Rosi’s (1997) definitions of social responsibility and inclusive leadership consisting of diverse people uniting in the search to define and act on common good goals, specifically promoting the collective well being, and the values of justice and equality, as well as an appreciation of the role of service, ethics, values, and diversity (p. 15). The SCM consists of seven principles known as the 7 C’s that can be organized into three domains (individual, group, and community). The 7 C’s of the SCM consist of the following constructs: Individual: consciousness of self congruence, commitment; Group: collaboration, common purpose, controversy with civility; and Community: citizenship. Regarding individual values, consciousness of self, congruence, and commitment were identified as constructs. The objectives of this domain encouraged self-knowledge through reflection and active participation. The next level introduced group values that 23 focus on collaboration, common purpose, and controversy with civility. This area strived to increase leadership competence that is defined as the capacity to mobilize one and others in order to serve and work collaboratively. The final aspect of citizenship promoted the community values domain. In general, the goal of the SCM of leadership development was to bring about change for the betterment of society (Outcalt, et al., 2001). A diagram (Appendix B) shows the interactive nature of the SCM, while Appendix C describes the interactions between the three domain levels and the individual value constructs of each level. For the purpose of this study, the SCM is a lens from which to view the phenomenon of socially responsible leadership. In fact, another researcher Tyree (1998) operationalized the SCM to be a measure of socially responsible leadership. A version of her Socially Responsible Leadership Scale was used in this study and will be discussed further in the methodology section. Engineering Education For future engineers, the significance of understanding their role in regard to social responsibility is a daunting task. Literally, practicing engineers have the safety and security of society at their fingertips. Whether talking about a newly constructed building or bridge, technological advances, biomedical ethics, automotive safety, or environmental waste concerns, the well-being of others and society as a whole is clearly at stake. Therefore, the process of what it means to be a socially responsible leader should be an integral part of their engineering education. This study focused on how cooperative engineering students make sense of this awesome responsibility in regard to what it means to be a socially responsible leader in the practice of engineering. 24 Throughout history, the role of the engineer has significantly influenced the human race and the quality of life issues that impact society. “From the beginning engineers looked around at their environment and saw areas where life could be made easier and more stable” (Oakes, Leone, & Gunn, 2002, p. 5). The Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) defined engineering as: The profession in which knowledge of the mathematical and natural sciences, gained by study, experience, and practice, is applied with judgment to develop ways to use, economically, the materials and forces of nature for the benefit of mankind. (Oakes, et al., 2002, p. 2) As engineering educators recognized the need for progress, the early 19903 brought about a review of the engineering education curriculum. In 1992 at the Engineering Foundation Conference on “Engineering Education: Curriculum Innovation and Integration,” K.S. Pister proposed a reformulation of the goals of engineering education as developing technical competence, understanding the practice of engineering as a social enterprise, acquiring clinical experience in practice, preparing for management and leadership roles in society, and building a foundation for lifelong learning (Pister, 1993; Shuman, Besterfield-Sacre, McGourty, 2005, p. 42). During the early 19903, a group of engineering deans and educators recognized the stifling nature of the existing ABET criteria and with input from industry, began a review of the accreditation process. This review, led by John Prados (ABET president, 1991-92), emphasized concerns that the criteria were too long and as a result, encouraged a number counting approach that stunted innovative thinking and production. This review led to the changes in engineering education and to the establishment of a revised learning based criteria for assessment. On November 2, 1996, the ABET board of directors approved what eventually became known as “Engineering Criteria 2000.” As the review 25 board looked to industry for their input, they found employers were now emphasizing that success as an engineer required more than strong technical abilities; indeed one also needed skills in communication, the ability to lead and work effectively as a team member, and an understanding of the non-technical forces affecting engineering decisions (Shuman, et al., 2005, p. 43). Hence, employers seemed to be looking for leadership skills, an ability to work in a group and to think about how decisions impact the world around them, which directly connects to the qualities of socially responsible leadership (Nemerowicz and Rosi, 1997). A Call for Non- Technical Skills The goal of the ABET Engineering Criteria 2000 (ABET, 1998; Herkert, 1999; Kurstedt, 2001; Weichert, Rauhut, Schmidt, 2001, p. 23) entailed setting the standards for campus engineering programs. In the development of the new accreditation criteria, ABET reinforced a set of “hard” engineering skills, while introducing another set of equally important “professional skills” known to engineering educators as Criteria 3 (Shuman, et al., 2005 , p. 41). Appendix A lists all eleven of the program outcomes for Criteria 3, however, this study primarily addressed, the professional skills that were relevant to understanding socially responsible leadership. As a researcher, I believed that the outcomes from Criteria 3 that were associated most with the phenomenon of socially responsible leadership were the following: (d) to have an ability to function on multi-disciplinary teams; (f) to have an understanding of professional and ethical responsibility; (g) to have an ability to communicate ejfectively; and (h) to have the broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global and societal context (ABET, 2003; Herkert, 1999). In Shuman, et al. 26 (2005, p. 41) these outcomes were categorized further as process (the ability to function on teams, to understand professionalism and ethics, and to communicate effectively) and awareness (recognize the impact of engineering in a global and societal context) skills. Since the program Criteria 3 outcomes had been clearly articulated, the question remained how were engineering educators accomplishing these outcomes and in what ways did students demonstrate these skills? Even though currently in engineering, technical and application specific skills tend to dominate hiring decisions, an EE (Electrical Engineering) Times article suggested that, for engineers to be successful in the firture, they must have complementary skills, including those of a non-technical nature (Cuevas, 1998). Mark Klein, director of Mentor Graphics, an engineering infrastructure, described the desire for the “whole engineer” in which one has competency in interpersonal relations, project management, negotiation, presentation, business, and relationship building, in addition to technical skills. Hence, engagement in more real-world project development exercises, including team-based group work in which management, decision-making, communication, and problem- solving abilities were expected (Cuevas, 1998). The National Society of Professional Engineers (N SPE) published the book, Engineer Your Way to Success (McCarthy, 2000), in which America’s top engineers shared advice on what they thought were key factors for success in the engineering profession. NSPE surveyed dozens of engineers from around the country, and asked them to identify the factors that they believed were important to be successful as an engineer. The authors then summarized the survey data to include nine factors for success (p. 6-7): 1. Technical Skills 3. Communication Skills 2. Judgment 4. Leadership Qualities 27 5. Management Ability 8. Service 6. Teamwork 9. Ambition/HardWork/Commitment 7. Integrity Even though the authors described the significance of technical skills, they spent the majority of the book addressing the other qualities that are viewed as non-technical. A construction company vice president, cited in the NSPE book, agreed, No one works in a vacuum. There’s teamwork involved, and you have to know about other aspects of a job in order to interact, so you can accommodate them with what you’re doing. (McCarthy, 2000 p. 17) One concern addressed in the book was that academic institutions do not do enough to help students make the management versus technical area of practice choices early enough in their career. One vice president of a construction engineering firm described, “You will hit a crossroads after about five years or so, at that time you will have to make a decision, will you concentrate on the technical side, or will you concentrate on management?” (p. 7). The sentiment in the book seemed to be that engineering programs needed to help raise the awareness of this decision-making process for students. So much of the engineering curriculum focused on understanding and expertise in the technical skills and knowledge, but little time actually addressed the other aspects of leadership and management in the engineering profession. Before they knew it, young professionals were asked to make that decision; and it was questionable how informed of a decision it was at the time it occurred for students. In engineering education, leadership development seems to occur more informally, for example, in student organization or other team-based learning experiences. Students appear to identify more with management terminology, as opposed 28 to leadership language or even viewing themselves as leaders in their decision-making or teamwork processes. The intention of this study was to put a mirror up to the cooperative engineering students, so that they can begin to share their perceptions of socially responsible leadership and to recognize the role that they play as socially responsible leaders. In the NSPE book (McCarthy, 2000), the employers discussed the significance of leadership, management, and teamwork abilities. The author defined leadership as “the ability to motivate others to move with enthusiasm toward a goal that is seen with a passion” (p. 47). The participant’s philosophy of leadership consisted of the recognition that many early engineers do not realize the need for learning about leadership development. However, the participants articulated the importance of effective communication and leadership skills when trying to get others to agree with you regarding problem-solving or analysis activities. An individual who recognizes the role that group dynamics play in the successful accomplishment of a task or goal encourages a shared leadership experience. Engineering Ethics As engineering educators, the responsibility to instill engineering ethics was critical to one’s development as a professional engineer. The concept of engineering ethics directly related to the phenomena of social responsibility and inclusive leadership in regard to understanding a sense of the common good (N emerowicz and Rosi, 1997, p. 129). Goldberg (1995) recognized the importance of ethics education as being related to good human relations for engineers. He expressed a concern as to how effective engineering ethics were taught in the classroom settings and that students were not truly 29 engaged in this area of learning (p. 67). He addressed the concern of ethical decision- making and advocated that misdeeds were less likely to come from a lack of knowledge of what is right and more likely to come from a failure of execution. He stated We fail to do the right thing because we believe that some other thing will result in personal gain; we are able to do wrong only because we do not consider, or are able to rationalize, the harm our action will cause to others. (p. 68) Hence, his philosophy called for individuals to think about clients with names, voices, and faces as they approach decision-making in the engineering profession. He emphasized that as engineers make decisions in manufacturing, in business, or in life, it was better to think of real people, especially clients that they worked with or even their own friends and family (p. 69). He argued that as one personally identified with the decisions made, they were held more accountable and responsible and therefore, tended to think beyond their own needs. Engineering Code of Ethics As many professions have established codes of behavior, so too has the engineering profession. Engineers have their own “code of ethics” (McCarthy, 2000, p. 75) that states that engineers should: 1) Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare, of the public in performance of their professional duties; 2) Perform services only in the area of their competence; 3) Issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner; 4) Act in professional matters for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees; and 5) Avoid deceptive acts in the solicitation of professional employment. The preamble of the National Society of Professional Engineers Code of Ethics for Engineers (p. 93) states that: 30 - Engineers are expected to exhibit the highest standards of honesty and integrity; - The profession of engineering has a direct and vital impact on the quality of life for all people; - Services provided by engineers require honesty, impartiality, fairness and equity, and must be dedicated to the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare; - Engineers must perform under a standard of professional behavior that requires adherence to the highest principles of ethical conduct. In spite of the professional code of ethics, employers are not satisfied with the quality of graduates that are being produced. A study conducted by Business-Higher Education Forum (1997) emphasized that Recent graduates were deficient in communication skills, the ability to work in teams, flexibility, the ability to accept ambiguity comfortably, the ability to work with people from diverse backgrounds, understanding of globalization and its implications, and ethics training. (Linn, Howard, & Miller, 2004, p. 3) Consequently, this provided further rationale for the importance of social responsibility and inclusive leadership in the preparation and training of our students, specifically as it related to the impact that engineers have on society. The NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers emphasized that members of the engineering profession are expected to exhibit the highest standards of honesty and integrity (McCarthy, 2000, p. 93). In addition, the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (N CEES) Model Rules of Professional Conduct also has a specific code that adheres to the kind of real-world requirements to which professional engineering societies attempt to hold their members accountable (Oakes, et al., 2002, p. 406). The NCEES code emphasized three primary themes that engineers must consider as they make decisions and perform their duties: 1) their obligation to society; 2) their obligation to employers and clients; and 3) their obligation to other engineers (pp. 407- 31 414). These key tenets of the NCEES code aligned many of the concepts that frame the phenomenon of socially responsible leadership specifically, issues related to one’s own individual identity and values process, one’s experience in relation to others; and one’s overall responsibility to the overall society. 1 Participants in the NSPE book highlighted that the time to start building these skills was in entry-level roles, or ideally in cooperative education or internship experiences. An industry manager promoted the idea that leadership ability is something that you can learn. It is not something that you were born with necessarily; this was believed to be a false assumption. An industry vice president said, “But just as with communication, there is a structured part, and a part that is learned through experience. It comes through practice” (McCarthy, 2000, p. 49). The intention of this study was to look in depth at cooperative engineering students’ meaning making process in regard to socially responsible leadership. Was it something that made sense to them? How did they integrate qualities of socially responsible leadership into their engineering education experience, and eventually their practice as a professional? I hoped to give students the space to ponder and make sense of these issues related to social responsibility and leadership behaviors in regard to their contributions as individual engineers, through their employment organization, and as members of the overall society in which they live. Cooperative Education The cooperative education movement began in the academic arena of engineering education. Since Dean Herman Schneider took that first innovative step known at the time as the “Cincinnati Plan”, the majority of other schools in the early years also 32 launched programs primarily in areas of engineering, technology, and business administration academic programs. In 1936 to 193 7, the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) president, H.P. Hammond, announced at the 40th annual meeting “that the most noteworthy, single development in engineering education in this country since 1893 was the establishment, in 1906, of the cooperative system” (Sovilla, 1998, p.18). Polly Hutcheson advocated a benefit of cooperative education to be the “integration of work and learning as an important educational strategy for all students and lifelong learners” (Hutcheson, 1995, p. 69). Engineering students needed to see this reality and the awesome responsibility in which they have chosen and that one environment that provided opportunities for true professional responsibility to develop consists of cooperative engineering education. Participants were engaged in various experiential learning activities that stimulated an understanding of their own strengths, weaknesses, and values clarification, promoted experience for teamwork and collaboration, and provided a window to see how their decisions in their organization influence and possibly even change the society in which we live. The literature review in this study showed very little intersection of research looking at cooperative engineering students and their perceptions of socially responsible leadership. For these reasons, I chose to study this population of cooperative engineering students. As the term “cooperative” suggested there are many chances for students to work in cooperation or collaboration with others and often they were involved in team responsibilities (p. 21). A transformation tended to occur regarding maturity, decision- making, and judgment issues. Students realized early on that they are in a “real-world” 33 employment situation, since the majority of cooperative experiences are paid experiences. Hence, they needed to act accordingly and be accountable to themselves, their colleagues, and their employer (Sovilla, 1998, p. 23; Tyler, 1971). My intention was to give voice to the student experience, specifically for this study. I Call for Research Cooperative education had been viewed as a positive educational model to introduce students to the challenges of the workplace. However, cooperative education and internships continued to be areas in which research was needed. Scholars stated that the discipline of cooperative education and internships had ‘fallen short of the ideal of scientific inquiry to illuminate relationships, predict effects, explain findings in light of existing theory, or contribute to theory development’ (Wilson, 1988, p. 83; Linn, et al., 2004, p. 5). Veteran coop educators also reinforced the need for research in cooperative education in order to instill a higher level of credibility (Bartkus and Stull, 1997; Linn, et al., 2004; Ricks, Cutt, Branton, Lokent, and Van Gyn, 1993). Cooperative education professionals were being asked to monitor the learning outcomes that occurred through cooperative experiences, as well as the need to maintain a higher level of legitimacy in higher education. The accreditation process of ABET and Criteria 2000 for engineering educators also impacted the cooperative education experiences. A survey of coop practitioners by Stull, Crow, and Braunstein (1997) found that practitioners believed the greatest need for research into coop was that which “identifies and evaluates the kinds of learning outcomes attained by students who participate in cooperative education programs” (p. 32; Eames, 2000, pp. 76-77). 34 Past research regarding the benefits of coop (Barnes, 2000; Lindenmeyer, 1967; Smith, 1965) had been critiqued as being too descriptive through quantitative techniques and educational achievement instruments. Even though these strategies provided indicative data, they had not been successful in controlling for the diversity of different programs and had not addressed the actual learning outcomes that occurred during work placement terms (Barnes, 2000, p. 77). Chris Eames, of the University of Waikato in New Zealand, suggested that coop practitioners should engage in more qualitative research inquiry (p. 82) in order to explore cooperative education in depth. It was believed that an increase in qualitative methods could reveal a richer vein of data about the student’s experiences in the workplace (C011, 1998; Eames, 2000). Hence, the purpose of this study regarding what it meant to cooperative engineering students to be a socially responsible leader seemed to address the expectations of employers regarding non-technical skills, as well as the call for further research initiatives in cooperative education, specifically qualitative in nature. Lack of Social Awareness Surveys of cooperative education students had shown that they were unaware of the unethical nature of some of their actions, as well as a clear understanding of what was inappropriate behavior (Borgenschutz and Anderson, 1992; Mark, 2001). As societal trends showed, even with all of these professional expectations clearly identified, many decisions were still not grounded in ethical or social responsibility. George Kuh said the following at the 1998 Institute on College Student Values: Changes in the nature of work and the work force will demand ‘just-in- time learning’; students will need to be able to manage frequent transitions from one job to the next... Such circumstances make it absolutely essential that students develop an integrated constellation of attitudes, 35 values, and beliefs that form the cornerstone for living with integrity in a constantly changing world. (Mark, 2001) There are few aspects of daily life that are not in some way touched by the training, research and products created by practicing engineers. This suggests a critical need for engineering students to graduate with a clear awareness and personal investment regarding their role and obligation of what it means to be socially responsible as a practicing engineer and business leader. It was easy to say that leaders should do the right thing, but the “right” thing is not always clear in a complex and fast-changing climate; consequently, the integrity and social responsibility of the individual business leader will matter more (Karp, 2003, p. 22). I was curious as to how meaningful was the engineering experience for our students. Did they truly understand this responsibility to which they had committed? My first response was probably not, until they were in a position in which they must make a decision that has implications beyond those of a class simulation exercise, a group project assignment, or a course grade. The intention of this study was to encourage an opportunity for individual student reflection regarding how he or she, as a cooperative engineering student, made sense of these high expectations. The selection of a quantitative inventory and qualitative narrative methodology provided the participants a context from which to speak of in regard to their understanding and meaning of socially responsible leadership. Conceptual Framework The phenomenological nature of this study allowed the participants to share their experiences in regard to what it means to be an engineer, as well as the importance of socially responsible leadership for one’s identity as an engineer. Since the process of 36 meaning making was intended to direct the study, Karl Weick’s (1995) sensemaking theory helped frame the design of the study protocol. However, throughout the data analysis, it became evident that for the students to understand the complexities of socially responsible leadership, they articulated their understanding through their own identity process of becoming an engineer. Therefore, since the process of identity development shaped the students’ meaning of social responsibility and leadership behavior, Chickering’s vectors model of college student development was used as the conceptual framework for data analysis (Chickering and Reisser, 1993). The following highlights aspects of the sensemaking process, as well as college student development that were appropriate for the analysis of the cooperative engineering student’s experience. Sensemaking Theory The equivocal nature of the sensemaking process enabled participants to express their understanding and experience as they related to what becoming an engineer meant to them, as well as the understanding of socially responsible leadership in that process. In other words, the meaning of socially responsible leadership was not to be approached as prescriptive or product driven, but instead as a process that was experienced by participants individually, yet in a social context. The parallels of the multidimensional levels of socially responsible leadership (individual, organizational, and societal), and the grounding of individual and social activity as one experiences sensemaking suggested further rationale for the decision of this framework. Karl Weick (1979, p. 133; 1995, p. 12) described the recipe for sensemaking through the question “How can I know what I think until I see what I say?” Sensemaking tended to be less about discovery and more focused on invention. In other words, there 37 needed to be something of reference from the past (i.e., experience, thought, perspective) for which one strived to make sense. This study provided students with opportunities for reflection and retrospect to allow meaning to occur, while emphasizing the context of cooperative education experiences. Weick identified seven properties affiliated with his sensemaking theory (Weick, 1995). These concepts particularly were useful as this study was approached through the perspective of the individual cooperative student experience. As researcher, I chose to establish that the experience of the individual was the driving force of the study and the approach to data collection. Of Weick’s properties, there are three that pertain to the design of this study. He discusses the retrospective nature, the socially interactive nature, and the process of identity formation. First, the property of the retrospection in sensemaking was of particular importance as students were asked to reflect on their past experiences. In other words, participants needed to reflect and find meaning in their past experiences. Retrospection had been described as the most distinguishing characteristic of sensemaking theory (Weick, 1995). Through qualitative methodology, this study provided opportunities for students to be reflective as they shared and described their “meaningful lived experiences” (p. 24). Another aspect of retrospection was the idea that meanings change as current projects and goals change (p. 27). Therefore, it was acknowledged that as participants reflected on their sensemaking experiences, their process of becoming an engineer, as well as the multidimensional nature of socially responsible leadership was taken into consideration. Next, the sensemaking quality of being socially interactive was emphasized. Weick (1995, p. 39) stated that those who forget that sensemaking was a social process 38 were missing the big picture regarding the interpretation and meaning. Various authors (Louis, 1980; Weick, 1995) identified the process and environment of socialization as being a setting where sensemaking naturally occurred. Lave and Wenger (1991) suggested that the process of socialization resembled an apprenticeship kind of experience. It reiterated the appropriateness of using sensemaking theory to explore how cooperative engineering students become socialized to the profession of engineering. And finally, the sensemaking theory also, emphasized the element of identity construction. As the process of sensemaking began with the sensemaker, it seemed relevant to consider the identity development process for students as they become engineering professionals. Weick described the sensemaker as an ongoing puzzle to be explored, therefore undergoing ongoing redefinition and identity formation, especially in considering what it means to be an engineer, as well as influence of the various levels of socially responsible leadership (individual, relational, and societal). The purpose of this study was to discover what it means to engineering student’s to become an engineer, and to understand the role of socially responsible leadership to that process. The accuracy in this case consisted of participants’ individual experiences, and hence invited the possibility for diverse ‘meaningful lived experiences’ (Weick, 1995, p. 24) The phenomenological foundation of this study in respect to the lack of previous research regarding the meaning of socially responsible leadership in engineering education maintained the need for plausible reasoning to go beyond that which can be observed or measured. This study sought to explore these questions through the lens of the individual as they experienced their own identity formation. 39 Chickering’s Vectors Model As the students expressed their understanding of becoming an engineer, various developmental tasks were challenged. Chickering’s seven vectors model reflects the overall student development process. Each vector represents various aspects of the central concept of ‘identity’ development (Chickering and Reisser, 1993, p. 23). The developmental tasks of identity formation that framed the data analysis consisted of: establishing identity, developing competence, experiencing interpersonal relationships, and developing integrity (p. 23). Regarding identity formation, this process includes the reflection of one’s family of origin and ethnic background, the ability to define self as part of social and cultural traditions, and to see self within a social and historical context (p. 49). As well, it is a continuous process in which one keeps redefining oneself based on the different experiences one has. The establishment of one’s identity also reflects values clarification, and exploration of roles at work or in play to provide a genuine expression of the self. For students to understand the transformation of becoming an engineer, it seemed importance to consider their personal and professional identity process. It was revealed that before they could speak to the significance or not of social responsibility and leadership behavior in their role as an engineer, they needed to take the time to know themselves and what they believed. Another developmental task addressed included the development of competence. For Chickering, he described competence on three levels: intellectual, physical or manual skills, and interpersonal (p. 45). For cooperative engineering students, these elements of competence are of great significance for their success as an engineer. As students’ begin 40 to see themselves in a position of making decisions that impact others, they must establish their own competencies and confidence in their abilities. Students overall sense of competence increases as they learn to trust their abilities, receive feedback from others, and integrate their skills into a level of self- assurance (p. 46). Next, as individuals interact with others in school, work, or home settings, the ability to establish interpersonal relationships creates another developmental task. For engineering students, the ability to communicate with others, appreciate differences, and have the capacity for intimacy. For engineering students, this developmental task is absolutely essential to be successful as an engineer. Experiences of communication, teamwork, problem-solving, and serving on behalf the needs of society shape practice of engineers. The ability to exhibit interdependence in relationships is also an essential element as students explore their opportunities for leadership-followership roles. A final developmental task addressed the importance of developing integrity. It is believed that our core values provide the foundation for interpreting experience, guiding behavior, and maintaining self-respect (p. 51). For any student, the issue of values clarification is something that each person encounters in their college experience. For engineers, knowing their values is critical as they are in various roles that impact the health, safety, and well-being for members of society. Therefore, it is critical to provide engineering students opportunities to reflect on their beliefs, practice ethical decision- making, recognize issues of professionalism in the workplace, and have a sense of their own work ethic. 41 CHAPTER THREE Methodology This study prioritized the opportunity to hear from cooperative engineering students about their own understanding of socially responsible leadership and how they made sense of it in their engineering practice. This research study consisted of primarily a qualitative methodology due to the phenomenological emphasis in understanding the meaning of socially responsible leadership. Creswell (1998, p. 1) described qualitative research as a process of understanding that explores social or human problems. A constructivist approach to data collection was chosen and, therefore, the interactive process between participants and the researcher was recognized. Accordingly, this involved an interpretive approach, and hence the subjective experience of reality. Creswell (1998) stated that the only reality for a qualitative researcher was that which was real for the individuals involved in the research experience. The interpretations shared in the study were approached authentically by those who lived the meaningful experiences, and me, as the researcher, who wanted to learn more about their meaning making process (Guba and Lincoln, 1985). A combination of field research and an assessment inventory were used as data collection strategies for the study. The primary method of inquiry involved reflective interviews of the actual cooperative engineering students. The proposed study investigated the meaning of socially responsible leadership for cooperative engineering students. The primary research question that guided the study addressed: 42 o What does it mean to a cooperative engineering student to be a socially responsible leader? An additional research question consisted of: o What has influenced cooperative engineering students ’ understanding of socially responsible leadership? Again, through the results that emerged, I refrarned the research questions to the following: o What does it mean to become an engineer? 0 What has influenced cooperative engineering students ’ understanding of what it means to become an engineer? 0 To what extent, is socially responsible leadership important to an engineering students ’ identity as an engineer? Site Location The study occurred at a mid-west land grant research institution. The student enrollment was approximately 43,000, of which the majority of students were at the undergraduate level. The College of Engineering had approximately 2850 undergraduate students enrolled. Cooperative education experiences were encouraged but not mandatory, hence coop was an optional program available to students enrolled in any of the engineering majors. Students were eligible for cooperative education upon reaching sophomore status (28 credits). At the time of this study at this mid-west institution, 26 % of cooperative education students were women and 16 % were underrepresented students. Approximately 35% of the engineering students at the mid-west institution participated in the cooperative education program. From fall 2002 through summer 2004, over 400 43 engineering and computer science students participated in the college coop program with over 200 employers in business, government, and industry. The predominant coop model allows students to alternate semesters of on-campus study with semesters of off-campus coop employment. This system makes it possible for students to fully concentrate on their academics during class semesters and on their professional training during work semesters. Most participants work for the same employer in increasingly more challenging positions throughout the program. As a result, employers benefit from the ever-increasing expertise that the coop students bring to the job. In some cases, local employers have chosen to have their coop student work continuously, therefore, taking classes and doing both on a part-time basis. The College of Engineering at the mid-west institution site established a continuous quality improvement (CQI) process to assess the Cooperative Engineering Education Program late in the spring of 1995, when the Director participated in the Ford Motor Company - University Continuous Quality Improvement Symposium. Since fall semester 1995, this information was reported each semester to department chairs for their utilization. The coop staff regularly monitored feedback and implemented changes in curriculum, where appropriate. With the development of the ABET BC 2000 criteria, assessment materials were revised to reflect the new Criteria 3 program outcomes (a-k). The Cooperative Engineering Education Program Educational Objectives were consistent with the mission and goals of the University and the College of Engineering at the site institution. It was the intent of the coop staff to continue to gather evaluative comments from constituents in order to provide appropriate feedback to departments and incorporate quality changes into the coop program as appropriate. 44 Participants A purposeful sample of undergraduate cooperative engineering students was selected. Seidman (1991) identified that data collection should involve a purposeful selection of participants that strive to answer the research inquiry addressed in the study. This study sample consists of students with at least one cooperative engineering rotation experience. A rotation represents a semester (spring, summer, or fall) of work term experience with a company. Any cooperative engineering undergraduate student with at least one semester of work term rotation was invited to participate. Permission to study this population was obtained from the Cooperative Engineering Education staff and the University’s Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects. An invitation packet was sent to the eligible participants. In total, there were 184 eligible participants that were sent the invitation packet in the fall of 2005. The contents of the packet consisted of a letter that invited participation and described the study (Appendix D), an informed consent form (Appendix E), and a participant information form (Appendix F). Two copies of the informed consent form were included in the communication packet, one for students to keep for their own records and one to return to the researcher. The participant information sheet gathered demographic and general information related to the research study. Contact was also made with engineering faculty and staff members who worked with cooperative education students in order to generate a list of eligible students to invite. As well, incentive information was included in the invitation package for those who chose to participate in the study. Students that returned the information form and inventory were entered into a drawing for two 25 dollar gift certificates to the student 45 bookstore. The return rate however was not very high. Even after three follow-up (blind copy) email attempts, only 26 of the 184 inventories were returned (14%). Data Collection This study used two strategies for gathering data relevant to the research questions. The first was the administration of an inventory, the Socially Responsible Leadership Scale—Revised (SRLS-R), to measure the phenomenon of socially responsible leadership. This instrument operationalized the constructs of the Social Change Model of Leadership Development (National Clearinghouse for Leadership Programs, 2005; Tyree, 1998), which is recognized as one of the foremost measures of socially responsible leadership among students in higher education. In addition, the project encompassed a follow up interview protocol of ten cooperative engineering students who submitted the SRLS-R inventory. The invitation packet included the overall format of the study, provided an informed consent form, participant information sheet, distributed the Socially Responsible Leadership Scale-Revised (Appendix G), instructions for completing the SRLS-R (Appendix H), and discussed the possibility for participation in the follow-up individual interview. The informed consent process emphasized the voluntary nature of the study, informed of any aspects of the research that could affect the participant well- being, stated the audio taping process regarding data collection, made clear that participants as well as employer site locations would remain anonymous through the use of pseudonyms, and assured that participants could withdraw from participation at any point. 46 Socially Responsible Leadership Scale-Revised The Socially Responsible Leadership Scale-Revised (SRLS-R), an 84 item, Likert-type questionnaire, was used to inform the study in regard to participants’ understanding of socially responsible leadership. This instrurtrent provided a tool for understanding the Social Change Model of Leadership Development in particular contexts; in this case, coop engineering settings. Appendix B represents a diagram that summarizes the three levels and seven constructs of the Social Change Model of Leadership Development. Students completed the instrument and were scored on each of the constructs. All participants received the SRLS-R inventory and an instruction sheet for completing the SRLS-R inventory. Completion of the inventory took students about ten minutes. The scale was distributed in the invitation packet to all eligible participants. The results of the inventory identified candidates for the individual follow-up interviews. It was my intention to interview participants who scored high and low on the SRLS-R for further understanding and comparison purposes regarding the concept of socially responsible leadership. However, due to the low response rate (14%) of the inventories, it was challenging to do so. The inventories were assessed to determine high and low scores of the participants’ regarding the eight constructs of the SRLS-R form. Table 1 shows the compiled high and low construct scores. Those marked with an asterisk represent participants that chose to participate in the interview process. Individual Interviews The individual interviews were intended to provide participants an opportunity for reflection of their ‘meaningful lived experiences’ as related to socially responsible 47 leadership. Although there was an initial protocol guide (Appendix I), the individual interviews asked follow up questions based on the results of the SRLS-R inventory. One aspect of the individual interviews involved a check for accuracy of data presented in the first data collection experience. I Table 1. Summary of SRLS-R inventory high and low construct scores Highest Score Student Lowest Score Student Consciousness 44 Wendy* 30 James of Self Congruence 39 Ron 24 Kyle“ Commitment 44 Andrea“ 35 John* Jack“ Don“ Collaboration 52 Wendy* 32 Ron Common 53 Andrea* 39 Alex Pugpose Tom Controversy 48 Andrea“ 34 James with Civility Citizenship 56 Wendy* 25 . Alex Change 48 Andrea* 30 Susan James Mark" In approaching the interview process, Yin suggested various common skills that a researcher needs to be aware of: a) to ask good questions; b) to be a good listener; c) to be adaptive and flexible; d) to have a strong sense of the problem being studied; and e) to put preconceived assumptions aside (Sirkin, 1999, p. 56; Yin, 1984, pp. 56 — 57). The results of the inventory established the initial criteria for which students were invited to interview. At first, seven participants were invited from each of the high and low ends (a total of 14) regarding their individual construct scores on the SRLS-R inventory; however 48 a total of only five students agreed to be interviewed. At that point, more of the participants on the high and low ends were invited to participate in the interview. While twelve of the 21 invited students agreed to interview, only ten actually completed the interview process. From the students that were invited to interview on the low end of construct scores, three students chose to participate and six did not. While on the high end of construct scores, six students participated in interviews and five students did not. Due to an insufficient number of participants for the interview process, additional students were invited to participate. One of these students, Matt, agreed to participate even though his scores were not reflective of the high or low end of the constructs. The interviews were 30 minutes to 60 minutes in length and occurred in my office within the engineering college. Data Analysis Quantitative data was first collected from the SRLS-R inventory for the purpose of determining which participants to invite to be interviewed. In an effort to ensure confidentiality, participants’ names were replaced with pseudonyms. Individual interviews were audiotaped and transcribed for review and analysis, and descriptive and reflective notes were taken during the individual meetings. Glesne (1999) defined descriptive notes as portraits of the informants and a replication of the conversation, while reflective notes provided an opportunity for the researcher to account for personal thoughts, and perspectives throughout the engagement of research. Narratives and quotations were incorporated in the final research analysis, all identifying information regarding participants and cooperative work sites were disguised for confidentiality purposes. 49 Observational data occurred during individual interviews, which included verbal reactions to questions and non-verbal behavior. I listened and took notes throughout the interviews, including observations made regarding how students’ responded. Spradley (1979) suggested that the interviewer take condensed notes, or even maintain a fieldwork journal. The value of the notes contributed to the analysis of data once the interviews were completed. As researcher, I kept a journal throughout this study of descriptive (observations) and reflective (interpretations). The notes were summarized after each interview and initial themes were derived from the data. I verbatim transcribed four of the audio tapes, and had a professional transcriptionist transcribe the remaining six tapes. I reviewed the tapes for accuracy. From the initial notes themes, I organized the student transcriptions into categories based on the themes and coded the themes based on the research questions. Researcher Role For the field of engineering education, I recognized the desire for quantitative assessment. Therefore, the decision to use the SRLS-R inventory was an attempt to meet the needs of this audience, as well as serve as a selection strategy for diverse participant experiences. Unfortunately, due to the low response rate, the inventory was not used to inform the findings in this study, but instead to establish interview participant criteria. The qualitative approach involved research participant interaction and the interpretation of events by the researcher. “Qualitative researchers view individuals as collaborators or teachers from whom to learn rather than as subjects to be held at arm’s length and studied” (Krathwohl, 1993, p. 313). As qualitative methodology is grounded in phenomenology, the emphasis for my study consisted of understanding the meaning that 50 events have for the persons being studied (Patton, 1991, p. 390). Upcraft and Schuh (1996) stated that the [qualitative] researcher is the instrument of both data collection and data interpretation. Although qualitative research was indeed planned and intended, the nature of the design provided an emergent and transformational aspect of knowledge development that was obtained as the researcher interacted with the participants (Harlander, 1998, p. 45). In my role as researcher, I contributed over 16 years of experience working with undergraduate college students in various capacities of higher education, primarily in Student Affairs. Throughout my career, I taught classes on leadership development, as well as trained, supervised and mentored student leaders regarding leadership and community building skills. My current role as an Academic Advisor within the College of Engineering provided me with a window of opportunity to observe and understand the identified population without directly working with the engineering college cooperative education program. As Yin (1984) described, there are several common'skills an interviewer needed to be able to gain rich data throughout interviews. My own training and experience in counseling gave me a strong foundation for this type of qualitative inquiry. In approaching this study, I considered the significance of listening, as well as observation (Glesne and Peshkin, 1992; Patton, 1987). Assumptions of Researcher There were various assumptions that as a researcher I was cognizant of in approaching this study. First, the study assumed that participants’ cooperative education experience had some connection to society or a local community. Next, the assumptions regarding the qualitative approach were recognized. Creswell (1998) identified the 51 ontological, epistemological, and methodological (p. 5-6) assumptions, and I discuss them here in reference to my study. In regard to the ontological issue of that which was reality, it was important to recognize that the only reality of the study was that which was shared by the participants. Hence, multiple realities existed in any given situation. This assumption adhered to the equivocality of sensemaking regarding a need for values, priorities, and clarity that could differ based on participant experiences. The framework of sensemaking assumed that there was no right or wrong, or good or bad perspective; instead whatever the participant shared was his or her ‘meaningfirl lived experience’, and hence his or her reality. In regard to epistemological assumptions, as researcher, I recognized that I was the primary research tool through my interactions with the participants, specifically in the individual interview settings. Hence, my passion for the area of leadership development and social responsibility was identified as a bias as to how I approached this study. It was imperative for me as a researcher to not contribute my own values in aneffort to influence the participants in their responses and meaning making regarding socially responsible leadership. Lastly, methodological assumptions in the qualitative aspect of the study reiterated the inductive nature of interpretation and analysis of data. In other words, themes and meaning emerged from participants and were not prescribed by the researcher. As researcher, I assumed that social responsibility is valued in engineering education. As previously stated, my own professional development provides me with a strong foundation of leadership education experiences, as well as my commitment to the values of social responsibility and socially responsible leadership in our society. 52 Considering these characteristics, as the researcher, it was critical to draw on these strengths regarding my motivation for studying and further informing this area of scholarship. However, I remained in an observer role and did not entangle my own biases in voicing the meaning of the participants’ experiences. 53 CHAPTER FOUR Findings and Discussion This chapter answered the research questions: what does it mean to a cooperative engineering student to become an engineer? what has influenced cooperative engineering students’ understanding of what it means to become an engineer? And, to what extent, is socially responsible leadership important to an engineering students’ identity as an engineer? Understandings of these questions are explained through the perspectives and experiences of the students in this study. The concept of social responsibility is defined as a personal commitment to the well-being of people, a shared world, and the public at large (Berman and LaFarge, 1993, p.7; Komives, et al., 1998, p.15). As well, a recent study regarding the development of socially responsible leadership (SRL) in male undergraduates defined the term of socially responsible leadership as “ethically driven behavior that serves others and holds self and others accountable (and responsible) for their actions” (Harlander, 1998, p.43). My intention is to provide a context from which to analyze the participants’ reflection of their own ‘meaningful lived experience’ in relationship to their identity process of becoming an engineer, specifically related to issues of social responsibility and leadership development (Chickering and Reisser, 1993, p. 24). Chickering‘s seven vectors of student development are useful in helping frame the cooperative engineering participants’ understanding of becoming a professional and engineer. Many of the seven vectors are represented in the findings including: developing competence, developing interpersonal relationships, establishing identity, establishing autonomy, and developing 54 integrity. Weick’s (1995) concept of sensemaking also helps to analyze the students’ experiences in the study. Various themes have been identified through the data analysis. Each section begins with an overview of the major themes that emerged. Participants identified three levels of understanding regarding socially responsible leadership including: individual identity, relationship to others, and connection to the community. Participants, in their own words, related characteristics of social responsibility and leadership from their engineering perspective, even though the terms “social responsibility” and “leadership” were not that familiar to them. Cooperative Engineering Student Profiles Ten cooperative engineering education students were interviewed in this study. Of the students interviewed, eight had two or more cooperative education work experiences. Overall, the group was fairly diverse in gender representation including three women and seven men, actually higher than the percentage of women in the institution’s college of engineering (only 17%). Two students were considered underrepresented within the college, again somewhat higher than the college’s percentage of underrepresented students (11%). The majors of the participants also were representative and consisted of two in computer science, two in chemical engineering, two in electrical engineering, and four in mechanical engineering. Again this is reflective of the institutional demographics, since mechanical engineering is the largest department of students within the engineering college. Finally, the participants’ ages range across a continuum from 19 to 29 years old, as well as their status in college. Most students were senior level however; there were 55 also two sophomores and one junior participant. A brief introduction to each student interviewed is included below. Kgstg is a 22 year-old, Caucasian female, senior mechanical engineering student. She has had three work experiences at two different companies, one coop semester in an automotive setting and two semesters at a chemical company. At the chemical company, she was the leader of her projects and she supervised some specific tests at the automotive company. She also held leadership positions in two different engineering student organizations, serving as the student representative for the American Society for Mechanical Engineers and as an executive officer of Pi Tau Sigma, an honor society for Mechanical Engineers. Kristen stated that the supervisors she has worked for are individuals who she respects within the engineering profession because they have been in the field longer than she and they know more than she does. She wrote in her pre- interview questionnaire that being a leader “means holding complete responsibility of something and doing everything possible to reach the goal, for exampleinvolving others.” As for social responsibility, she stated that, “social responsibility is the responsibilities that you have to other people around you, such as work, community needs, and school, etc.” Lack, a 29 year-old Caucasian, mechanical engineering senior earned six semesters of cooperative education experience. He worked for three different companies, one regarding airplane construction, another with recycled paper and packing, as well as a transportation company. While at the airplane manufacturing company, he was an assembly engineer who worked with aircraft testing. His definition of being a leader entailed “having responsibility to a team and a project, helping to get things done, solving 56 problems, and promoting communication while giving praise and guidance.” His philosophy of social responsibility was, “helping who you can; when you can”, and he identified a co-worker at the aircraft testing company as one who he respects in the field of engineering. He believed he was a strong leader and that he had the respect and friendship of everyone with whom he worked. m is a 22 year-old, Caucasian female, chemical engineering senior student who had three cooperative education semesters for a chemical company. She has held a variety of previous leadership roles in two student organizations. In the Society of Women Engineers, she held three different executive board roles. She was also president of the ISPB (International Society of Pharmaceutical Engineers) group. In her coop experiences, she lead several projects, including creating a pump replacement, designing a liquid charge booth, and the study of gas filled pipes. She viewed the previous Dean of the College of Engineering as a role model and someone that she respects as an engineer. Andrea highlighted the former Dean’s ability to help students and be available to them as being a sign of a strong and affirrnative leader. She defined a leader as someone who “leads a group of people toward a common goal.” In addition, Andrea stated that, “being responsible for a community's health, safety, and the environment in which they live” is what social responsibility means to her. Wend , a 21 year-old, African-American female, senior electrical engineering major was assigned to two cooperative education experiences with a beverage industry company. She served as the Student Engineering Council advisory representative in which she represented all engineering student organizations. Her example of someone who she respects within engineering included her sister who is also an engineer. She 57 discussed that as an engineer, her sister, in a short time span had achieved a lot of goals that helped her to climb the corporate ladder steadily. Wendy’s understanding of being a leader is “a person who is willing to accept various ideas from a diverse group of people, as well as a goal setter and achiever.” She thought that being‘a leader also included one who was “determined to bring a group success.” She expressed the importance of social responsibility as being something that “means a lot to me ~ very important.” m is a 24 year-old, African-American male, sophomore mechanical engineering student. He just completed his first work semester with an aircraft engine company. During his college career, he has held an executive position within the student organization, the Adventist Fellowship group. He did not describe any group leader or project manager roles that he has had yet in his cooperative experience. He shared that one engineer who he respects was the CEO and Chairman of his coop company. He respected the way that the CEO “developed a culture of ethics and integrity, which was responsible for making the business a reputable and well-respected one.” Mark defined a leader as someone who is “mission-minded, results oriented, personable, and dedicated to achieving the common goal of an organization.” His view of social responsibility included “having an awareness or'concem of how issues affect others and a willingness to do my part in alleviating any adverse situations that may come as a result of such issues.” He also believed, “it refers to fostering strong social bonds within a community.” Kyle, a 22 year-old, Caucasian male, senior chemical engineering student, served two work semesters with a food production company. He had worked as a Residence Life Mentor on campus but did not mention other leadership experiences. Kyle articulated his perspective of being a leader as “being the first one who others go to, or being in control 58 of a group of individuals.” As far as social responsibility, he expressed a need to “make sure that what one does at a job or on a project does not affect any individual or group negatively.” m, a 24 year-old, Caucasian male, senior computer science and a dual Japanese major, offered a unique perspective. He worked at a computer company for three semesters, including spending time in an Asian country for at least one term. As a student or within his coop role, John did not share any previous leadership experiences. His definition of being a leader was, “taking the time to coordinate and direct a variety of people.” He also talked about a faculty member at his institution as someone in engineering that he respects. Lastly, he defined social responsibility as, “balancing the needs of society with the needs of an employer.” m is a 21 year-old, Caucasian male, junior computer science student who participated in one work term for an aluminum company. During his cooperative education experience, he was a co-manager for a database program. He stated that all questions regarding the system went through him, and that he was the trouble shooter for the program. Don stated as well, that he considered one of his faculty members who worked with data structures and algorithms to be someone in engineering who he greatly respected for his intelligence. In regard to being a leader, he stated that “it entails a high level of confidence and knowledge.” Don believed that, “if you have people looking up to you in your leadership position you must always portray a level of confidence.” He recognized that the confidence a leader shows can “help to drive the team and feel good about the situation.” As far as social responsibility, he emphasized “a level of responsibility outside of the technical aspects of your job or team.” As well, he stated 59 that, “it [social responsibility] seems to me that you should be responsible for your work on a technical level and then the other aspect would be social responsibility (i.e., getting along well with co-workers).” Emmy is a 22 year-old, Caucasian male, electrical engineering senior student who had worked two semesters for the same chemical company. An engineer who he respects is his supervisor from the chemical company due to this person’s ability to tell it like it is and be direct with his employees and customers. Tommy had a variety of past leadership experiences including serving as a chair for the IBEE (Institute of Electrical Electronics Engineers) organization, as well as leading a group project in his coop that investigated cost-savings techniques that were available in the chemical plant. He believed that being a leader meant, “Volunteering your time as much as possible for the areas in which are assignments you have delegated and will require your assistance.” As well, he stated that being a leader was about “knowing your objectives, obstacles, and tactics around those obstacles for your team.” He identified social responsibility as, “a community standpoint of taking the ‘greatest good for the greatest number of people’; standpoint on engineering problems and company issues.” Ma_tt, a 19 year-old, Caucasian male, mechanical engineering student, has already, as a sophomore, worked two semesters for an automotive safety systems company. He did not have any specific examples of campus leadership or project manager roles in his coop experience. Matt identified that being a leader to him, meant “doing and instructing others to do what is best for the project or the group.” An engineer who he respects is his father because he believes he is willing to fight for what will be the best and safest product, no matter how pressured he may be regarding cost-efficiency issues. As far as 60 social responsibility, he described it to be “acting in a way that would only improve the society as a whole.” Overall, the ten students that chose to interview (interviewees) seemed to be a diverse representation of the 26 students that returned the SRLS-R inventory forms (survey group). The age range of the survey group was from 19-29 years old, with the mode being 22 years old. Four of the interview participants were age 22. Five survey participants were considered underrepresented, and two of the interviewees were underrepresented. Nine of the 26 were female, and 3 of the nine chose to participate in the interview. As far as year in school, 18 of the 26 were seniors, six were juniors, and two were sophomores. The interview participants included seven seniors, one junior, and two sophomores. Finally, the majors were not as representative, because of the 26 that returned their forms, three were civil engineering, one was applied engineering science, and one was computer engineering and none of students in those majors chose to be interviewed. Regarding the ten students that were interviewed, the majors were representative of the remaining majors that participated in the survey: two of seven electrical engineering, two of three computer science, two of four chemical engineering, and four of eight mechanical engineering students participated in the interviews. Findings and Discussion Several themes emerged from the participants regarding their understanding of what it means to become an engineer, as well as the participant’s meaning of socially responsible leadership in their role as an engineer. These themes included aspects of identity development, professional competency, the identification of socially responsible behavior, and the ability to make sense of leadership. In order to explore the themes that 61 emerged, I suggest the conceptual model in Figure 1. This model is not meant to be comprehensive, but instead to help understand and organize the levels of awareness and the influence of change regarding the students’ identity development of becoming an engineer, as well as their understanding of socially responsible leadership in relation to their identity as an engineer. In addition, another research question identified the factors that influenced individuals’ understanding of becoming an engineer. The following further explores my meaning making of the data. Identity Development As college age students, there were elements of student development that influenced their experience of becoming an engineer and understanding socially responsible leadership. The students spent a lot of time talking about who they are, why they chose engineering as a profession, and what they believed their role is in making the quality of life better for society. It appeared essential for some to take the time to know who they were and what they believed in order to live up to the high expectations they had for themselves as engineers. Participants resonated with the concept of ethical issues and provided examples they observed in their work settings where ethics were questioned. As students began to express their own understanding of social responsibility; ethics, professionalism, and social accountability were referenced while leadership seemed to be less familiar to them, especially their own experiences as a leader. New engineers experience a transitional process of maturity and growth that includes their personal and professional identity development. This study also involved the identification of leadership development and the participants’ ability to see themselves as leaders, recognize leadership in others, and describe what being a socially 62 I “ ' Identity | | I Development 1 I r ‘ I \_’ Professional \ ~ Competency ’ ~---" Socially Responsible ‘ ~ Behavior Society Figure 1. Conceptual Model, Identification of becoming an engineer 63 - ' ----'-’ responsible leader means to them. Due to the complex nature of the concept of socially responsible leadership, it was essential for students to first address their own personal process of identity development and values clarification. Through the interview process the students reflected on their experiences and compared themselves to peers and coworkers. Students grounded their understanding of social responsibility and leadership in their own personal values and belief systems. As well, their work experiences, family background, and peer influence established a foundation for them to explore the phenomenon of social responsibility. The data showed evidence of student learning in relation to identity development. Students also struggled to recognize the concept of social responsibility. However, they understood their role as being ethical stewards of behavior and decision making. Cognitively, students were able to identify leadership as they saw it happening in their coop, classes, and within their peer group. But, most were challenged to view themselves as leaders. They realized the overwhelming nature of the responsibility that they have as engineers, especially related to prioritizing safety needs for themselves and for members of society. It seemed comfortable for the participants to reference their role as ‘student’, and, not yet at a professional level to conceive of making life and death decisions. However, they recognized that other engineering professionals around them assumed that level of responsibility. The students acknowledged that as they grow as professionals, learn more about their field, and gain additional experience, they would eventually move into those types of roles. As students shared aspects of their own learning process, their comments reflected some of the learning outcomes from Learning Reconsidered (2005) including 64 issues of cognitive development, intrapersonal and interpersonal competence. Cognitive development was important for understanding the complex nature of social responsibility and leadership experiences in one’s role as an engineer. The students stated that the discussion of social responsibility issues were’important to them, but not something that they had much practice in doing. The interviews in this study provided an opportunity for students to step back from their coop and to think more critically about social responsibility and leadership for them and what it means to be an engineer. The students were encouraged to make meaning of their experiences as they began to identify as a professional and engineer. Students identified characteristics that shaped their self- identity including their own socialization process, ethical development, and their own internalized professional identity development process. Socialization Process To be happy in whatever I do and do the right thing always. Mien you see things that are not in line with your morals and just things that you feel are not the norm. If you ’re following protocol, yeah, that ’s fine, but if anything ’s shady under the table, it should not be accepted. (Wendy) One aspect of identity development includes one’s socialization process consisting of family background and the influences of peer culture. How one is raised regarding cultural, religious, and family values can influence who one becomes and how one interacts with others. Experiences from one’s upbringing can shape personal values and decisions as an adult and professional. Students seemed happy with their chosen profession of engineering and this seemed relevant to their ability to perform to the expectations of the profession, as well as their own personal standards. Although Wendy did not mention any specific examples of social responsibility in her cooperative education experience, she saw others make decisions of questionable morals in her 65 personal upbringing. As an international student, she described seeing others in her country do questionable things for the money involved. It was important for her to be honest and act with integrity in regard to decisions that impact the community. She expressed the need to take a closer look at the environment that she was raised regarding who she is and for what she currently stands. Wendy: Sometimes, I’ve seen it in my country, where people are subjecting themselves to do corrupt things, just because they want to make a quick buck, but at the end of the day, some engineers back home, when you take all this quick money just to get a contract that you ’re not experienced in, you either cause danger to the community, making people die on roads that you don’t build with quality materials. So it’s very important to be honest at all times. Wendy spoke of her experience in absolute terms, for example “doing the right thing always” and “being honest at all times.” Her personal values of honesty and ethics seemed to drive her approach to engineering. She also recognized that when you cut corners or do not follow the proper protocol, people can die. Therefore, she wanted to make sure that she did everything in her power to set a good example and do what is best for the company and the customer. The students in the study shared that their values may sometimes be challenged by their peers, and identified the impact that their peer culture has had on establishing themselves as engineers. Students expressed concern about peers that lacked work experience in order to understand the significance of their responsibility as an engineer. They also were concerned about instances of peers cheating or not contributing to the team or project. It was important to these students to be viewed as someone that is respected for the work that they do, to be thought of as reliable and dependable, and to not be perceived as someone that tries to get by through doing the bare minimum. 66 When asked if students’ thought their peers received similar messages about social responsibility and leadership, there seemed to be an overwhelming response of “no” by students. Participants stated that they did not believe that other students left campus with the same understanding of social responsibility. Wendy suggested that students come from diverse backgrounds, implying that how one is raised and socialized can influence their identity as an engineer and their understanding of social responsibility. Another student stated that he did not believe that every engineering student realized the value of social responsibility. John identified the significance of realizing that actual people use the products created by engineers and that engineers have the potential to enrich the lives of others. However, he expressed that his peers may not see this value until gaining experience and growing in their own development. John: I think it’s one of those things that you don ’t see the value of it until you get experience but, I think everybody would get to that point sooner or later. I think that engineers have to realize that there are actual people using the things that they create and that the company that they .work for is part of a larger organization. But I think in some cases we do want people to be competent, but realize that this is actually going to be applied to enrich people ’s lives and I think that perspective would make you a better engineer. Some students realized that the work of engineers can be thought of to have an impact on several levels: self, others, and even the society. Kristen discussed her concern about seeing her peers cheat, focusing on their own needs and not realizing how their choices affect others. Kristen: I think that being responsible separates people into groups. In respect to what level are you looking at, there are the people that are looking at everything and how it aflects them (individually), and then there are those people that look at how it aflects others. And then there’s people like me that I ’m paranoid that I am going to blow up the town. I’ve always been sensitive toward other people and other people ’5 reactions — something that I have just done. I care what other people think 67 It was important for her to think about her personal decisions and what they say about her to others. She was disappointed in peers who did not do their own work or just do the minimum to get by and felt a lack of respect from them. She believed that a person’s integrity significantly influenced his/her ability to be socially responsible, and shared that, “I definitely think that a lot of people, they care about themselves. They continuously cheat. You know you are only hurting yourself in the end.” Kristen felt these situations happened more often than she expected and so thought it was important to talk about ethical behavior in classes. Ethical Development Socially responsible, it comes back again to that same ethics thing. I guess I strive for the highest levels of professionalism which would mean obviously working your hardest. I think as well when you’re dealing in a competitive environment one needs to be mindful that your allegiance is your duty to the company. That you ’re working to see it guiding the company, you know. (Mark) Their personal identity development process was important for individuals to be able to start to view themselves as professionals. As the profession of engineering intersects with societal expectations, it is critical for individual engineers to have a clear vision of their own personal values and ethics, which shape how they perform or respond to the needs of the community. Students identified ethics, integrity, and ethical decision- making as aspects of social responsibility. Some students shared absolutistic views, “always doing the right thing” and “being honest all the time.” As early, less experienced coop students, these more dualistic “right or wrong” perspectives were understandable and paralleled Perry’s (1970) early stages of moral development. More experienced students shared their perspectives of relativism, through learning that problem-solving behaviors that can be extrapolated from one situation to another. Hence, students were 68 encouraged to learn from one situation in order to be better educated to handle the next, also representing the later stages of Perry’s model of moral development. Overall, they shared that knowledge gained in one situation could be used to inform other diverse circumstances. Many different examples of ethics were shared by the participants in regard to the proper use of money, the need to inform the public, and the priority of maintaining safety in the work setting or designing of products. Students had multiple examples of ethical lessons that they learned from their own experiences, observations of others, and historical incidents of the past. Although students in this study did not connect with the terms of “social responsibility” or “socially responsible leadership” per se, they articulated an understanding of socially responsible behavior that tied closely to ethical decision-making and professionalism as an engineer. Another student, Tommy, reflected on his experiences and how he anticipated handling some challenging ethical situations. He took into consideration community needs and expectations regarding his behavior as an engineer. Tommy also felt it was important for him to not assume that someone else would take care of safety issues. He recognized his duty to step up and take responsibility as needed, especially related to ethical standards. I Tommy: I think it’s all about professionals and ethics. 1 think they - the community would want me to behave in a way that ’s good for them. But you learn, maybe this didn ’t get taken care of and then there ’s this gas leak over here. You think someone ’s going for sure to probably take care of it, but if nobody does then who? - even if it means risking my job, it would be something I ’d do because I’d want someone else to do that too. Tommy discussed his knowledge of the questionable past of the company with which he worked. He shared a serious incident that occurred in the past involving dioxins in the 69 local river. He said, “the company’s in the news all the time for their dioxin incident.” He expressed how the company learned from that experience and dramatically changed its practices, “they have completely done a 180 degree turn and gone the other way on environmental standards.” To Tommy, this example represented the company’s value of social responsibility and a desire to show leadership in this respect, even if it meant admitting mistakes. Another aspect of ethical behavior involved having a sense of integrity. Students viewed this as a quality for individuals to aspire to have, and it has been described elsewhere as one of the most essential qualities of successful engineers (McCarthy, 2000). It was important for students in this study to establish their reputation as someone that could be counted on to get the job done. For example, one student talked about the importance of doing what you say you are going to do. He maintained his credibility and talked about the need to “walk the walk, and talk the talk.” Proving to be trustworthy and reliable was very important to the students as they began to think of themselves as professional engineers because they realized that engineers are in a position for others to trust them. They believed that they should have the best interests of others in mind. This focus on integrity, specifically related to ethical decision-making was tied to how the students thought about being socially responsible in their profession. The students’ professional identity development encouraged the identification and integration of their own personal values. Mark talked passionately about the role of ethics in the field of engineering. He understood through his training, as well as his own sense of self, that an engineer is often in a powerful position to make decisions that can have consequences of grave misfortune 70 or great success. He realized that the power is in the hands of each individual engineer as they approach different decisions. He expressed his own learning from Enron-type of incidents, especially his responsibility to a company to which he made a commitment to be a loyal employee. 0 Mark: Trustworthy is one, I think because the ethics comes in again you know, knowledgeable in the area that I ’m in, eflicient and I guess, results oriented because pretty much society just wants someboay to get the job done. He felt a sense of trust placed on him even as an engineering student. Mark understood the serious responsibility that he assumed as an engineer and stated, “I guess it is based on the power, and freedom that we have too, it is not like anyone is over your shoulder - you know with a gun.” These were responsibilities of which he took ownership and approached very seriously. Also, he reflected on how some past major incidents in engineering or business influenced his understanding of responsibility within a company. Mark realized that one person’s mistake or desire to be selfish in business can have a seriousimpact including destroying an individual’s or company’s reputation. In addition, legal consequences can occur. Especially for new professionals, students felt the credibility of a company must be a priority. In regard to performing with integrity and ethics, individuals discussed the importance of considering the complexities of each situation, the ability to take action through confronting others, and to be able to prioritize the needs of oneself, one’s company and one’s society. Students’ meaning making process about issues of social responsibility incorporated their ability to take action and improve their work environment, especially if they saw inappropriate behavior. The ability to confront others was also a concern because of their “student “status even though they were employees. 71 As students, their confidence level was not as strong, therefore, creating a state of dissonance for confronting behavior of others that may have been working at the company for many years. A need for self-preservation, as a newcomer to the organization, was expressed, while trying to act with the best of intentions for the welfare of others. To establish a reputation as a socially responsible engineer, one must learn to balance the needs of oneself, the company, and society. An example of balancing the needs of all the different constituents includes the response to ethical dilemmas. Therefore, if an individual witnessed someone else making a mistake or doing something thought to be inappropriate, it would be the student’s responsibility to confront the behavior. For some this may be a challenge, due to a desire not to burn bridges while at the same time trying to establish oneself as a newcomer to the organization. However, in the end students agreed that it was more important to address inappropriate behavior because of the potential consequences that can impact others or the public at large. In regard to being socially responsible, the need to put others first, especially above one’s own personal needs was of critical importance. Andrea also discussed the significant sense of responsibility to speak up and take action if and when witnessing inappropriate behavior in the workplace and around issues of safety. She realized that her reputation was at stake because of the decisions she made, and believed, “if you see something being performed badly, you’re actually responsible for that.” Andrea goes on to say, I learned that if you do see unsafe acts that it ’s definitely best to speak up at the time that they’re happening. If the person just isn’t aware that they aren ’t following proper protocol then you should definitely let them know because you’re responsible. I guess it’s also being socially responsible, 72 because if you see something performed incorrectly, you’re responsible for that person ’5 safety too; so tell them and intervene. Internalized Professional Development Understanding what are my responsibilities and how best I can execute those, kind of the SWOT analysis - the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. ( Mark) In the initial stages of viewing themselves as professionals, the identity development process for students in this study included internal and more external aspects. Internally, students identified that self-reflection occurred regarding the understanding of their personal values, as related to the professional that they strived to be. On the other hand, more externally, students’ professional identity was influenced by the expectations of others, as well as the skills and competencies that they were expected to acquire. This is similar to what Michael Loui (2005) found in a recent study when he identified characteristics of engineers’ professional identity development in which individuals internalized their social responsibilities into their professional identities. Professional identity is shaped by an individual’s values, beliefs, and past experiences. Professional identity development for these students involved a self-check inventory, recognition that one’s decisions have consequences that impact self and others, and an understanding of how one wants to be perceived regarding reputation and work ethic. Matt shared his understanding of having a strong work ethic. Matt: The other coop that I worked with when I first started working - they always said, “she ’s really good, you have some big shoes to fill. ” Once I started working with her — it seemed like she was always on the computer, always taking a long lunch, buying bagels for the technicians, everybody loved her — cause she ’d do that. But then — a lot of things she did — she would leave at 3:30pm — you know cut out early. I never said anything. It kind of bugged me — seeing people cut early and not working, and going on the internet maybe not the best work ethic. 73 When asked about confronting these behaviors, Matt talked about the need for self- preservation. He understood his current role was as a coop student employee, and did not want to burn any bridges, although he thought that once he was in a full-time position, he would not hesitate to confront questionable behaviors. Students also described the importance, as a professional, of putting others first and acting with the best interests of society in mind. This is similar to Komives, Lucas, and McMahon (1998)’s definition of social responsibility as a personal commitment to the well-being of others, a shared world, and the general public. Students discussed the need to know themselves and honestly admit their own personal strengths and weaknesses as professionals. In knowing what one can and cannot do, there is more of a chance of asking for help when necessary. When students can step aside and relinquish authority or control for the good of others or the project, they are exhibiting a high level of social responsibility and leadership. The students believed that it is not about one’s ego, but instead about what is best for the project or team. Mark talked of his own strengths and weaknesses as an emerging engineer. Through a self-inventory, he realized it is important to know what he can do and to recognize that for which he may need assistance. In this way, he is able to act with the highest level of ethics and responsibility, which is his intention. He recognized that his beliefs about being an engineer were reinforced once he came to college and learned what was really expected. Mark: It’s not until the rubber hit the road and I actually saw what is involved. I got a much clearer picture of what is out there -- and I guess I aim for the highest levels of proficiency and high ethics. 74 Finally, another element of beginning to identify as a professional engineer for these students included a willingness to learn and recognize that they are not expected to have all the answers. Kristen discussed that being competent was not based on one’s intelligence about engineering, but rather “the effort that you put forth and whether you are willing to learn and ask questions when you don’t know things.” Kristen: I have always tried to set my level of what you should know a little bit higher than the company. They want you to know the basics, and they want you to know when you don’t know. So be willing to ask questions — and learn. They would rather have you ask more questions than mess up. Professional Competency As discussed previously, internal values are one aspect of professional identity development. Another element includes activities that are more externally driven. For example, acquired skills and company imposed expectations were described in this study in relation to a students’ professional development. Students shared various professional competencies that they were learning including knowledge of the profession, the ability to make decisions on behalf of self and others, technical and non-technical skills, and the ability to work in a diverse setting. As well, the students related work culture dynamics and expectations to their professional competency. Developing Competence Being a competent engineer - I don’t even think has to do with how smart you are necessarily. It has to do with the eflort that you put forth and whether you are willing to learn and ask questions when you don’t know things. (Kristen) Students reflected on their own understanding of competence as it related to being a professional engineer. As Kristin shared self-doubts about her ability to be good enough, others talked about the way they strived to hold themselves to a higher standard 75 than their peers. Andrea, Matt, and Kyle all emphasized the need to try harder than everybody else, especially as a new employee. Andrea saw herself as the new expert in the company, and took this role very seriously. As a result, she held herself to high standards of what she knew and could bring to a company. She also recognized the importance of doing research, and being accurate and complete in her investigation. Andrea: I j ust wanted to make sure that what I did didn ’t have any holes in it. That was most important to me — to feel that I was knowledgeable about the subject, more knowledgeable than everybody else about it. Others addressed the importance of knowing themselves well enough, and also knowing when they should reach out and ask for help. As a sense of professional responsibility, students were adamant that it was more important to ask for help, rather than to make a mistake. From a student learning perspective, the competencies identified by the students in this study as relevant to becoming a professional engineer were similar to those identified in Learning Reconsidered (Keeling, 2004). At the same time, as students began to establish identities as professionals, they realized that they are in a role in which they are considered “the expert.” As some described the need to have a level of expertise and knowledge, they also understood that having confidence in their skills and abilities was important in establishing their reputation as newcomers to the organization. Matt: Well, to know what you are doing and to do it right. And don ’t just do the job halfivay. T 0 do the best job that you can; make sure all your data is good; to work well with others; take all ideas into consideration in order to come out with the best technique possible. You want to make sure that you always do it right, have it on time, and don’t mess up. 76 Matt believed that his coop experience was an extended job interview. Hence, he shared the value of making a difference through his decisions and strived to do his best because he knew he might later be considered for future full-time employment. Some students discussed doubts about their abilitiesand Kristen suggested that most students periodically question “if they are good enough.” She thought that being a competent engineer is not just about how smart you are but, instead about the level of effort you put forth. She stated, “I hope that I would be able to be a competent engineer. I think that is a big fear for probably every graduating senior.” Kristen told me about the fears that were in the back of her mind, including not wanting to fail as a professional. She admitted that she was somewhat nervous and continued to second guess if she was capable as an engineer. She knew that she needed more experience to develop confidence and she had given a lot of thought to who she wants to be as an engineer. Kristen: So having a grasp of the basics in order to learn and pick up quickly. I think it can be small mistakes up to large mistakes. I mean working for a chemical company — you could blow up half of the town if it was that big of a mistake. I think the less competent you are — the more you have to rely on other people - and people (at the company) see that. The students’ recognition of their own level of confidence and sense of competence reflects Chickering and Resisser’s (1993) student identity model. Students talked about how, as their confidence increased, their level of competence became stronger, in turn encouraging a trust in their abilities. This is very similar to Chickering’s findings regarding competence in students’ development. In this study, the students identified many examples related to professional competence that occurred during their coop experiences, such as collaborative problem solving, shared decision-making, critical and reflective thinking, questioning what is 77 taken for granted including organizational norms, making inferences that enable them to learn how to learn and solve problems, a climate of mutual respect, and learning through mentoring, coaching and small group work. These learning experiences identified by the students in this study are similar to Jack Mezirow’s principles of learning in the workplace that were drawn from adult work settings (Marsic, 1987). Some of these same learning principles, such as problem-solving, analytical and technical skills, were also foundational in the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology Criteria 3 outcomes (ABET, 2000) that intended to promote various professional competencies for engineering students. Although not every student achieved every aspect of professional competence at the time of this study, they were aware of the need to develop technical and non-technical skills in order to be a responsible engineer and enter into the profession. In many ways, it appears that there may be congruence between professional competency indicators not only for emerging engineers but across professions and adults in the workplace. Decision-Making Role T 0 keep everything on task —and take some level of responsibility for it — you ’re going to affect the whole program — and then you are going to get in trouble and then the guy behind you would get in trouble; and your manager would be like why is my engine program behind. (Jack) I observed that students understood their role as a problem-solver. They took that responsibility very seriously, and recognized that their decisions did indeed have consequences. As well, some students talked about the mentality of engineering (having to see the big picture), and that whatever decision they make will have far reaching implications. Kyle remembered an example about when he was in Mexico and was the one in charge on site. He talked about being able to consult with other engineers by 78 phone, but he was the one there making the decisions. His decisions were cost effective and saved the company money on the project. Hence, he approached the experience as a leader and took into account social responsibility in his decisions. Kyle: In Mexico, I went down for the set up and the head engineer and the design group couldn ’t make it with me. So I was the design support person. There were other departments there, but I was the design guy. There were a few complications that we didn ’t expect. We had to make minor changes; I had to make the final decisions. He talked of this experience as one in which he served as a leader. He knew that the project depended on him and his decision-making. This seemed to have been a transformative experience for Kyle. Since others reported to her, Kristen identified a hierarchy regarding her role as a decision-maker. She understood the responsibility for setting goals and priorities for the project assigned, as well as leading other members of the group. Kristen: I would say in my first coop with the chemical company — I had an electrician that worked under me because we were doing spare parts. So it was me that set the goals and the timeline and what we were actually doing. I was given the project but he was working with me on the project, but it was me that was saying — okay now today we need to focus on this. A significant aspect of decision-making for these students incorporated issues of life and death decisions that they recognized as a part of their responsibility as an engineer. Students understood the potential for making mistakes and the serious consequences that could occur. Tommy talked about an incident at his former cooperative location in which someone was electrocuted. He realized his own lack of awareness in taking for granted the safety and security of the work environment, and as a result, he now emphasized the need to understand his responsibility for the decisions be made. Andrea referred to the importance of acting with the engineering code of conduct 79 in mind. She understood her responsibility to herself and to others, while prioritizing her professional duties. Issues of decision-making for her and others were influenced by the NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers (McCarthy, 2000). Students believed that they must approach their work as engineers with the safety and welfare of the public in mind, as well as to perform their job in an honest and truthful manner. Finally, the students expressed the need to conduct themselves responsibly, ethically, and lawfully in an effort to enhance the reputation, and usefulness of the profession. Matt discovered that deciding who to ask for help is just as important as knowing when to ask for help. It was important for him to go the extra mile to seek assistance for the betterment of the company and the success of the project. On one project, he ran tests and believed that there was something wrong with a seal. So, his team approached another engineer who did not seem to care or be helpful. He realized that not all co- workers approach their job in the same way and may not always be helpful or invested. He also felt that he needed to do what it takes to get the job done right. Through his problem-solving skills, he decided to seek input from another engineer. Matt: So I went and talked to this other engineer. He was a younger guy — more like our age. He was on the same project. So I told him and he said ‘thanks for telling me; you know that other guy, he ’s not very good. He doesn ’t really care’. He only had us run parts and of course they failed. I told the other guy. And he found out what the problem was and he went and got it fixed So just doing a little extra; just going to tell someone else in the group that there was a problem; I think it helped. For Matt, it was important to get his project checked out. He recognized his own limitations and knew that he needed assistance. Finally, he ended up going to someone he respected in order to get the job done. He spoke as though he hoped that others would one day see him in the role as the “go to” person. 80 Non- Technical Skills I would say your ability to work well with other people. I think a lot of those work situations you know you can get to know people a little bit better and they can give you some insight on other people ’s lives and ways of thinking. And I think if you keep that in mind as you work you ’ll probably be able to make a difference. (John) A variety of non-technical skills identified by the participants included: communication skills, working in a team setting, and working with others that are diverse. Their emphasis on these skills in relation to professional competency and human relations abilities reflected some of the learning outcomes that the Accreditation Board for Engineering Technology (2000) identified as important for engineering graduates. The students recognized that non-technical skills were as important as their knowledge and abilities in the science, technology and technical fields. Being able to communicate with others, to establish themselves in a multi-disciplinary team, and to understand the impact of engineering in the context of society were all significant non-technical competencies identified by the students. Although these are also sometimes referred to as “soft skills” and seen by some as less important to engineering practice (Shuman, Besterfield-Sacre, and McGourty, 2005), for the students in this study their ability to perform non-technical skills contributed to their overall understanding of being socially responsible. The findings of this study provided many examples of students addressing the importance of communication skills as an engineer. Students discussed the need to interact with others in the workplace in order to get the job done. Trust was also mentioned as part of communicating with others on whom you have to rely to complete 81 the work successfully. Don shared that communication was very critical in his role because he worked from home. Don: They really expect a lot of me. There’s no one standing over me, so I’ve really got to take a lot of it on myself to make sure I keep organized, keep track of everything that I’m doing. Communication is real big, because I don ’t see anyone I work with, so 1 really need to make sure I ’m always letting everyone know what I’m doing, how I’m progressing. A lot of it is just the managing of myself Along with trust, another characteristic of communication skills is rapport building to create an environment in which you respect each other, regardless of your role, as Tommy’s supervisor encouraged him to do. Being able to communicate and work with others is essential to successful task completion for an engineer. In the NSPE report (McCarthy, 2000), an industry vice president stated that he thought “the greatest single factor for advancement is communication skills”, and yet, he believed that “people who communicate well are extremely hard to find” (p. 36). Given the essential quality of communication skills for success as an engineer, it appears that the students in this study are at least aware of the importance of this skill and the things that contribute to its development. Another non-technical competency was the ability to work in a team. There were multiple references in the data to the importance of teamwork and being able to work with others different than you. Working in teams underscores the need for engineers to interact and communicate the goals and objectives of a project in order to meet and even exceed expectations of the company or customers. As one experiences a team of diverse members, it is typical that conflict may occur. Therefore, it is important for engineer to learn to interact with others that are different than themselves, and to deal productively with conflict. Conflict can aid in helping co-workers see and experience things from a 82 different perspective, and the creativity of diverse droughts can lead to new ideas, innovative products, and future inventions. The students emphasized the need to not only be able to work with coworkers, but also to connect with those outside of the company like customers or clients. The students’ beliefs mirrored the NSPE report (McCarthy, 2000) that referred to teamwork as an important quality because no one works in a vacuum anymore. Other aspects of teamwork that were highlighted through the interviews consisted of understanding the work culture, promoting an inclusive environment, treating others with respect, and learning from others. Students expressed their knowledge about the work culture and how the “rules” of the environment can sometimes direct how people interact. Jack shared a specific example of learning to navigate the boundaries in working with management and union staff in his coop experience. He discovered quickly that he had to work within the parameters of his work setting and the different tasks for which individuals were responsible. Jack’s experience made him realize that, as an engineer you will often be in situations to work with others that may not be engineers in order to complete a job. He understood that each person brought a level of expertise to a project experience, and in order to complete an assignment in a timely and efficient manner, everyone had to work together and contribute. Jack: Because you are on the floor and are working with mechanics, the design engineer and another person fiom instrumentation. Someone focuses on designing it, someone on how you are going to test it, and someone focuses on where you get on the wires. So you work with all three of those guys — and you hopefully get a pretty good idea of what you can do. Jack also shared an example of understanding the cultural dynamics of the work setting. He described the challenges of working in a unionized shop and that it was 83 important for him to know his place and standing in that environment. He observed that it was sometimes hard to communicate between members of the union and those in management, and discussed learning this lesson early on in his coop experience. Jack was trying to complete a simple task, but soon realized that there were rules be needed to abide by in order to get the job done. He learned quickly that he had to find a way to work within the parameters that were a part of that work culture. Jack: In my first week, one of the things that I had to do was get a bag of bolts moved from one cart to the next cart, literally about 1 0 feet away. It was a challenge because you can’t move them — you just can ’t do it. So you go around and talk to people like Tony and you ask him to move these bolts over to column C, and he says -oh that’s not my job — that’s an R1 7,'so who’s an R1 7? Jack was really frustrated with this learning experience, but also realized that he could connect with others no matter what their position in an effort to create a more inclusive environment. He said, “Usually what I like to do is mix and match and talk with everybody. And the only thing that I can say that kind of made a difference is that when I left it [the line between management and the union members] wasn’t as defined anymore.” He believed that it was important to abide by cultural norms, but also found it necessary to look for alternative routes to get the job done. He learned a valuable lesson regarding treating others with a sense of respect regardless of what position they served. He believed that more work could be done in a timely and efficient manner when working together and discussed his ability to engage people on different levels, which opened up the lines of communication. Jack showed signs of inclusive leadership as Nemerowicz and Rosi described (1997). They believed that inclusive leadership involved the ability to work and learn collaboratively; to use skills of problem- solving and conflict 84 resolution in diverse settings with people of different backgrounds; and the ability to encourage broad-based participation. He chose to model collaboration in his interactions with others and encouraged shared ownership of the goals of the group in order to get the job done. I Additional qualities of teamwork shared by the students included depending on others, managing the group, and learning from others. All of these were expressed as part of what made teams, and therefore, engineers effective and productive on the job. The importance of teams and teamwork was earlier reflected in David Goldberg’s (1995) book, Life Skills and Leadership for Engineers. As an engineer himself, he addressed the key qualities that were important for engineers to be successful, including strong human relations skills. Goldberg especially talked about the need for engineers to work in teams and understand the importance of seeing things through the eyes of others. Then as now, collaborative working relationships through teamwork and inclusive leadership are noted as central professional competencies needed by effective engineers. Multicultural Competence I think be willing to work with other people who might have difirerent backgrounds in terms of what they studied and what their job is. As a map student in an Asian country, I taught English to others there. Obviously I was one of the only Americans there but even in terms of the engineering site people had different backgrounds. (John) Students discussed the value of understanding diversity issues when working with others in groups, and the various influences that affected how they interacted with each other as an engineer. The results showed that the participants experienced many different kinds of diversity in their classes and work environment. Many students spoke of working with others that were different from them in terms of age, race, engineering or 85 non—engineering, years of engineering experience, years at the company, and engineering functional areas. The students’ understanding of diversity related to Nemerowicz and Rosi’s (1997) definition of social responsibility, specifically having a sense of the common good. As the students discussed their role in acting on behalf of society, they believed it was important to be fair, just, and ethical in their behavior. Although one student acknowledged his diversity as an international student, most students did not express diversity as racial, ethnic, or cultural differences. John: I was a student and I was someone fiom another country too. So I did other things like I taught English classes and my boss would talk to me about what kind of things were going on in America. So being able to interact with people from another culture and let them know that we’re not all weird or we don’t all have guns or something like that. I had that role. John’s perspective and experience of diversity in the workplace was quite different as a result of this coop experience. He spoke not only of international and ethnic differences, but also of age differences and the number of years that colleagues had been at the company. As a computer science cooperative student, he went to the Asian country without much experience, which became clear to him when he met coworkers that had been at the company for 20 years. Most students’ references to diversity related more to age factors, length of time at the company, and different status of workers in the work culture. Another aspect of working in a diverse group involved dealing with conflict. The results of my study identified the need for conflict management skills to be included in the curriculum. As part of being an ethical engineer, students spoke of the reality of having to confront others in the work setting if they thought an inappropriate decision was made. Although it was evident that the students knew and believed that it was 86 necessary to address the behavior, the consequences of confronting others that had been at the company for a number of years made individuals cautious in handling conflict. Andrea talked about how individuals at work expressed different perspectives. Even though conflict could occur, Andrea believed it was critical to keep the needs of the company in mind. Andrea: Everyone wants an opinion in the workplace too, so meetings take a lot longer. Besides, you don ’t get all that when you ’re a student; I mean, you do get some of the conflict resolution to start off with, but things in the workplace are more normal. They ’re not your fiiends; they’re not your classmates. Especially when I was cooping, everyone was older than me, so it ’s diflerent working with your peers versus people who are a lot older than you that have been doing this for several years. Andrea’s reflections identified boundary issues with co-workers. She knew that the bottom line was to get the job done and that it was not about being friends with others. She also expressed the need to recognize her standing in the work setting as a new employee. Andrea understood that it was different than working with her peers, and that she could learn a lot from those around her that had been with the company for many years. She recognized the importance of being able to interact and coordinate with those across different functions in order to complete the goals of a project. Andrea: Learning how to work with people in diflerent groups. Whether they were the compounders or the people that made the batches.Just learning how to coordinate and work with all the dWrent groups to accomplish the goal; work with the people selling the material and working with some of the people that already performed these experiments previously because I was coming in to continue with the project. On another note, Mark highlighted his experience working with members across the organizational hierarchy when he needed assistance from those at levels other than his own. It was important for him to understand how to initiate their assistance in order to 87 accomplish the task at hand. He recognized that this was a part of the work culture. He knew that in some cases, he might have to depend on others that he did not always get to choose. In Matt’s experience, he recognized the positive influence conflict can have in the work setting. He talked about observing conflict between coworkers and how it helped to see things from different points of view. Students were able to see things through the eyes of others; and were able to listen long enough to learn about other ways to approach things which encouraged conflict mediation for the welfare of the organization. The end result, in Matt’s case, promoted a better product for the team that would not have occurred if diverse opinions had not been expressed. Just as these students recognized the role that conflict has in engineering, Matt described an example that he learned from that happened in his dad’s work setting when there was a problem on the job. Matt believed that “having that conflict helped them come up with something that was a completely new design, therefore, a better system in the future.” This lesson helped him to see conflict as a good thing and that, in his dad’s company, it made the staff think past what they knew in order to design a better process for their job. Work Culture Expectations When they (employers) come in — they ask you a couple of questions. They want to get a feel for you. When they place you - what they expect is someone that knows what they are doing — someone that can pick up quickly. When you come in as a coop student, it gives you a little cushion as a student — gives you some time to learn. But they pretty much throw you into responsibility. They want somebody that will come right out — maybe take a week or two to figure out what is going on and then start adding to their company. (Jack) Another aspect of professional competency involved navigating the work culture. For the participants to begin to establish themselves as professionals, it was necessary for 88 them to understand the norms and dynamics of the work environment. The students shared expectations that they felt were placed on them as engineers from the company, society, and specifically those from their supervisor. Students recognized some of their professional responsibilities were to add value to the work setting, to be a steward of company resources, as well as to be one who can be depended on by others, while prioritizing the company’s reputation. Kyle believed that, “learning your duties and learning how to fit in at work and to complete projects; this was all that I needed to do.” Kyle realized that, as a new person in his work setting, his expectations were not as high as someone that had been on the job for many years. However, he did not want to use that as an excuse for doing poorly or messing up, and instead tried to hold himself to a higher standard. Kyle: As a coop, you realize that you don ’t know everything. They wanted me to do some pump calculations. I did what I could, I did research on the internet, I used some books that the firm had, I got answers, but when I went to the engineer above me, they weren’t entirely right. But he walked me through it and the next time that I had to do it, I didn’t need any help. They liked that I tried to get my feet wet and tried to do it on my own first. But when I got to the point that I didn ’t know what I was doing they liked that 1 didn ’t just give an answer, but instead asked for help. One’s company expects one to have its best interests in mind. Kyle also identified concerns of environmental and ethical risks that an employee must consider when working for a company. Serious repercussions can occur if one makes a mistake, so it is critical to ask questions and ask for help as needed. Kyle understood that his decision to ask for help was respected and not considered weak. Although it is critical to know when to ask questions, one participant emphasized how he must distinguish under what circumstances he should ask others for assistance because he is also expected to 89 contribute and add value to the organization. He believed that going to ask others how to do things all the time reflected poorly on his skills and competence. As the students began to view themselves as professionals, they talked about the need to contribute to the company through dedication, innovation, setting high expectations, and performing to a level of excellence. Like John Dewey (1999) in his article, Building Coop Programs Around the Principles of Eflective Student Learning, the coop students identified the setting of expectations as a priority for them as new students. Dewey stressed the importance of students becoming familiar with the rules of the program and the company, as well as, the need to set high expectations. He believed that the higher the expectations, the more students would achieve. In addition to establishing expectations, McCarthy (2000) referenced in his book Engineer Your Way to Success the qualities of ambition and commitment to help set successful engineers apart from others. He believed that ambition is the drive to always seek the next great project and that one tends to be motivated by forces such as intellectual curiosity, profit, and recognition. The students in this study articulated a strong commitment to making a difference in society similar to the motivation McCarthy described. The students reflected on their experiences and the need to add value to the organization as a crtical expectation of being an employee. As they started to identify as professionals, they knew that meant taking on a higher level of responsibility. Wendy: It means a lot, because I ’m adding value to the company, and I’m also developing myself because by that, the company sees me as a potential good candidate for promotion, so I ’m basically helping myself and the company. To be socially responsible, employees should do everything in their power to contribute their best to the organization. Students recognized the importance of proving their worth 90 in the company or the supervisor who hired them. They also felt a sense of responsibility to other workers, as well as to their managers. Various students shared there own self-imposed high expectations. Matt said, “I gave myself expectations saying ‘you know if you want to move up you have to be the best’. I don’t think it is as much about other people’s expectations as it is my own.” Matt talked of the need to perform at the highest level, even going above and beyond. He stated that he believed that his efforts were recognized by his coworkers and boss. Matt: As far as the company, if you were given an assignment you were to do it 110% - make sure everything is done right and as fast as possible. I made sure that everything that I did was up to spec. If I was doing tests it was all according to specifications. If I was taking parts, I made sure I had all the paperwork and that it was what my boss wanted. Kyle shared a rather enlightening lesson. He saw someone elsein his coop that was fired from the company because he did not show his value and worth. Instead, he adhered to the minimal expectations, and did not exhibit much ambition or commitment to being involved with the challenging projects. Kyle quickly learned that negative consequences can occur for those that do not step up and take responsibility as a professional. In terms of adding value to a company, the data also represented an individual’s role in saving company resources. Whether it was financial or human resources, one’s professional competency involved acting on behalf of the welfare of the company. In one situation, Kristen talked about saving her company over a $100,000 dollars, while others understood that the decisions they made needed to take into account financial or cost effective implications. Still others emphasized the impact of human resources regarding saving time on task or making sure that individuals were assigned and used wisely based on their 91 abilities and skills. Like Kristen, Kyle and Don identified that saving the company money or resources was part of their role and responsibility as an engineer. Kyle discussed his responsibility of making sure that you know what you are doing so you do not waste company money. Kyle: To make sure that if you don ’t have enough understanding to do what you are going to do to find someone else that does, so you don ’t waste the company money or they find out later that you didn ’t know what you were doing and you didn ’t come out and ask for help, that would be bad. He stated, “In a company that big, you sometimes get to do new things but, most of the time you get to make things better and improve the line. Mostly you’re saving money and in the end you’re raising the capacity.” Don reflected on the significant responsibility of saving company resources, specifically human resources. Don: I ’d say it saved resources, like people not having to spend time fixing this all the time, so it can keep running. But at the same time, it also impacts the system with all this running, and then orders aren ’t going through to customers, so I mean, that slows down the business process too. A final aspect of navigating the work culture in relation to professional competency included creating an environment in which others can depend on you. The students recognized that trust was critical in the work setting for various reasons including the work that engineers perform can sometimes be dangerous. Students thought that they need to not only be responsible to the organization and the welfare of the company, but also to their team members. The students shared that when working on a project, often an individual’s tasks are influenced by the previous person, while their actions impact those that are next on the line in making sure the task is completed. This interdependence is similar to McCarthy’s (2000) emphasis on the importance of listening 92 to and learning from one another. He advocated shared decision-making to promote collaboration. As well, Goldberg’s (1995) approach to leadership as an engineer addressed the desire to design organizations from the start with a View toward cooperation, just as the students in this study prioritized the importance of being able to count on others to get the job done. Students believed that there were consequences for those who were not considered reliable in the work setting. In addition, another student talked about treating people in the work environment with respect and as people, not just by the title that they hold. As well, in team experiences, it is important to realize the potential for anyone to make mistakes. Wendy stated her experience of making a mistake in her cooperative program. She shared about the lessons that she learned from that situation. She addressed her concern for the wasted money and time due to her mistake. Her example emphasized the consequences of decision-making for engineers, including personal consequences such as being reprimanded by a supervisor. She also learned the value of taking her time on projects and asking questions of those more experienced if she is uncertain. Wendy: I was reprimanded. And actually, all that time that they were using to fix my problem, that could have been used to do something better. I learned that I have to take my time in whatever I ’m doing, and then if I need added information, 1 need to go meet with engineers who are more experienced. Kyle spoke about the consequences that can come from not being reliable to others in the work setting. Kyle: Yeah there was this one guy. There were 3 engineers — electrical, mechanical, and processing. All three were supposed to be at a meeting in Philadelphia. Two of the three were at the meeting; but the third guy left the day of to come back for the party when his responsibility should have been to be therefor the meeting. But he wanted to come along for the fun. 93 Well — I found out he was on the list to be let go. I was told by my supervisor and some of the other engineers. He recognized that when team members make choices that are more self-involved, they may face negative consequences. In this case, Kyle discovered that members of the work team learned to not trust that person and, therefore, in the future additional staff may not want to work with him since it is not clear whether he will pull his own weight. Most importantly, Kyle understood that engineering was about working with others and that individuals cannot accomplish as much on their own. Socially Responsible Behavior As students discussed their understanding of socially responsible behavior in engineering, they focused on the individual or company’s relationship to the community or society. Through establishing oneself as a professional, the students understood that social responsibility promotes the expectation for engineers in positions of trust or power. Like Nemerowicz & Rosi’s (1997) perspective of socially responsible behavior, the study highlighted an appreciation for service, ethics, values, and diversity, in addition to having a sense of the common good. The students recognized the need to continuously create new high-quality products and inventions that keep the well-being of the community in mind. Students identified the importance of taking responsibility for the safety and well-being of others in respect to practices in engineering or manufacturing settings, as well as the products that they created that members of society use. As engineers, they realized the role and responsibility of the decisions they made about design processes, quality of materials, the priority of safety standards, or the way that individuals behave professionally in the workplace. As engineers explore new technologies, alternative energy resources, more 94 efficient forms of communication, or biomedical initiatives, engineers must take into account how these would impact the consumers using them, as well as the overall impact to the community. Characteristics of the relationship between the engineering profession and the society of consumers include the promotion of trust/confidentiality, an awareness of safety standards, and the learning from the historical past to increase improvements for the firture. T rust/Confidentiality I think because usually they trust me to something pretty important. They’re going to want you to make something that’s reliable and safe and be socially accountable for what you do. (John) Trust is a critical element in any relationship. To build a trusting and confidential relationship, students talked about the expectation for social accountability and the need to maintain confidentiality. For some of them, social responsibility was referred to as social accountability and meant to be held accountable for one’s choices and actions. Students addressed the inter-connected nature of being held socially accountable for their decisions because those they make as engineers have long term implications. It was important for these students to acknowledge that members of society placed that kind of trust in them as professionals. The students’ expression of social accountability was similar to Nemerowicz and Rosi (1997), as the authors emphasized the welfare of the common good, as well as the promotion of the collective well-being in their approach to social responsibility. Students discussed that consumers have a tendency to trust engineers, sometimes without even knowing it, around safety issues. The community trusts that engineers know what they are doing, and that they make reliable and high quality products. 95 Kristen: Society trusts engineers a lot. It is kind of a given. The town expects the chemical company to not make the town blow up. I mean the cars you drive, people that buy those have expectations. It is like a trust, but they don’t really know that they are trusting you. It goes with the whole caring for other people and that realizing what you do aflects others, whether it ’s your co-workers or the town. Students discussed the importance that trust and confidentiality are cultivated among consumers or clients, therefore, establishing a company identity that is reliable with high standards. Similar to the study results, Rayman-Bacchus (2004) talked about the need to build customer confidence through establishing credibility and a positive reputation as a company. Like many students, the author believed that trust and legitimacy were important elements of professional behavior. Specifically, confidentiality referred to maintaining company records or ideas and not sharing them with others outside of the company, especially competitors. Maintaining confidentiality encouraged professionalism and ethical behavior in the work setting, as well as ensuring standards and the reputation of the company. To establish oneself as accountable for the professional standards of engineering, the students identified maintaining confidentiality as essential. Kyle and Mark stated their awareness of the need for confidentiality regarding the welfare of the company and their own reputation and credibility. They knew that, as professionals, they have to commit to a company and then are obligated to maintain the confidentiality of the resources and information that they acquire. Even in cases where one may be tempted by other competitor companies to disclose information, it is their professional responsibility to maintain the confidentiality of their assigned company. Kyle: C onfidentiality; like another company might come and try to chase you down and get you to work for them. So you can’t go and tell the other 96 company what you are doing; they might have more money and better technology; but you can ’t give any of that away. Mark also spoke about confidentiality and acting on behalf of the welfare of the company. He believed that a company’s ability to maintain confidentiality establishes a strong reputation and promotes the company’s ability to perform to high standards. Mark believed that having a company’s best interests at heart, including maintaining confidentiality was important to increase company loyalty. Safety Standards I ’d probably say safety. When you talk to people and they find out where you work. Tthey always say is it safe? What they really want to know is — is it designed right? And if you fly on a plane, and you say you are an engineer — they want you to reassure them about what ’s been designed and that what ’s out there is safe. (Jack) The next characteristic of social responsibility and becoming an engineer identifies the relationship with the community regarding the priority for safety standards. Just about every student interviewed made a reference to their understanding of the need for safety awareness and precautions. It is not a surprise that the participants found safety to be a significant professional value, since it is one of the fundamental principles of the NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers (McCarthy, 2000). The study results highlighted various aspects of safety regarding maintaining the public welfare, producing safe designs and products, establishing a safe work environment, and providing company training. Jack discussed his sense that many people make assumptions about the abilities of engineers and how he experienced others seeing him in an expert role regarding the safety of airplane engines. When riding on a plane, Jack said many other passengers ask him questions about the safety of the plane and how it was designed. He believed that 97 non-engineers simply wanted to be reassured that engineers know more than the average person. Jack: When you talk to people and they ask what do you do and you say you wanted to become an engineer. T he first thing they ask is what do you work on and I say aircraft engines. Is it really safe? If I get on there and they only have two engines now a days; they ask 4 is that alright? And I say yes that’s okay. I think safety is what I end up seeing. And the comfort of [mowing that we know more than they do. As participants shared about promoting the common good for the public, they included the need to inform the public, especially in cases of a major incident or disaster. A couple of examples that were described included a dioxin river incident, as well as the Challenger space shuttle. Students recognized the need for honesty with the community, especially in cases that companies were clearly in the wrong. The students learned a valuable lesson regarding integrity and owning up to one’s actions, rather than covering things up or trying to minimize. They felt, in the long run, that the customers and clients would respect the ethics and professional integrity of the individual or organization. Their emphasis on responsible and ethical behavior was similar to the Code of Ethics for Engineers (McCarthy, 2000) fundamental principle of conducting oneself as an engineer honorably, responsibly, ethically, and lawfully to enhance the honor, reputation, and usefulness of the profession(p. 93). Next, the data reflected the importance of producing safe products or designs. A few students understood that as an engineer they stepped into a role in which they were perceived as the expert. Therefore, when it came to safety issues, they wanted to make sure that they knew what they were doing. And if they did not, they needed to seek assistance as soon as possible. For example, Jack was aware that members of society simply wanted reassurance that he, as an engineer, had more knowledge about airplane 98 safety than did they. Another aspect of product design incorporated research efforts and test trials that companies performed in order to create the safest products and working environment. Another element of safety standards represented in the data included the promotion of a safe work environment, which is also part of the Code of Ethics of Engineers (McCarty, 2000). Tommy kept safety a priority and it was important for him to create a work environment in which everyone felt that they could go home safely at night. Finally, students emphasized that companies typically have mandatory training sessions regarding safety procedures and protocols. Specifically, the students who worked at chemical and automotive companies shared about company training that focused on safety and ethical awareness. Tommy said that working at a chemical company poses challenges for the work environment, as well as to consumers that use the products produced by the company. Tommy: But the thing that really feels good to be able to improve on is safety and safety standards. And you know safety is a huge issue at our chemical company. You go through safety training on different things but being able to make an impact is important. I think to make a diflerence in safety, the diflerence is that a person can go home at night. He also acknowledged that, “Engineering can go wrong sometimes; it’s not always the most accurate of trades.” Tommy understood the responsibility of the company to research and do test trials of the products that the company was responsible for creating. Hence, safety of the products produced was a priority. The significance of safety for Tommy was framed by a fatal accident at his company. Someone was electrocuted at the plant where he previously had worked. In 99 recalling this experience, he admitted that he took safety issues somewhat lightly up until that point. Someone got electrocuted. But, it wasn’t an employee of the chemical company. It was another contractor and it was not ofl of the chemical company equipment. Someone had wired a 480 volt plug for I think like 220 volt and they were killed because of it. Yeah. I had been where it happened. And it was someone my age too. So when that happened it was like you know this poor person. It just makes you more conscious of safety especially in these plants. He spoke with great passion about how important safety is in a company, especially a manufacturing environment. He emphasized that when he arrived at the company he saw first hand how different parts, machines, and equipment could be very dangerous when not used correctly. As an engineering student, Tommy said he simply did not understand adequately the need for safety awareness until he actually worked at a company. He stated that, “the first thing you’re dealing with is safety. I never even realized that before.” Lessons From the Past You always hear about the horror stories of the hotel that collapsed and people dying. (Kyle) A final characteristic of socially responsible behavior that students shared involved the ability to learn from the past in order to best serve the community. As engineers, they felt it was their professional duty to act on behalf of the community and their responsibility to keep learning and to not repeat mistakes. This awareness was reflective of some of the accreditation board learning outcomes, specifically a students’ ability to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global and societal context and to have a knowledge of contemporary issues (ABET, 2000). Examples of incidents that seemed to impact the participants in this study 100 included the Challenger, Enron, radioactive paint, toxins in the river, and hurricane Katrina. Students referred to the Challenger as a national incident from which every engineer should learn. It encouraged these future professional engineers to double check their data and calculations, as well as to seek assistance and ask questions if they were posed with a situation where they did not know the answer. Mark talked about the influence of the Enron incident on his sense of business ethics and social responsibility. He never wanted to be in a position to cause that kind of damage to a company. As well, Kyle addressed the importance of maintaining the reputation of the company. He brought up the NASA incident as a reminder of the importance of maintaining standards. Kyle: Obviously you want to take into account environmental and even public health, take that all in when you are designing. Make sure everything is correct - obviously you don’t want another failure like NASA; just make sure that everything is done up to standards; and if you need help find it, cause it is better to get help and look dumb in the beginning than to look dumb and have people’s lives at risk in the end. Kyle also talked about the radioactive paint incident from World War II. He acknowledged that when the engineers realized that they made a mistake regarding the danger of their paint product, they stepped forward and stopped production. He took pride in the fact that chemical engineers took a stand to act responsibly once they became aware of the harm that they were causing. Kyle: Absolutely they have invented almost everything; through designing things and the up scaling of things. Everything like manufacturing, to things that we eat, wear, and use - they make a huge difference in the world. They have to make decisions to determine whether things are ethical or not; environmentally safe; or good for humans. Before World War 11 they used to use paint that was radioactive, once they realized it was wrong, they made a difference and changed it. Another student, Tommy identified his company’s ability to turn a bad situation around. After the mistake of dioxins in the river occurred, his company did a complete turn 101 around, which helped reassure customers and stakeholders. Tommy talked passionately about his company experience, emphasizing ethics and professionalism as an engineer. He learned about a serious mistake in the company’s past that forced them to take a closer look at their procedures. He reflected on his own willingness to risk his job by confronting others in the workplace. He stated that he thought he would leave his job over an incident that would cause others harm, because that is how he wanted others to respond. He said that, “You think someone’s going to take care of it, but if nobody does then even if it means risking my job, it would be something I’d do because I’d want someone else to do that too.” Then he thought for a minute and realized he was not sure that he would actually quit his job even though he believed that he should respond by putting others first. Tommy: I say that now but you know being impacted with that situation is a different story, but you ’ve just got to because that ’s what someone would want you to do whether or not it ’s a gas leak or the potential for someone getting shocked. You know, you have to take that next level too. You ’ve got to put others before you put yourself Just as if you ’d put your family before yourself at home. It ’s the same way when you ’re at your job. Tommy learned the importance of admitting a mistake and keeping the public informed for the greater welfare of the community. The reputation and credibility of the company was salvaged due to fast action and the ability to show remorse, as well as take full responsibility for any harm the company caused. Lastly, Wendy and Andrea shared their understanding of engineers, social responsibility, and the hurricane Katrina incident. Wendy referred to her concern of the role that engineers played regarding the creation of the levees, and the need to learn from the past in order to improve the future. Andrea referenced her experience making water purification membranes after the hurricane Katrina disaster to give people clean water. 102 She understood the importance and responsibility of her role as an engineer in problem- solving to improve the community. Society trusts engineers to improve their lives, therefore, learning from the past seemed to be essential as they worked towards the betterment of society. Andrea: Yes, I do believe that engineers can make a diflbrence in society; definitely. I think one of the main reasons is just increasing the quality of life for the overall public. I think, especially in America, everyone comes here for a better quality of life, and that ’s what they strive for, but I think being an engineer and being able to make things cheaper to achieve those qualities of life makes a huge impact. Andrea felt accomplished in creating a product to assist the in some way with the great tragedy of the hurricane Katrina victims. During the Katrina disaster, she witnessed mobile units that were able to process the water and she worked on a project where they gave people clean water, especially at such a challenging time. Both Wendy and Andrea, in talking about the same tragedy, identified different aspects of socially responsible behavior in their role as engineers. They both understood the ability of engineers to have the power to make a difference or to cause great damage. Leadership Sensemaking In general, the identification of leadership occurred on a variety of levels. Oakes, Leone, and Gunn stated that, “without leadership, individuals tend to drift, lose track of the purpose, become discouraged, and conflicts can occur” (2006, p. 328). First, students discussed their understanding of leadership and what it means to be a leader. Next, participants identified qualities of how they viewed engineers to be leaders. Third, they reflected on their own view of themselves as leaders. And finally, they explored the role that change played for engineers in society, representing aspects of socially responsible leadership. 103 Understanding Leadership Leaders are generally really motivated. They got to where they are, and they gain the respect of people because of showing it and proving it. So yeah — I still think it is the motivation and the drive, also the ability to see what you do and the ability to relate to others. (Kristen) As students reflected on their understanding of leadership, they expressed a need for self — awareness, internal drive or motivation, and to establish a level of confidence through experience. Students seemed to think that it was important for individuals to take the time to know themselves before being named to a position of responsibility because they thought it would be hard to lead others if you were not completely invested or committed to the leadership role that you were given. For these students, leadership seemed to be experience-based in regard to building one’s confidence and professional competence; it was critical for students to be able to learn from previous experiences. Kristen believed that is was important as a leader, “to realize how your actions effect everyone else because generally you have a lot of say.” Kristen: To be a leader — you have to be competent, but you have to have proved yourself to be competent. I think it comes over years. You have to be able to manage and have a full understanding because you are dealing with your own issues, as well as everyone else ’s issues too. This recognition of a need for self- awareness is also part of the social change model (SCM) of leadership development (HERI, 1996). The SCM’s values of consciousness of self and commitment seem to be represented in the data regarding participants’ definition of leadership. In other words, one’s consciousness of self addressed an individual’s awareness of beliefs and values, while the value of commitment focused on one’s motivational energy to serve on behalf of others. In terms of establishing confidence, students described leadership to be 104 experience based. It was essential for students to have experience in order to see themselves or view others as leaders. Whether it was years of professional experience, or simply having previous knowledge of the project or activity, participants found experience necessary to truly view someone as a leader. In many cases, they were hesitant to see themselves as a leader, because of their lack of experience. This emphasis on experience-based leadership is similar to McCarthy’s book (2000), wherein a manager in a large chemical company shared her perspective that, “I think leadership can be learned. Just as with communication, there is a structured part, and a part that is learned through experience. It takes time and effort to cultivate a leadership role. It comes with practice” (p. 49). The overall lack of the students’ ability to see themselves as leaders offers concern for engineering educators, as the engineer of 2020 (National Academy of Engineering, 2004) is expected to have developed leadership skills and abilities. Lastly, the issue of positional leadership was identified. Although students stated that a title was not necessary to be distinguished as a leader; at the same time, many references to being a leader were authority and power focused (i.e., “being in control of the group”, “being in charge”, or “to directing others”), hence emphasizing a more hierarchical based approach. Kyle and Wendy both stated that they did not believe that a title was needed to be a leader; instead it was about one’s ability to contribute, and was defined through one’s actions. Kyle talked more about the value one adds to an organization as central to identifying a leader, while Wendy emphasized that behavior alone defines a leaders. Kyle described his awareness of being perceived as an authority figure, while still coming across as approachable. He recognized the need to find balance so that others did not take advantage of him in his role as a leader. 105 Kyle: Taking responsibility for a group of individuals or a team; being in control for any action taken by any of those individuals. Making sure that you know what is going on — so you have some sort of say in what they are doing and how they are finishing things. Also being there to give advice or if they need to refer to you. You want to make it comfortable so they feel that they can come to you. This finding shows participants’ desire to identify leadership as non-positional, in line with the social change model; however, in practice they are not yet there and still see it from a positional/hierarchical perspective. This study helped provide participants with a new lens through which to view leadership, as well as new language in order to articulate it. The students recognized some of aspects of the SCM (HERI, 1996) including that leadership is collaborative (working with others); it is a process rather than a position (gained through experience); and it should be values-based (understanding one’s own and the company’s values, beliefs, and mission). Engineers as Leaders 1 think engineering has to do with ideas. Being a leader, you are leading teams of people. New ideas — leaders within the industry, the newer energy sources, all of those are ideas and I think they are leaders in industry. There are a bunch of different leaders, whether you are the leader of your group, the leader of your idea/invention. Or even the leader of yourself you have to keep yourself on target too. (Kristen) The students discussed engineers’ ability to serve as leaders. They identified characteristics of innovation, risk-taking, collaboration, delegation, motivation, and mentoring in regard to engineers as leaders. The participants shared the importance of innovation in the field of engineering related to new inventions, systems, products, and technological advances. As engineers engage in innovative practices, they have the opportunity to think outside of the box and take risks to make changes in the world. The students discussed that leaders in engineering must have the courage to take risks and try 106 things that have never been done before. When discussing engineers as leaders, Kristen and Kyle reflected on the importance of taking risks and having courage. Engineering is about taking those societal risks to improve life and better the community in which we live. Kristen: I think that being a leader takes some guts. You definitely need to have guts in being a leader because generally, you may be the first one to do things, and to make decisions. And you have to be confident in order to convince other people. I think a lot of people look for leaders on an everyday basis. On the other hand, Kyle talked more about the personal risks he experienced and a sense of personal loss if a project went wrong. Kyle said, “I think there is risk involved. If you have more and more projects, you have to be able to handle the capacity of all the projects. And if one of them goes bad, you have the possibility of losing your job or future promotion.” Current societal needs promote alternative energy, biotechnology, computer technology, and biomedicine as significant areas of research and innovation for quality of life improvements. The students’ emphasis on innovation in practice connected to the vision for The Engineer of 2020 (National Academy of Engineering, 2004) in which various principles of technological innovation and the search for solutions to societal problems were emphasized. Next, students spoke about the role of collaboration for engineering leaders. The data showed that students understand the need for collaborative work settings. They recognized the importance of interconnection and understanding that the decisions that they make impact and are influenced by others. The students’ perspectives are similar to the concepts of inclusive leadership described by Nemerowicz and Rosi (1997). The authors believed that inclusive leadership includes collaborative problem-solving, 107 empowerment of self and others, and shared thinking. Wendy witnessed two very different leaders/managers during her coop experience. She recognized that the team that worked well and achieved their goals was one with a strong leader at the helm. As Wendy observed, a successful engineering leader was one that knew how to facilitate his or her team of workers. As well, many scholars have identified the need for teamwork in order to succeed within the field of engineering (Goldberg, 1995; McCarthy, 2000).Like the findings in this study, in Engineering Your Future: A Comprehensive Introduction to Engineering, leaders were described as those who ensure that a group is focused on its purpose and that it develops and maintains a positive attitude (Oakes, et al., 2002). In addition, the students recognized the importance of delegation for engineering leaders. Tommy believed the ability to delegate was important, as a leader, to be available to members of the team to support them, if needed, but to be cautious of micromanaging others. Tommy saw a need to balance the ability to oversee while empowering others to achieve. In addition, he shared that a good leader knows when to step aside and be a follower. He emphasized that it is important as a leader to relinquish authority to others, in certain cases where others provide expertise that the leader may not have. He recognized that some in leadership positions may have a hard time seeing things from the perspective of others. Tommy: I’m sure you see a lot of people that say “Well no this is the way it’s going to be. I ’m not listening to you on this. I ’m not going to take this into account or that’s a dumb idea. ” You can’t do that you have to listen to all the ideas and if you see someone maybe starting to become a leader also in that realm then maybe you should let them do that. I think being a good leader is to know when to step down as a leader, also. As a project or group leader, for example, individuals understood the need to delegate 108 and share leadership with others. They also addressed the role that delegation plays in motivating others and establishing ownership for and commitment to the project or group goals. In creating an environment of motivation and recognition of coworkers, students shared that the level of productivity tended to increase in the work setting. Tommy: As a leader he or she has to be able to first of all delegate. You have to delegate responsibility. But I think that ’s probably the number one thing that you’re presented with as a leader that you give this responsibility to someone and you ’ve got to follow up with it. You ’ve got to say “Okay did they get it done? ” You set a deadline for them. Another realization about delegation is that even though as supervisor or project manager, engineer leaders may delegate tasks to others on the team, they are still held accountable as the project manager for the completion of the task. Tommy stated, “If there’s anything, it’s our responsibility if this thing burns up, it’s going to be my fault; it’s going to be our responsibility one way or the other and not our supervisor’s.” A final quality that the students shared reflected the mentoring that occurs in the work environment. Students discussed that the mentoring of new and younger employees encouraged trust and teamwork. A few students shared personal mentoring stories of supervisors, managers, or even other colleagues. It was critical for the coop students to seek out those who were committed to their learning and development as a new professional. Wendy described how she saw two different types of managers at her company respond to their leadership role differently. One team got their job done well, on time and cared about details. The other team did not. She believed that you could attribute the success or failure to the top manager. She felt that the one manager did not really care too much about what the team did or what they learned. Wendy realized the difference when there is a competent leader and when there is not. 109 Wendy: For an engineer to be a leader, he needs to be able to understand his assignments, understand his role, and be able to actually carry out these assignments. In a lot of ways, he impacts his team, his positive attitude, and the way he leads his team is spread out to people under his team members, so it ’s a huge chain that — depends on the leader. Kyle referred to his supervisor as a strong role model that did a good job of supporting his staff, as well as allowing them to try new things and learn on their own. He talked about the importance of the balance of knowing when to step in and address efficiency issues or other potential concerns, but also to give enough space so that the workers could learn and develop confidence in their skills as engineers. Kyle: My supervisor did a good job. At times, he would let them (the workers) do their own thing — he wanted them to stretch their ideas and do it on their own but, if they were doing something wrong dike not time eflicient). He would step in and say here’s what I think we should do and ask them what they think and try to find a compromise. He also stated that an engineer who is a leader makes a difference based on the level and amount of responsibility that they assume. Kyle believed that engineers who are “leaders are willing to take on increasing responsibility,” as well as commit themselves to “do whatever they have to do.” Next, John and Matt talked about seeing leaders as mentors and role models to new employees and coop students. John observed that leaders apply their knowledge to help those around them and share some of what they have so that everybody else can work a little bit more efficiently. He believed this was another form of leading people. John: Being a leader as an engineer means using the experience and knowledge that you have in a way that others can benefit. I saw that at my company a lot of the more experienced people would take the time to train the younger employees to make sure that they were competent. It worked out for them to if the younger people had more experience when they were on a project with the people that trained them. They knew that they could rely on them. 110 As John discussed, leaders assisting those less experienced can find benefit themselves because this creates an environment in which learning and leading are valued. In addition, mentoring in the work place encourages trust and teamwork. Similar to John, Matt talked about his own experience with strong mentors in comparison to others at his company that did not seem to value the cooperative education students. He talked with enthusiasm about his next coop rotation due to the reputation of that supervisor as a mentor. Matt: It is pretty significant that I got this next one. It showed that they really liked me and chances are that I would be hired in if I stayed. They say this manager takes the time to teach coops. A lot of guys have the mind set of those stupid coops. He doesn’t hold your hand and walk you through but, he makes sure that you understand everything and kind of lets you figure out how to do it. Matt knew that his next supervisor “makes sure that you are learning”, as well as knows what is going on with the product. He was excited about the learning experience that his next supervisor would provide. This aspect of mentoring has also been described as a characteristic of the fifth stage of generativity in the Leadership Identity Development Model - LID (Komives, Owen, Longerbearn, Mainella, & Osteen, 2005). In the LID, individuals become committed to others who helped to sustain them. The students thought that mentors recognized that younger group members were in a developmental place that they themselves once experienced. Although the participants in the study spoke about being mentored, they also expressed a commitment to serve in that role for others in the future. Self-Identification as a Leader 1 think of myself, yeah as a leader but my take on leadership is that I don’t volunteer to be a leader. I just say, “Okay is anyone going to do this? ” And then if no one does I ’11 do it. When taking on the role you take on the 111 challenge. I don ’t know that ’s just the way that I’ve always kind of taken on responsibilities. So you know it’s something that you can ’t just say well I’m a leader all the time. But I’d say sure I consider myself a leader. (Tommy) Next, students shared their own perceptions of themselves as leaders. A few talked about seeing themselves currently as a leader in Some respects, while others believed they were more or less leaders in progress. Another participant discussed her hesitance to view herself as a leader, even in the future. For those currently considering themselves as leaders, they understood the commitment involved when taking on the responsibility of being a leader, however felt a lack of confidence of being the key leader for a project. They expressed the need for leadership to come from within. It was important for them, as leaders, to look within to be able to passionately believe in their ability to lead a group, show initiative, and step up to the challenge of leadership. The students who saw themselves as leaders in progress were not as confident in their current leader identity. Primarily, they felt that their role as a student challenged their ability to truly serve as a current leader. They emphasized that their present lack of experience or seniority tended to disadvantage them from being able to contribute as a leader. But, they believed that once they gained work experience, they would be able to serve as a leader. For these students, the ability to speak with confidence and from experience enhanced their self-identification as a leader, and the extent to which they were perceived as leaders by others. Andrea’s coop experience fostered a sense of confidence that she did not have previously. Now, she felt that she could rely on her past experiences to help inform her decisions as an engineer. Through her coop experience, she now knew what to expect. She stated that, “I’ll be able to jump right into it and be able to fill the needs of 112 being a leader because I’ve already been there and done that. I’ll be able to start up sooner than if I didn’t have those experiences.” Some students were more hesitant to think of themselves as leaders at this point in their life. For John, the lack of experience and current knowledge challenged his view of himself as a leader. He felt that, “I don’t know if I can say quite yet just because I don’t feel like I have enough experience and knowledge to bring to the position. I don’t know if I can really say at this time that I’m to that point yet.” Mark shared that his status as a student challenged his thinking of himself as a leader. Like John, he felt that he needed to gain more experience because he saw leadership as a process through which certain skills develop. He stated that, “I guess it’s more about experience; I’ll be able to give my leadership once I get more experience.” Mark: I would say one (a leader) in progress, I guess based on that list that I gave you, they are still qualities that I am developing and learning; it’s not like I ’m given opportunities everyday — I ’m not a fulltime leader - I’m in school now. Kristen said that her own current level of confidence was very high as a senior, that she is familiar with her environment and emphasized the significance of experience in her own learning curve. She recognized that next year she will be starting over with little experience in an unfamiliar setting. Gaining knowledge and experience seemed very important to Kristen’s ability to see herself as a leader. Kristen: Socially around me I have a lot of confidence —which sometimes people don’t have. Right now at college yes, but next year at my company — no. I think it comes with seniority — where I have been here for 5 years. Longer than anyone that I know that is not a grad student, it builds your confidence. While next year, I will be in a world of unknowns. Wendy was a bit different from her peers and struggled in viewing herself as a leader now or in the future. She was hesitant because she did not want to assume the 113 serious responsibility of making crucial decisions. She knew that she was not ready for that kind of commitment, and seemed reluctant to think about it in the future. She stated that in general the reference to leadership was not something that she encountered that often within engineering education. Because this was a concept with which she was not familiar and because she perceived leadership to be an overwhelming responsibility, she was reluctant to take on a leader identity. Wendy: No, not too much here. I have not come across that (the term of leadership). I think of myself as a leader sometimes. When the need comes, I do see myself as one, but from past experiences, I don’t think I would want to actually be a manager. Because it ’s just a lot and I don ’t think I’m ready to be a leader. It’s something that you need to think hard before you go into it, you have to be ready and understand that it is a lot of work, and you’re not just going in there and expecting everything to be done for you. So that’s my view of a leader. Wendy was concerned that leadership education does not play a more prominent role in engineering and cooperative education settings. Her view of leadership seemed tied to her perception of the overwhelming nature of the responsibility and accountability of what it meant to be a leader. Socially Responsible Leadership As students explored what it means to become an engineer, the concept of socially responsible leadership was foreign to them. They tended to relate the issues of social responsibility and leadership as two different entities. In addition, as stated earlier, they were not as familiar with the actual term social responsibility, although they did resonate with the language of ethical behavior, professional development, and decision-making experiences. Identifying as student engineers, they believed socially responsible leadership tended to be action oriented and included the empowerment of individuals to act on 114 behalf of others. Students believed that through action they, as engineers, have the ability to make a difference in the world. As well, the students emphasized that leadership programs should focus not only on the value of any proposed change, but also on the personal values and beliefs of individual leaders. Participants viewed the characteristics of socially responsible leadership to be: a commitment to making change happen; the dedication to improve the quality of life; the belief in their ability to make a difference in society; and the recognition that risk comes with societal change. Being a change agent One thing that I learned from my company — they are doing exceptionally well right now — but they are never satisfied, I think as an engineer you are always looking ahead for what lies ahead, what your customers want. (Mark) One characteristic that reflected one’s identity as an engineer and one’s understanding of the phenomenon of socially responsible and leadership behaviors was that of being in a role to make changes in the world as engineers. Students discussed the need to discover new ideas because engineers are always looking for better ways to do things. Jack stated that he believed engineers are typically not satisfied with the status quo, and they constantly look for ways to change and improve what they do. As an engineer, Mark talked about the need to look ahead at the future in an effort to anticipate the needs of the customer. Mark: There is always change because engineers are always looking for better ways to do things. The greatest resistance is those at the grass roots level and trying to get them to buy into your idea. From a management level — you recognize that changes need to occur if you want to survive and be more profitable. This emphasis on creating change is directly connected to the SCM for leadership development, which claims that leadership is concerned with affecting change on behalf 115 of others, the community, and society (HERI, 1996). The ideas of a leader being a change agent and of leadership as collective action to affect social change suggest that a conscious focus on values should be at the core of any leadership effort. I observed the students’ awareness of being in a position of power to make change happen. Whether through solving societal problems, designing new products, or finding the next medical breakthrough, they understood their responsibility to look ahead to the future, as well as anticipate customer/consumer needs. John found change to be a large part of engineering. He discussed technical knowledge as critical for engineers, yet an area that was constantly developing and changing. He also mentioned issues of social morals and how they can affect changes in product design or services, believing that societal values often influence decisions engineers make. John understood it is an engineer’s responsibility to be aware of the current state of affairs within the field. John: Change is pretty big. I mean the basis of most engineering is knowledge of technical issues and there ’3 always development there. I mean to be competent they have to keep aware of the changes. I think they have to know about not only the technical side but also, the more personal side; the people that are giving them a request to build things or to use their products or services. They have to consider diflerent things like social morals changes. Another aspect of change involved the recognition that engineers have to be aware of the most up to date research, science and technology, which continues to change at a faster pace than ever. Andrea shared how science and technology encourages new ways of doing things. She reflected on the importance of being flexible and adaptable to changes, as it is an everyday part of engineering. She said, “I think change will always happen, so you have to be able to learn new things and be able to adapt.” This is in keeping with the mandate from The Engineer of 2020 for engineers to meet the challenge 116 of the pace of change head on. The idea that students learn everything they need to be a successfirl engineer during their four to five years of college simply is no longer valid. The study participants talked of making a commitment to their own continued re- education and lifelong learning, as the National Academy of Engineering encouraged for the engineer of 2020 (2004). The students in this study understood the need to be comfortable with change for one to be successful as a professional engineer. Making a difference. Maybe not in the sense that they get famous but, actual everyday kinds of things that people use they build. I think in terms of peoples lives - definitely. It might not be as direct but I think engineers are definitely in the position to make a difierence. (John) The students discussed the different ways that engineers can make a difference in society. They included being creative in the development of new designs, improving quality of life issues, and recognizing one’s ability to save lives. The students expressed a passion for the profession of engineering and their ability to create and design products, services, and processes that clearly can have a lasting impact on the community. Andrea shared a sense of pride in her experience regarding making the water purification membranes for the hurricane Katrina survivors. The participants engaged in helping others and striving to improve the quality of life for individuals’ everyday lives. For example, Kristen talked about a product that she helped to design that made a difference for her coworkers. They used the same process and item for the last ten years. Kristen: It was nice at the time, but you still don ’t know if it is going to work; if it is going to do what you want it to do. I wasn ’t therefor a lot of the testing phase, but another thing that I did was - for that same test bench they had plugs that they had to put in — and they weighed like 15 117 pounds. They had to put in and remove these plugs all the time. One of the things that we were doing was trying to reduce the weight of the plugs. Kristen said it made her feel good to impact and change a problem in people’s lives that they had put up with for many years. In addition to easing the load for the workers, she made the process more efficient. She shared that, “we actually cut the weight in half, and if it ends up working out it will be good.” She also reflected how much she was impacted by being able to help others. Just as The Engineer of 2020 referred to the force that engineering has played regarding the improvement of economic well-being, health, and quality of life, the results in this study reflected the significance of the participants’ commitment to the improvement of quality of life issues. Similar to Dr. Anil Kumar who wrote about an engineer’s ability to change the world (2005), the students in the study identified so many different products that engineers impact. Study participants named the industries of transportation, electronics, buildings, cellular, digital, security, ecosystems, pharmaceuticals, biomedical, technological, and computer science as daily ways that the expertise of engineers touched their lives. Andrea shared products that she believed affected individuals’ everyday lives. She talked about things engineers create to make life easier, which she believed was a primary role of engineers, as well as life saving things such as dialysis machines. Don also recognized that his customers want new and innovative products to help make their jobs and lives easier, and to be more efficient in business. Don: Definitely, because it ’s a very creative field, you have a lot of ideas and freedom to make a new thing and be inventive and creative. The business people we worked with, they wanted new interactive features to make their jobs easier. We ’re helping create software that helps their lives, makes their jobs run more smoothly. And, I mean, they give us pretty vague specifications, so fi'om there, we got to just use our own minds and 118 create what we think they want. As students acknowledged their ability to make a difference, they spoke of the great potential they have to make decisions that can have life and death consequences. Some thought that in their work setting, they needed tounderstand the dangerous nature of equipment and procedures. Others were aware of their responsibility for making safe products that would not harm consumers. Matt even talked about a conversation with coworkers that in testing their products, they had the ability to make decisions that could very well save people’s lives. He recognized that there may come a time that one is a part of a design team to create a product or process that could save someone’s life. He talked about a project that he worked on testing seatbelts and realized the seriousness of this research. He understood the significance of his role in producing a safe product, would help people and not put them in harm’s way. Matt: If you save one life that makes a diflerence. Even with your seatbelts —they have this little model. You know hitting something at seven miles per hour is all air shocks, but they have this thing where it is tightened up and you wouldn’t move as much or hurt your neck I think if y0u save one life that makes all the difference. In the case of saving lives, students felt that as engineers they should put the needs of the members of the community first, before their own or even in some cases the company’s. Kristen identified different levels of making a difference, whether it is for you, for others, or for the world at large. Kristen: It depends on who you are making a difi"erence to. You can make a lot of diflerences, whether it is in your life or someone else ’s life versus worldly dijferences, where you are making a difference to the society or the world. I think making a difference is afi’ecting others in one way or another. I guess it is probably considered in a positive light too - affecting them in a positive way. 119 She shared that engineering is sometimes the invisible profession, because sometimes the work of engineering impacts society in ways not even realized. She stated, “A lot of the stuff that society deals with whether you know it or not is engineering. It is hard cause when you think of it from a social aspect it is a little bit harder to define.” For example, she compared engineering to the medical profession, in which everyone can clearly think of examples of what a doctor does. But in the case of engineering, there are so many aspects of our life that an engineer touches (including medicine), it is hard to clearly define what an engineer does. She gave some concrete examples of products that engineers impact “from the cars you drive to the chairs you sit in”, but also believed that engineering can be so much more than that, for “it is in everything we do.” Wendy shared an example of making a difference by creating a more cohesive work setting through talking with other engineers and operators. She did not see herself on a different level than the operators, but instead recognized the importance of the contributions of others, regardless of their position. Similar to Jack’s frustration in learning to navigate the boundaries of work, Wendy understood the importance of creating an inclusive work culture and to learn from both sides. She felt her role as a coop provided a different vantage point from which to operate. She stated that, “I feel I was able to actually bridge the gap between the operators and the engineers, because most of the engineers, they come in with so much experience, they don’t really see themselves on the same level as the operators.” Issues of risk. Looking at it (change) fi'om society’s view. Society doesn ’t seem to like change all that much. Especially since a lot of changes bring in risk. You have to be definite with your change. (Kristen) 120 Students shared that a final characteristic of socially responsible leadership was the ability to deal with risk. They realized that anytime one makes a change, ramifications may occur. The students believed that members of society struggled with change. Because of this uneasiness, some students said that engineers need to make decisions about changes wisely, not fiivolously. Kristen: That ’s why you see with all the hybrid cars, no one uses them, yet. You still see folks in their 4X4 trucks. With change in engineering you have to do it wisely. So as far as society goes, you should start with small changes and make sure that you educate about what is going on with the change. Kristen believed it was important to inform and educate the community about changes, specifically addressing what the changes mean and how they will benefit the community. She suggested that often this step is missing when changes occur, therefore, making the change experience for people more reactive than transformative. Students were aware that, at times, they needed to risk their job in order to do the right thing in the work place. In a few cases, students addressed the need to confront others who they witnessed acting inappropriately, even if it was a risk to their status at the company. Matt described a situation in which his father risked his job for something that he believed was the right thing to do for the community’s benefit. He learned from his dad the importance of fighting for something that you know is the right thing to do. He recognized how passionate and dedicated his father was to his decisions and that this experience was a defining moment for his dad. Matt recognized that he may be called to make a decision on behalf of the community someday and he believed that he would be ready for that challenge. This example influenced his understanding of his role as a coop and of he wants to become as an engineer. 121 Matt: ‘Do your best on everything - make sure it meets your standards’. My dad would always tell me — I think he did something with T PI engines and corvettes. He got in a big fight with everybody he wanted metal gaskets instead of plastic cause he didn ’t think they were going to last. Just as the students identified the alignment of their beliefs as a leadership value, the ability to take a stand for something one believed was representative of the construct of congruence in the SCM (HERI, 1996). Therefore in the end, even though the students did not specifically describe themselves as ‘socially responsible leaders’, they time and time again expressed behaviors, decisions, and values that reflected concepts of social responsibility and leadership in their own personal and professional identity development. Factors Influencing the Understanding of Socially Responsible Leadership From their interview responses, I identified personal, academic, and professional factors that the students shared regarding their experiences of becoming an engineer, as well as their understanding of socially responsible leadership in engineering. In general, students expressed a lack of familiarity with the terms of social responsibility and leadership. However, they articulated other references related to ethical standards and professional responsibility, as well as an understanding of leadership behavior, even if they did not view themselves as a leader. Personal Influence I think [social responsibility] comes fiom how you are raised; the way your family is, you know the golden rule. (Jack) 122 Individuals emphasized how personal values helped shape their identity as an engineer and their experiences of social responsibility and leadership behaviors. They discussed the role that family members contributed to their general upbringing regarding ethical decisions and behaviors. Don recognized that his values were shaped by the different experiences that he had in his life. Like Jack, he felt the environment that one grows up in can influence how one experiences the value of social responsibility. He acknowledged that others in their own life experiences may have very different beliefs or values, especially related to the issue of social responsibility. Don realized that part of an engineer’s role includes understanding where people are coming from, whether they are coworkers or customers. He believed that you can’t make assumptions about what others think or believe, but it is important to ask them. Don: It is probably just through experiences in my life,a lot depends on the person. If you really feel that you care about other people and understand their situations, you kind of play by that. You can ’t expect everyone you know to be the same as you, or grow up the same way you did. You kind of just got to understand where people are coming from. I think that’s a big responsibility, just trying to relate to other people. I think that helps in this field. Some compared their values to their peers and realized that not all students maintained the same values system. They understood that the background and experience they brought to their position as engineers may be very different from their coworkers or peers. They also recognized the importance of not making assmnptions about the values and beliefs of others. A couple of students used the philosophy of the golden rule as a mainstay in their values; it was important to treat others as you want to be treated. Like Jack, Tommy referenced the “golden rule” in his approach to engineering and realized the importance of connecting with others in the workplace. This was a value that be 123 portrayed in school and at home. He shared how his supervisor was impressed by his skills to connect with people. Tommy felt this kind of mutual interaction was important in creating a positive and respectful work climate. Like the students, Nemerowicz and Rosi (1997) highlight an appreciation of ethics, values, and diversity regarding social responsibility, just as the SCM of leadership addresses having a consciousness of self (an awareness of values that motivate one to take action) and being congruent with one’s values, which means that one acts with honesty, genuineness, and consistency (HERI, 1996) Another factor influencing one’s value system was dedication to the betterment of society. I observed an overwhelming response from the students regarding their awareness that, as engineers, part of their responsibility was to make life easier for society, and to consider how their decisions impact those around them in the community. Another student, Mark emphasized that engineers have the ability to prioritize the well- being of others and the betterment of society through product development, research and design processes, and new innovative technologies. When asked if he was familiar with the terms “social responsibility” or “socially responsible leadership”, he replied “not really.” Mark shared his belief that, “engineers are, like some kind of humanitarians.” He felt that he received that message in his coop orientation, as well as in a freshmen introductory course. The significant response of participants to this type of responsible behavior may be influenced by the NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers (McCarthy, 2000). One of the fundamental guidelines in the code is “engineers in the firlfillment of their professional duties, shall hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public”. In addition, one of the rules of practice included “engineers shall at all times 124 strive to serve the public interest” (McCarthy, 2000, p. 93). Participants identified their own learning and development process as an influence on their understanding of social responsibility and leadership. Their learning process consisted of personal and professional identity development as discussed earlier. The process of self-authorship seemed to be expressed by the students throughout the study, as they shared their experiences. Marcia Baxter-Magolda (1999) described self- authorship as a simultaneous process of cognitive (how one makes meaning of knowledge), interpersonal (how one views self in relation to others), and intrapersonal (how one perceives one’s sense of identity) development (p. 10). Like Weick’s view of sensemaking, self-authorship occurs when students are able to connect their learning with their lived experiences. Students in this study felt their cooperative experiences assisted them in finding meaning and providing a context for understanding the complexities of who they were as an engineer, specifically related to socially responsible and leader- oriented behaviors. Next, John expressed the value that he thought this study contributed. He thought it was important for someone to address these issues. Through conversation and the survey, he realized how much he actually was familiar with the issues of social responsibility, even though he rarely heard or used the term. John thought that his coop experience gave him more of a context for understanding these types of issues. He said that before his coop, he did not think much from a socially responsible perspective, but since the coop he has thought more about those around him for which he is responsible. John: I think the tone and the aims of it (the study) seemed to be pretty interesting to me. Because before I went on my coop I didn ’t really get a lot of chances to think about what kind of social responsibility would go along with being an engineer. But I think when I was taking it (the survey) 125 I was kind of glad that somebody was thinking about this and kind of looking into it. Because yeah, you know now that we have been talking I realize that I did have a lot of these kinds of experiences. John was asked if he felt that the term social responsibility was a message that he would have been able to hear earlier in his program, and he replied, “Not so much.” He reflected “it may have come up from time to time but I think, after going on the coop and taking other classes that are aimed at seniors, I think that I kind of got a better sense of it.” From a developmental perspective, John recognized that these were complex issues that may have been more challenging for him to understand in his earlier years. As well, he believed that having the reference point of his cooperative education experience, and being in the real world setting was helpful to his understanding of his role as an engineer and to behaving socially responsible. Academic Factors We are learning it in the introductory computer science class (first year). But no one cares, it is brought about at the wrong time. (Kristen) In addition to personal influences, many students spoke cf academic influences on how they thought about being an engineer and socially responsible behavior including the impact of classes and faculty members. Many individuals shared their thoughts about the timing of receiving socially responsible messages. Some students felt that identifying the importance of competency as an engineer should occur earlier in one’s education while others felt that competency and responsibilities of professional engineers are lessons that tend to occur later in the curriculum. The students in this study believed that it was important to understand what they will be responsible for, to begin earlier to set a tone for the serious nature of the profession, and to value what it means to be a competent engineer. 126 Students talked about one of their first year classes that addressed ethics, but believed it happened too early to do them much good in adopting principles of social responsibility. They seemed to feel that although the ethics discussion occurred, it did not seem as relevant to them as it could be if later in their program. Many students highlighted an introductory computer science engineering (CSB) class in which they heard messages about engineering ethics. Mark and Andrea said that ethical issues were addressed in their computer science intro class. Don remarked that recently he had not had many classes that identified ethics or social responsibility, because as a junior, he was in more technical courses at this point in his coursework. He did, however, refer to the CSE intro class addressing engineering ethics which he had early on in his curriculum. Kyle also talked about the influence of his CSE intro class in introducing ethical incidents. He discussed learning about the tragic incident of a hotel collapse. He acknowledged a lack of familiarity with social responsibility and shared, “I think that social responsibility is kind of weird. But, I just might be unfamiliar with it. I don’t think you hear it as much in the engineering area.” He did, however, relate issues of ethical behavior and decision-making to his sense of social responsibility. He resonated with the term competency, as well. He saw a need for his classes and curricula to stress the importance of these issues that relate to social responsibility, and felt that some of his peers may not understand the serious responsibility that they take on in becoming engineers. Kyle: In engineering, everything is ethical focused. I think that may be the most important as far as engineering, especially in chemical engineering. We’re supposed to be the new wave of the automotive industry, especially with fuel cell research. The other thing; competency, I think that was good I don’t think that we hear that enough in engineering. It should be 127 stressed more and be challenged earlier. There are a few people in our classes that shouldn ’t be in our classes. A few others also talked about making sure that the messages occurred in the senior year as students prepared to graduate and become professionals. They thought that it should be infused more into the engineering curriculum. Although it was clear that this was a message received early on in her curriculum, Kristen felt that it might have been too early. She believed it was as important, if not more so, to learn about these issues when getting closer to graduation and being out in the real world. And she felt the lessons should be addressed more often. As a student leader, she remembered talking with her faculty advisor from her mechanical engineering student organization about these issues. She and other students felt that these issues needed to come up later. Kristen shared concerns about students in the computer science class (first year) tending to cheat because it was not relevant to them yet. Therefore, she questioned how much ethical responsibility was actually being integrated. She believed, as did her peers, it would be more beneficial to learn about ethics in more major related courses (in the junior and senior years). Kristen advocated for issues of social responsibility to be identified more in classes and experiences within the college. Kristen: I think it could be emphasized more. The intro CSE class is the only class that it is brought out directly. Some classes, with the whole social responsibility thing, I think of being able to be the best engineer that I can be. With being competent, some teachers, even if you do everything right and get the wrong answer, you only get half the credit because you got the wrong answer and it killed someone. A lot of times it could be emphasized more. The two chemical engineering students referred to an introduction to the profession course in which they respected the faculty member very much for her commitment, knowledge, experience and dedication to the growth and development of 128 future chemical engineers. The class, typically offered in the junior year, addressed professional aspects of chemical engineering including communication skills, professionalism and ethics, teamwork skills, contemporary engineering issues, career planning, project management, and an orientation to industrial processes. The students appreciated this class and hearing messages related to social and professional responsibility. I believe there may be a need to ensure that a class of this type occurs across all majors. It was not evident from the participants’ responses if other engineering majors also experienced such a class. Professional Emphasis My supervisor is a very good leader. With whom I work is important — my manager has been more of a mentor. He has the social skills - he has the right balance, something for me to emulate. (Mark) From a more professional perspective, student impressions of social responsibility and leadership were gained through their cooperative education training experience. Through the coop experience, some participants expressed that they were able to see things differently when it came to their role as engineers. Issues of social responsibility seemed more realistic once they had the context of the real world environment. As part of Andrea’s coop training, she participated in a behavioral analysis exercise in which she observed others making decisions. She was asked to critique and assess if individuals’ performance was up to specifications and protocol. If it was not, she had to suggest what she would do differently. She remembered how those exercises helped her to think about her ability to be socially responsible. The behavioral analysis activity encouraged her to critique behaviors that she recognized as inappropriate and to do so in a safe environment. She learned that she had to set herself apart from peers in 129 order to be a leader. Andrea also referred to her “code of conduct fiiends” regarding messages of social responsibility. She talked about the professional engineering societies of which she has been a member and how in some cases you sign a code regarding how you agree to behave professionally. She emphasized how the professional engineering societies also begin to train new students about ethical and professional responsibilities. Andrea: You hear a lot with your code of conduct fiiends in order to be socially responsible, and you think of — I know a lot of them, the societies; you have like almost like a contract that you sign, but I think that’s probably the most common place I’ve heard it is. Kyle discussed that compared to his peers, the coop experience helped him recognize his level of responsibility as an engineer. He understood the liability that he was under regarding decisions made in the work setting. Kyle: I don ’t think everybody does, but mostly the people that have work experience usually do. Once you get out and get experience, you are held liable and responsible for any engineering work that you put your name on. And if anything goes wrong with it, it is on your shoulders not anyone else ’s. He stated, “There wasn’t too much training on social responsibility or ethics, there’s not too many ethical questions regarding making cookies, unless you burn them.” The bottom line is that he learned you are held accountable for your projects. His coop training focused more on social accountability regarding company credibility, as well as one’s personal reputation. As well, he learned that serious consequences can occur if one is not accountable. For example, “If you are running a multi-million dollar project and if it goes upside down.” He realized that the person in charge would most likely be let go. Participants also felt that, in such a situation, mentors and supervisors contributed to understanding socially responsible behavior. They observed managers, supervisors, or coworkers and sometimes saw them in leadership roles in which they made choices and 130 decisions that were socially responsible. John, Matt and Mark talked about mentors being those who were committed to the grth and development of newcomers to the organization. As mentors, their supervisors were invested in the building up and challenging of their supervisees to be a success. John: Being a leader as an engineer means using the experience and knowledge that you have in a way that others can benefit. At my company the more experienced people would take time to train the younger employees to make sure that they were competent. I mean it worked out for them too. Because if the younger people on a project had more experience with the people that trained them, they knew that they could rely on them. A final professional aspect that influenced the participants’ understanding of socially responsible leadership was the company’s philosophy and mission statements. Many corporations have specific vision and principle statements that address issues of social responsibility, ethical and professional behavior, and community safety standards. Some participants discussed being aware of this, however, two students from the same company were not conscious that the principle of social responsibility was actually written and appeared on the company website, therefore reinforCing a need to continue to educate students about social responsibility and leadership behavior. Surprisingly to me, in some situations students were not aware of company missions that espoused the value of social responsibility. 131 CHAPTER FIVE Implications, Limitations, and Conclusions Theoretical Implications This study has a variety of theoretical implications including how students learn, and develop their understanding of becoming an engineer, the role that ethics, professionalism, and social responsibility plays in that development, as well as their understanding of leadership within engineering. The integration of leadership and engineering education programs is an opportunity to establish intentional student learning outcomes that address the following aspects of the student experience: 1) cognitive complexity; 2) intrapersonal and interpersonal competence; 3) knowledge, acquisition, integration, and application; 4) practical competence; 5) humanitarianism; and 6) civic engagement (Keeling, 2004). The following are implications that reflect these intentional student learning outcomes. Student Learning and Development The students’ meaning making experience provided evidence of cognitive development, which focused on critical and reflective drinking processes. This study showed that students leave campus with problem-solving and decision-making skills for use in the field of engineering. Conversely, the students’ experiences with non-technical skills and personal development did not seem to be as intentional in their curriculum. Students seemed to want more opportunities to consider issues such as social responsibility and leadership as part of their undergraduate engineering preparation. Through exploration of the participants’ meaning of socially responsible leadership, aspects of student learning and development established the foundation for 132 understanding one’s identity as a professional engineer. The integration of academic learning and student identity development encourages engineering educators to further examine the role of leadership education. This is similar to the learning outcomes advocated in Learning Reconsidered: A Campus- Wide, Focus on the Student Experience (Keeling, 2004), which explores the interconnectedness of student learning, promotes transformative education, and emphasizes the preparation of the whole student. Learning Reconsidered defines learning as a comprehensive activity that consists of the integration of academic learning and student development (p. 2). The experiences and beliefs that the students shared in their interviews reflected student learning outcomes of intra- and interpersonal competence. In order to be a better engineer, this study underscored the qualities of intrapersonal awareness including: taking the time to know one’s values and beliefs, establishing one’s confidence, being ethical in decision-making, having integrity, and promoting individual goal setting. In addition, an engineer’s interpersonal competence was expressedto be of value in an industrial setting. Students were aware that engineers do not work independently anymore. Instead, they observed engineering to be a profession built on relationships, communication, and collaboration. Interdependent experiences were seen as central for success as an engineer. The experiences of the students involved group work and team projects, however, there were not many experiences regarding intentional time and exercises addressing personal reflection and development. Meaning-making process. As students were asked to make sense of socially responsible leadership, they referenced their own personal experiences, as well as their observations of peers and coworkers. A key aspect of this study considered one’s 133 individual relationship with peers, coworkers, and the community in which one works and serves. As students made meaning of their cooperative experience, they exhibited qualities of self-identification in which their personal learning connected with their ‘lived experiences’. The learning outcomes of cognitive development, intrapersonal, and interpersonal competence were also qualities of self-authorship, and were derived from Robert Kegan’s meaning making theory (Baxter-Magolda, 1999; Kegan, 1994). In addition, Miller and Winston (1990) described this constructive-developmental approach as that which is “concerned with those personal, psychologically oriented aspects of the self and the relationships that exist between the self and society” (p. 101). This framework supports the complexities of socially responsible leadership regarding one’s individual awareness, ability to interact with others, and connection with the community. As well, Baxter-Magolda (1999) described self-authorship as a simultaneous process of cognitive, intrapersonal, and interpersonal development. Just as Kenneth Bruffee (1993) recognized that self-authorship integrates the cognitive and interpersonal dimensions in the medical profession, the field of engineering also incorporates these types of skills and outcomes into the work of engineers. Overall, self-authorship enlists one’s own reflection of one’s beliefs and experiences, while encouraging a review of current practice and a reinterpretation of what one believes. Therefore, this awareness accentuates the need for more intentional learning, reflective practice, and leadership experiences within the engineering education curriculum. The millennial generation. Lastly, this study considered the characteristics of millennial students as a potential influence on participants’ understanding of the practice of leadership and social responsibility. The millennial qualities of confidence, trust, 134 problem-solving, cooperating, team player, leadership seeking, civic-minded, and service oriented relate to some of the characteristics found in this study (Howe and Strauss, 2000). This leads one to believe that developmentally, these millennial students may be more prepared accordingly to exhibit socially responsible and leadership oriented behavior. Even though millennial students have grown up receiving the societal messages of “your generation will solve our problems”; “service-oriented and community-minded”; and “being motivated by the positive treatment of society”, the students in this study did not connect to the reference of social responsibility. Instead, qualities of ethics and professionalism were more prominent. Howe and Strauss’s (2000) perspective of the millennial generation’s “love of group work, cooperative activities, and the participation in something larger than the individual” definitely supports the results of this study. On the other hand, Howe and Strauss described millennial students as leadership seekers in their high school experiences. However, leadership experiences were not as prevalent for individuals in this study. As engineering educators approach teaching concepts of social responsibility and leadership education, they must take into consideration the needs and influences of the millennial generation. Professionalism in Engineering The transformation from being an engineering student to becoming a professional engineer provides an opportunity to promote social responsibility and leadership development experiences. Again, some of the other learning outcomes of Learning Reconsidered (Keeling, 2004) address a student’s professional development in engineering. The outcomes of knowledge acquisition, integration, and application; and 135 having practical competence reflect the findings of this study. The students discussed how knowledge, competence, and lifelong learning were important for one to be a professional engineer. Because they recognized that they were constantly being evaluated in the coop role, it was critical for these students to express their knowledge, exhibit multiple competencies as an engineer, and stand out as someone who contributes to the organization. Professional attributes. Webster’s Dictionary defines the word profession as a, “calling requiring specialized knowledge and intensive preparation in skills and scientific, historical, or scholarly principles, also maintaining high standards of achievement and conduct, and committing its members to continued study and to public service” (Kemper and Sanders, 2001). The engineering profession also abides by this definition in preparing engineers with specialized knowledge, training, and skills that emphasize scientific theory, learning from history, and scholarship and research; high standards of ethical and professional responsibility; and a commitment to lifelong learning, while serving on behalf of the public and common good for society. Just as engineering education strives to promote service, ethics, inclusion, and leadership, this study promoted the cooperative engineering students’ experience in obtaining qualities that represent social responsibility and leadership. The students understood issues of ethics and even providing service to the community on some level. However, they struggled with viewing themselves in the role of leader and only a few talked about the need to create an inclusive environment. The Engineer of 2020 identified professional attributes that engineering educators should address (National Academy of Engineering, 2004). The report stated that engineers should be broadly educated, view 136 themselves as global citizens, be able to lead in business or public service, as well as in research, development and design, and that they be ethical and inclusive of all segments of society (p. 59). The Engineer of 2020 advocates for educators to establish a philosophy and curriculum that includes these attributes. Hence, if programs want to prepare engineers for 2020, this suggests a need to infuse more aspects of social responsibility and leadership education into the engineering and cooperative education curriculum. The National Commission for Cooperative Education (N CCE) established student outcomes for cooperative education experiences. One category consisted of professional outcomes, which included: developing clarity about career goals; understanding the workplace culture; establishing workplace competencies; and enhancing new and advanced skills. This study found students’ identifying experiences in all aspects of these professional outcomes, which suggests cooperative engineering preparation programs should be more intentional about emphasizing professional identity development and learning outcomes, even before the first work assignment. Corporate social responsibility. Another concept that must be considered in training engineers to be professionals within the industry is Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR).The first approach to modern social responsibility occurred in 1953 with the publication of Howard R. Bowen’s book Social Responsibilities of the Businessman (1953). Bowen believed public responsibility, social obligations, and business morality were synonyms for social responsibility. He stated that social responsibilities in business “referred to the obligation to pursue those policies, to make those decisions, or to follow those lines of action which are desirable in terms of values of our society” (Anderson, 1989, p. 6). Anderson, in his book Corporate Social 137 Responsibility referenced that many people and stakeholders believe that industry has a moral obligation to correct the social problems that occur in society. Corporate social responsibility is a commitment to improve community well- being through discretionary business practices and contributions of corporate resources (Kotler and Lee, 2005).The discretionary approach means that it is a voluntary commitment that members of industry and companies make regarding practices that prioritize the welfare of society. Professional engineers are asked to exhibit such behaviors according to their code of ethics. Hence, as researcher, I question why the reference to social responsibility was so foreign to these participants, if corporate social responsibility is such a priority to business and industry. I propose that the further application of corporate social responsibility in engineering education, as well as in cooperative education preparation programs is necessary. Leadership Education In regard to leadership education, the participants did not identify with socially responsible leadership as one complete concept. Instead, they articulated the meanings of social responsibility and leadership as two separate concepts. As discussed previously, the students were able to identify leadership, however most struggled to view themselves as leaders. This suggests a need for further attention by engineering educators, as The Engineer of 2020 document calls for future engineers to be equipped with leadership skills (National Academy of Engineering, 2004). It is expected that with the growing interdependence between technology, the economy, and society, there will be an increase in opportunities for engineers to serve as leaders (p. 55).Therefore, one role of leadership 138 educators is to make sure that students are ready to step up when they are called to be a leader. Student engagement The engineering students in this study emphasized humanitarianism in the need to be aware of diversity, especially in the workplace. They realized that they may end up working with others who are different socially or culturally or with customers from diverse backgrounds. The students talked about social responsibility through the language of ethical behavior and professional responsibility. In addition, the outcome of civic engagement was emphasized in the students’ understanding of putting the public’s welfare first, as in the NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers (McCarthy, 2000). Although leadership effectiveness was also important, the engineering students were able to identify leadership behavior but struggled to see themselves in that role. From a student learning perspective, the outcomes of humanitarianism and civic engagement are emphasized as students engage in socially responsible leadership. The participants identified these behaviors as important to succeeding as an engineer. As well, Learning Reconsidered (Keeling, 2004) described humanitarianism as the understanding and appreciation of human differences, cultural competency, and social responsibility. While civic engagement addressed one’s connection to the community, it was having a sense of civic responsibility and being effective in leadership that were most critical to commitment to public life. Therefore, the need for more intentional leadership training and educational programs is emphasized. Social change model. As the students emphasized there own personal identity development, which incorporated motivation, core values, beliefs, and family 139 background, they articulated a construction of their consciousness of self. In other words, they addressed the importance of knowing who they are internally in order to function outwardly. The central principles of the social change model of leadership development involve social responsibility and promoting change for the common good (Dugan, 2006). As these principles obviously relate to engineering education outcomes, many values of the social change model (SCM) were articulated by the students as they focused on their own personal and professional development. They also identified aspects of the SCM from the levels of individual, group, and societal awareness (HERI, 1996). Of the three different levels, the group (relational) level seemed to be the one in which students had the most formalized educational experiences and which had produced opportunities to explore these skills. Not only does the engineering classroom curriculum emphasize team-based learning and group development, but cooperative education students encounter multiple team experiences. Various participants discussed the importance of leaders’ identifying common goals, as well as understanding the mission of the organizations for which they work. Many emphasized the importance of trust and communication for leadership to be effective, which are foundations for collaboration. As well, some students spoke about the issues of conflict and diversity that address the SCM value of controversy with civility. For the most part, individuals described the significance of diversity as they navigate boundaries and negotiate their role in a company. Students felt strong leaders are those who embrace diversity and recognize that conflict is a natural part of being a professional and working with a team. The final level of the SCM consisted of a societal perspective. The SCM presents leadership as an inclusive process in which change is affected for the betterment of 140 others. As individuals expressed their beliefs about social responsibility and leadership, they definitely believed that their role as engineers included being a change agent and making a difference on behalf of the public welfare. This suggests a need for regular opportunities for students to make connections allowing change to happen and their leader identity to be defined. For example, students need time to discuss and reflect more on what it means to them to be a change agent within their own community, as well as on a larger societal scale. As students shared their perspectives, they spent the most time discussing their individual identity development. An overall value of the SCM considers interaction across the different levels and between the values in order to facilitate positive social change for the organization or in the community (HERI, 1996). Individual development seemed to be generated more through typical college experiences, rather than an intentional curricular process or course. Venues where students could gain this type of knowledge include first year introductory courses, career development assessment tools, pre-experiential education workshops, student organization trainings, and academic advising sessions. The findings suggested that societal consciousness was expressed through the code of conduct that individuals were obligated to uphold. As engineering students, they were exposed to the ABET Criteria (2000) in their curriculum. Although students seemed to realize the need to think on more of a societal level, this was not yet a deeply held value. As a result, the data show a need to be more consistent regarding exposure to these ideas in students’ training, especially in experiential education, as well as in courses that address an introduction to the profession and design intensive courses. My suggestion 141 would be to infuse messages regarding socially responsible leadership throughout the curricular, co-curricular, and experiential education experiences of engineering education students. Leadership identity development model. As the students in this study explored their understanding of leadership, the leadership identity development model provided a framework for analyzing one’s own identity development as a leader (Komives et al., 2006). Although many of the students recognized leadership behavior in others, they were challenged to see themselves in the role of leader. This represents the first stage of the leadership identity development (LID) model in which one is aware that leadership exists and views it as external to self. As students discussed leadership, they typically thought of themselves in more of a follower role, as they referred to observing their supervisors or managers as leaders. Next, students described some cases in which they took on formal leadership roles by being on student organization executive boards. In those situations, they began an exploration process of identifying, as a leader, while still looking for guidance from adults and more experienced peers, therefore, expressing qualities of stage two of the LID, exploration and engagement. As study participants offered many examples of leadership behaviors, they specifically shared that leaders need to be able to delegate, to learn about team members’ strengths and weaknesses, to be able to deal with conflict, and to understand members’ motivations for doing the job. As well, there were a couple of students who were hesitant to take on the group leader position because they understood the serious responsibility it entailed. They simply were not yet ready for that type of leadership role. As the students talked about leadership, they represented the third stage of the LID. In order for students 142 to embrace the role of leader, opportunities for meaning making and reflection with adults and peers are needed in order to integrate these thoughts into new patterns of behavior (Komives et al., 2006). The students in this study stated that titles were not needed to be a leader, however, in practice they still gave examples that were very title or position focused. Their views of leadership as group oriented connected to the beginning aspects of stage four of the LID (Komives, et al., 2006), although for the most part, the students expressed leadership as more hierarchical, control-oriented, and leader driven. This leader-centric view was not aligned with the later level of stage four in which interdependence was valued and leaders tended to let go of control. Overall, the LID model can serve as an intentional framework to teach leadership for engineering, cooperative education, and leadership educators in preparation programs. The significant aspects of reflection and meaning making embedded throughout the model encourage more opporttmities for student to engage in such behaviors, especially after returning from a cooperative work experience. Practical Implications This study also had some practical implications for educators in engineering, cooperative education and student affairs. The findings support that curricular and co- curricular strategies can influence students’ experiences and perceptions regarding social responsibility and leadership practice. Engineering Educators The experience of leadership development was clearly not as evident for the students in this study. In some cases, individuals described their own former leadership 143 roles in student organizations, project team management, and group work. However, their identification and awareness of themselves as leaders were not as common. This suggests that engineering educators should seek ways to integrate social responsibility and leadership education into curricular and co-curricular activities if leadership development is a priority. The Engineer of 2020 (2004) calls for the future generation of engineers to have strong analytical skills, think creatively, exhibit initiative and ingenuity, commit to a sense of professionalism, and to serve as leaders, so we must infuse leadership education and the promotion of social responsibility throughout the college experience. Curricular experience. The literature shows that many institutions have added intentional leadership education programs to their engineering colleges. Both curricular and co-curricular (outside of the classroom) initiatives have been identified. One way to integrate concepts of socially responsible leadership into the curriculum consists of the first year introductory courses. As students begin to learn about the engineering profession, they should hear the messages about the importance of ethical and professional responsibility, and the role that engineers have in society, even if they may not be fully ready developmentally to process these messages. In addition, it is critical to begin to establish who they are as engineers, to interact and communicate with others, to learn what leadership is, and who they want to be as a leader Two schools have adopted actual engineering leadership courses into their curriculum and serve as examples of the point made here. The University of Maryland at College Park established a one credit seminar for the Engineering Honors program. Hilton (1996) indicated that engineering schools must better train engineers for leadership roles. Through the seminar class, Robert McCuen (1999), a professor of civil 144 engineering, noted that “the inclusion of leadership training in engineering education could enhance engineers’ confidence in assuming more leadership responsibility in society” (p. 82). The University of Pittsburgh at J ohnstown also incorporated an Engineering Leadership course into its curriculum. The, course emphasizes introspection of one’s own life followed by examining the character-based requirements essential for meaningful and productive interpersonal relationships. The class emphasizes reflection and practice in its approach to teaching about leadership education (Martinazzi et al., 2004). Both examples suggest an intentional effort to promote leadership development as important for technical skill development. Another class setting where students can learn lessons of socially responsible leadership is the senior capstone design level course. In this course, students typically have an opportunity to integrate all that they have learned throughout their college experience. Aspects of the design capstone class typically involve a student team experience as well as a relationship with a corporate partner. Students are engaged in a team process to solve a real world industry problem. Hence, this opportunity invites them to think on multiple levels about who they are as engineers, what company expectations are for them, and how they will serve the community. Co-curricular initiatives. There are a variety of experiences outside the classroom that can influence students’ development of social responsibility and leadership, including residential community living experiences, student organization involvement, and experiential education. Another approach for teaching and learning these skills includes the role of peer mentoring. The residential living and learning community creates an opportunity for students to interact and engage on many levels personally, 145 interpersonally, and as a member of a community. Students are faced with a variety of developmental challenges to their own values and belief systems. They learn to communicate their needs and establish their own independence by living with a roommate and other members of the community. As well, students could have the chance to participant in a diverse community environment, and again learn more about who they are and what they choose to defend. Another co-curricular experience is participating in student organizations. Individuals may choose to be members or to take on formal leadership roles such as some students in this study that participated in engineering student organizations. Through their experiences, they learn more about their profession, meet new and diverse students, participate in campus activities, and make a difference in the community. Cress et a1. (2001) examined student involvement in a formalized leadership program. They found participants showed growth across leadership skills including civic responsibility, multicultural awareness, and personal and societal values (Dugan, 2006). Just as the authors addressed the qualities of leadership, so too did this study, regarding the need to give back to the community, to understand the importance of diversity, and to recognize the importance of values that each person brings to their leadership experience. Next, a different way in which students may engage in learning about issues of social responsibility and leadership is mentoring. The students in this study identified the importance of learning and their willingness to ask questions of their supervisors and mentors in the work environment. Mentoring offers a connection to others, a commitment to teaching the students or new employees, and acting on behalf of the welfare of others. Oregon State University (Oregon State University) surveyed their Industrial Advisory 146 Board and found that they look for technical, as well as communication, team work, and leadership skills in engineering graduates (Rochefort, 1998). The chemical engineering department there established a leadership and mentoring course in order to retain students and to help new students transition to the college experience. OSU’s program realized the relevance of mentoring for engineering students to assist in new students in their transition. Although the students in my study focused mostly on their own mentors in their life, a few hoped in the future that they could serve as mentors for younger students. An implication of this study includes the creation of more peer mentoring experiences for students, as mentoring behavior encourages leadership skills and builds confidence for students. Cooperative Education Educators Preparation programs. The findings of this study emphasized the different goals of cooperative education. The data emphasize the need for individuals to recognize the expectations that employers have for social responsibility and leadership behaviors. Students needed to be able to begin to see themselves in a leader context, as well as understand the inclusive, collaborative, and shared aspects of socially responsible leadership. The cooperative education experience provides an opportunity to set the tone for students to understand the expectations that employers possess. The Accreditation Council for Cooperative Education (ACCE) requires cooperative experiences that provide: opportunities to develop specific professional skills related to their academic major; assistance in defining career plans and options; enhancement of personal and professional skills; an increased awareness of the link between classroom concepts and work-world applications; and an increased understanding of the culture, technology, and 147 practices of employing organizations (Zimmer, 1999, p. 55). With this in mind, a practical implication suggests more intentional efforts regarding cooperative preparation courses, orientation, and workshops to set the tone for students to start thinking through the lens of socially responsible leadership. Supervisor relationship. Another aspect of cooperative education related to socially responsible leadership that educators can influence is the work-site supervisor relationship. As supervisors interact with students on a daily basis, they are in an opportune role to impact the student learning process. This study shows the work supervisor as critical for students to recognize and learn lessons about their ability to behave in socially responsible ways as engineers and serve as leaders in the work setting. An ideal supervisor understands the purpose of cooperative education, has content knowledge that will be useful to the student, has a genuine interest in people and an ability to communicate effectively, is patient, empathetic, and tolerant of mistakes, sets high expectations, and provides frequent and constructive feedback (Marini, 1999). Therefore, in general it is imperative for coop educators to establish a positive relationship and share with the worksite supervisors the expectations of the cooperative education program. As many companies have an actual philosophy or corporate mission statement that reflects the values of social, corporate, and community responsibility, the supervisor role encourages another avenue for getting the message across regarding the values of social responsibility. As supervisors are looked upon as a critical component of the overall coop experience, they can also provide opportunities for mentoring to occur. In this study, some students talked about experiences with their own supervisors as mentors or about 148 someone they respected as an industry leader. They admired supervisors and managers who are ethical, professional, and had the welfare of the company and the community as their first priority, all aspects of social responsibility and leadership. So that observing these characteristics in supervisors is consistent across coop settings, as much as possible, coop educators may need to dedicate more time and commitment to incorporating these messages into supervisor expectations. Processing the cooperative experience. Experiential learning such as cooperative education or internships can provide a transformative educational process, especially when designed to take into account the four stages of Kolb’s learning cycle: concrete experience; reflective observation; abstract conceptualization; and active experimentation (Komives and Schoper, 2006). Coop engineering experiences are a form of experiential learning but it was clear in this study that reflective learning was essential if the experiences were to be transformational. Students need to reflect on their experiences while in the cooperative work site assignment, as well as post-coop. Specifically related to a students’ ability to begin to view themselves as a leader or socially responsible engineer, they must take the time to stand back and reflect on their learning in the workplace. Students should also be used in the recruitment process in identifying and seeking out new cooperative students. Hearing from former coop students about their learning and professional development experience, prospective coop students can see firsthand the kind of learning and leadership experiences they can anticipate. This type of giving back exemplifies an act of social responsibility of the older, more experienced student 149 while, they also establish themselves as mentors and/or leaders who new students can seek out for guidance and support. Leadership Educators As student and academic affairs educators, we must create learning experiences that challenge students to think in a more inclusively and socially responsible way (London, 2003, p. 49). Leadership education incorporates significant experiences for students to begin to challenge their values and beliefs, and learn, not only about who they are, but also about who they want to become. Social justice. Although this study found that students understood the importance of diversity in the workplace, students did not necessarily share a desire to advocate for those that are underrepresented. Another aspect of social responsibility focuses on the promotion of social justice, which includes an appreciation of ethics and diversity, as well as a sense of the common good (N emerowicz and Rosi, 1997, p. 129).The students’ sense of diversity revolved around working in teams, as well as with customers. The students understood the need to be able to work with those that are different such as Jack’s example of creating a more inclusive environment in order to complete the job. If engineering educators aspire to instill a sense of inclusivity, this finding suggests a need for more training and education regarding issues of justice and equality in respect to diversity, specifically as students come to understand their responsibility and commitment to acting on behalf of the common good. Inclusive leadership is directly correlated to having a sense of social responsibility and introduces the values of collaboration, empowerment, integrative thinking, creativity, shared authority, and social responsibility (p. 128). 150 Career development. Through career development, leadership education can be cultivated. As the students expressed their own professional identity development, they articulated many qualities related to socially responsible and leadership behavior. In addition to this study, the Careers Services Network at. Michigan State University interviewed employers in 2004 and asked what they expected of college graduates (Career Services Network, 2004). The employers identified twelve essential qualities that employers valued and expected future employees to exhibit. Many of these same skills were also found to be meaningful to the students in this study in their expression of socially responsible leadership. The skills addressed in both studies included: having a sense of integrity, understanding diversity, effective communication, working in a team, problem-solving, critical thinking, and embracing change. As expressed previously, many students in this study emphasized the importance of ethical decision-making and maintaining a sense of integrity in their individual and professional identity as an engineer. As well, the students discussed their impressions of professional competencies and work culture expectations, including problem-solving, communication, and working in a diverse team. And finally, the role of change within the field of engineering was definitely identified by the participants. In conclusion, the students understood the need to continue to develop these types of skills, therefore, implying that career preparation is a process over the course of a student’s college development. I believe it is critical to start in the first year and begin to introduce these essential skills to their collegiate life. I propose that career development should be an intentional and self-seeking process in which students must be engaged. Goal setting and life planning workshops and programs can help to contribute to a student’s ability to see more 151 clearly who they are, what their calling is, and where they see themselves in the future. As well, a career development approach could take on more of a personal and professional development plan in which students set intended goals for their own progress over the college experience. The resources of. the social change model (SCM) (HERI, 1996) or the leadership identity development (LID) model (Komives et al., 2006) are good frameworks to integrate the benefits of leadership education into students’ personal and professional career plan, as they encourage values and skills that employers expect of graduates. Future Research The review of literature in chapter two identifies the paucity of studies regarding the intersections of engineering and leadership education. As well, the call for more cooperative education scholarship, specifically of a qualitative nature, encourages further research. In addition, the vision of The Engineer of 2020 prioritizes the need for engineering educators to provide a full and well-rounded education that prepares individuals for a creative and productive life, as well as for positions of leadership (National Academy of Engineering, 2004). Therefore, I suggest a variety of future research that focuses on the student experience, the employer or company relationship, and academic preparation. Future research should consider the impact of the students’ experience on their understanding of what it means to be a professional engineer regarding the qualities of social and ethical responsibility, as well as leadership. Since this study only consisted of cooperative engineering education participants with a minimum of one work term semester, it would be of interest to investigate non-cooperative engineering students’ 152 experiences regarding these issues. This would provide further exploration of the direct influence of the cooperative education experience. A pre and post-assessment could be administered to learn what effect the cooperative experience had on a student’s understanding of social responsibility and leadership behaviors. The current study did not look at the effect of the cooperative experience but rather I purposefully selected cooperative engineering students because of the context of this experience. Another point to consider would be non-engineering students and their perceptions of socially responsible leadership experiences. Students in other majors that would be of interest to explore include those in business, education, pre-medical and pre- law. Due to the professional expectations relationship to social or ethical responsibility, these other professional preparation disciplines would be useful in determining if there are similar standards taught across majors. In addition, it would be good to talk to students from non-professional programs to gain their perspective regarding issues of socially responsible leadership. An interesting aspect that this study started to touch on suggests the need to look across different majors of engineering. Although this study has a diverse group of participants, not all engineering majors at the institution are represented. The majors of civil, bio-systems, material science, and applied engineering science are missing. This study touched upon how different majors introduce the concepts of social, ethical, and professional responsibility, and the approaches seem to vary. A study investigating across engineering majors would begin to identify at what entry points the students hear these messages and would create a more consistent process across the broader discipline. In 153 addition, it would adhere to the accreditation process and emphasize a more intentional curriculum based on ABET learning outcomes. Other qualities of the student experience that invite further study include other institutional settings (private four-year or community colleges) as well as diverse experiential learning activities (for example: study abroad, co-curricular programs, student/faculty research projects, or student employment) in regard to participants’ sense making of socially responsible leadership. For example, experiences of community and relationship to others of students at small private liberal arts colleges may have an impact on their understanding of social responsibility issues and how they interact with others. In addition, small private religiously—affiliated institutions would be environments where it might be assumed that issues of service, values, and community influence students’ experiences. I would anticipate that students in this type of learning environment would have a stronger connection to the issues of social responsibility and being a member of a community due to the spiritual and service philosophy of the institution. On the other hand, a two-year community college typically has a different student demographic than public or private four-year institutions. The two-year setting often has a more non-traditional, commuter based population. This population offers the perspective of different ‘lived experiences’ that the students may provide. Some individuals have families and many students work firll-time while, attending school part- time. Therefore, investigating this population would identify very diverse experiences that may influence the students’ understanding of socially responsible leadership. As well, community colleges tend to have missions that connect their work to the local commrmity, which might permeate students’ experiences in ways to encourage socially 154 responsible behavior. Overall, I believe it would be worth exploring differences between student experiences at four- and two-year institutions to get a sense of additional influences upon one’s experience of socially responsible leadership. Next, the exploration of additional experiential learning strategies would be another avenue of research. Comparing the findings of cooperative education experiences as a form of experiential learning to students’ participating in study abroad, student organization involvement, undergraduate research, and work study or employment experiences would be of value to further understanding socially responsible and leadership behavior. Studying several kinds of experiential learning may lead to common characteristics across settings that encourage certain values and understandings associated with socially responsible leadership. Study abroad experiences provide students with a different cultural experience, which can impact students’ understanding of culture and community, as well as the recognition of what is their responsibility to themselves and others. As we learned in The Engineer of 2020 (National Engineering Academy, 2004), employers expect graduates to be globally competent. The study abroad opportunity is another strategy to further explore the intersections between study abroad, social responsibility, and leadership experiences. In addition, involvement in student organizations provides students with a context for understanding their role in community, as well as their responsibilities as general members or formal leaders of organizations. I feel that experiences such as residence life staff, Greek letter organizations, and other student organizations would offer another population of students regarding their perspectives of leadership and socially responsible behavior. Since a key principle of socially responsible leadership emphasizes a non- 155 hierarchical philosophy, future studies that explore positional versus non-positional members experience of socially responsible leadership would inform this body of literature. Even though the findings showed students did not believe that leaders needed to have a title, they did primarily give examples of leaders as those in power and authority based positions. Therefore, this result encourages further studies of socially responsible leadership among those in formal leader and non-positional roles. Another experiential learning experience useful for exploring further issues of ethics, professionalism, and social responsibility would be undergraduate research opportunities. Students involved in research encounter opportunities to serve, to give back to the professional community, and to abide by ethical standards of human research subjects protection. Also, student work study or campus employment provides an opportunity to study student experiences related to socially responsible leadership behavior. This type of work environment may or may not contribute as much to socially responsible characteristics as a corporate environment. For example, some students may wrongly assume that expectations of a campus position are not as serious as “real world” experiences. Yet, it is likely that students working on campus develop or at least become aware of a sense of social, ethical, and professional responsibility. In addition, the role modeling of supervisors and the office culture would be important to consider in such a study. Due to the developmental perspective of one’s ability to think about the concepts of social responsibility and leadership, the level of college (freshmen or senior) may be another factor where students can be compared regarding their experiences and level of meaning making regarding socially responsible leadership. As well, it would be useful to 156 follow-up with participants regarding their understanding of social responsibility and leadership after a few years of real world work experience. This would provide an opportunity to see if the influences of life changes or full-time work have had any impact on their understanding of social responsibility and leadership. It is also important to explore the role that race, ethnicity and gender have on students’ understanding of social responsibility and leadership behavior. The current study had two students of color and three women out of ten subjects, so although there was some diversity, it would be useful to involve a diverse group of students in any future studies in order to explore how gender and ethnicity effect the meaning and experience of socially responsible leadership. Although students in this study addressed a basic awareness of diversity, I believe this is an area that is lacking in the engineering education curriculum. Therefore, I feel this is another avenue for research. In addition to the student experience, the relationship with the company or employer is relevant for further investigation. Student experiences were the primary context for this study, but a follow up survey or interview with cooperative work site supervisors would provide insight into how they see the concepts of social responsibility and leadership introduced in their company environment. Employers could also share any cooperative learning outcomes established between the students and employers regarding social responsibility or leadership, and specifically how they connect with the Accreditation Board for Engineering Technology Criteria 3 outcomes (ABET, 1998). Another source of information that came up in the study was company philosophy and mission statements. Exploring company mission statements, values, and principles in surveys or through a review of company websites for information related to social 157 responsibility and leadership training programs would be useful for understanding the corporate influence on these values. Many companies have specific statements regarding their company’s commitment to social responsibility, as was discussed in this study; however, it was not always clear to the students working at those companies. This investigation could lead to changes in their orientation and training programs, as well as promotional materials. In relation to the role of faculty and the curriculum, the ABET criteria three outcomes play a significant role in guiding the engineering curriculum. Future research of benefit to engineering educators would look at engineering faculty members’ approaches to teaching aspects of social, ethical, and professional responsibility, as well as ways that they encourage leadership behavior and skills in the classroom. In addition, a study that looks at the attributes of the Engineer of 2020, as related to the ABET Criteria 2000 learning outcomes may show a need for the program outcomes of Criteria 3 to be updated with the goals of The Engineer of 2020 (2004). Another opportunity for study addresses how non-engineering education programs, representative of other pre-professional disciplines (education, business, medical, law, etc.), approach teaching social responsibility and leadership behavior. It is important to understand how students are being prepared to be professionals in their respective disciplines and this study could provide some useful comparisons to engineering education. The review of other curricula and professional development learning outcomes are important in relationship to students’ experiences of social, ethical, and professional responsibility, as well as leadership ability. 158 A final potential for future research addresses one of the limitations of this study. Although the SRLS-R inventory was not as effective as intended here, the creators of the inventory continue to make improvements to it. The improvements focus on making the inventory web-based, as well as being shortened to approximately 60 items rather than the 83 item survey used in this study. With these improvements, the inventory could be utilized in the future as a pre- and post-assessment tool for socially responsible leadership. It could be used in any of the experiential learning activities, as discussed above, to discover if students’ scores changed after completion of activities such as cooperative education. Because the inventory does not produce an overall score for social responsibility, the inventory would be most effective through a pre- and post-application in a research study. Limitations of the Study As with any research, there are limitations that must be considered. First, as is inherent in qualitative research, the study is bound by time and context. The experiences of these cooperative engineering students at a large public research institution may be different from those of students that are non-engineering or that attend a small liberal arts or community college institution. In addition, students at institutions that have mandatory cooperative education programs may also have different experiences than the participants in this study. Hence, the qualitative methodology limits the ability to generalize the findings in the study. I tried to remain cognizant of the issue of language regarding leadership development as it related to social responsibility. As stated in the introduction, engineering students did not resonate as much to the language of leadership or socially 159 responsible leadership. Therefore, as researcher, I was cautious to not be selective in hearing terms used that were only familiar to me from leadership education literature. As the study emphasized cooperative engineering students’ meaning making, I identified and translated their language and terminology as it related to the concept of socially responsible leadership. Another concern was related to students’ development regarding their ability to make sense of the significance of socially responsible leadership. It was expected that students had at least one cooperative work rotation and, therefore, had to be at sophomore status, minimally, to participate. Based on student ethical development theory, participants may vary in regard to their familiarity with issues related to social responsibility and leadership development. In addition, studies have shown that younger students may not be able to understand more complex concepts, such as socially responsible leadership (Baxter-Magolda, 1999; King and Kitchener; 1994). The limited diversity across the engineering majors may be viewed as a constraint. For this study, 184 students were invited to participate of which only 26 replied (14%). This small response rate narrowed my pool of follow up participants significantly. Therefore, of the ten students interviewed, five of the nine engineering majors were represented in the study. Students in the majors of civil, bio-systems, material science and applied engineering science engineering did not choose to participate in the interviews. As well, the small response rate does not provide an understanding of how representative those students are of the other 158 students that did not respond to the invitation. Hence, one must be cautious that this study is representative of any engineering at the public institution. 160 A final limitation was use of the SRLS-R inventory. Unfortunately, the return rate was not as high as I anticipated. Therefore, the information provided by the survey was only useful towards establishing criteria for the selection of interview participants. Another concern with the inventory was that it does not produce an overall score for socially responsible leadership. Instead, it provides scores on the eight different constructs that the inventory measures. The various constructs have been established as values that represent socially responsible leadership behavior (Tyree, 1998). Through my experience with the inventory, I believe that it is better utilized in a practical training setting than for research purposes. Conclusions The principles of socially responsible leadership are essential for the firture of engineering education. The Engineer of 2020 calls for future engineers to be prepared to serve in leadership roles, to view oneself as a global citizen, and to be ethically grounded (National Academy of Engineering, 2004). Therefore, it is more important than ever to integrate engineering and leadership education in practice. The results of this study reveal that students do not recognize the label of socially responsible leadership. They spoke of aspects of social responsibility and qualities of leadership in their cooperative experience as being two different types of practice. As well, most were challenged to see themselves as leaders. As they tried to make meaning of social responsibility, students struggled. Social responsibility was not a term that was familiar to them as they discussed what it means to be an engineer. Instead, they made sense of their understanding and experience as related to ethical and professional responsibility as an engineer. Perhaps as a result of the NSPE 161 Code of Ethics for Engineers (McCarthy, 2000), as well as the ABET Criteria (1998), this clearly is a lesson that students are hearing and getting in their engineering education. Engineers have their own code, which states among other things that engineers should: hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public; perform with competency; be honest; act in professional matters for each employer or client as faithful agents; and avoid deceptive acts when trying to solicit employment. Students definitely were able to articulate these behaviors in their own practice, as well as through observing others. Therefore, it seems that students are learning what is being taught from the ABET Criteria 2000 perspective or from the company’s values and expectations. However, what is not being addressed concerns the need for engineering students to recognize their own value process as they act on behalf of others, especially those that may be different than themselves. As Sylvia Hurtado stated her concern earlier, students’ self-interests, as well as their company interests seem to be in tact. It was evident that students are not being challenged to critically think about issues of diversity within the field of engineering, as well as be able to prioritize their values in the midst of becoming an engineer. The results suggest that the participants clearly understand the importance of service to the profession, their employer or clients, and the community, as well as ethics in their own decision-making processes. As students identified with becoming an engineer, they attempted to balance these different aspects of expectations upon them, but, sometime struggled to find their voice regarding their own values, especially in their current student status. Issues of diversity also were raised by students in the study. They shared an awareness of age, years of experience, and types of engineering background but did not speak much about cultural differences, although one student had an 162 international coop experience that he valued. Diversity awareness seemed to be an aspect in need of further education, specifically as engineering educators are called upon to prepare students to work in a global workforce (Oberst and Jones, 2004). The final element of social responsibility, to act with a sense of the common good, emerged throughout the findings of this study. Individuals felt that putting others first above their own needs is a priority, especially related to safety standards. Students also emphasized the potential to engage in decisions that can involve life and death. Characteristics of the common good represented by these students are an ability to communicate; the importance of being a team player, working in collaboration, being honest, having integrity, and making decisions based on what is good for the company, client, and community. Although students connected a variety of their experiences to socially responsible behavior, most struggled to give examples of personal experiences in leadership. The participants spoke of many qualities of leadership behavior that they observed in others, but most did not view themselves in that role. According to the social change model of leadership development (HERI, 1996), the central principles of being socially responsible and the promotion of change for the common good were definitely expressed in the students’ practice as professional engineers. The philosophy of leadership from the social change model (HERI, 1996) establishes leadership as a collaborative process which is value-based. As well, being a leader is viewed as process rather than position-oriented. Anyone has the potential to be a leader, not just those in formal positions. The students in this study do not understand leadership defined this way. Instead, they focused hierarchically, in which someone is viewed as the authority figure. Students referred to 163 the importance of leaders being in charge or in control. This leads me to believe that further leadership education would be relevant for engineering students if collaborative leadership is of value. Even though students struggled to see themselves in the role of leader, they recognized their own professional identity development, as well as that of being in a role to make changes on behalf of others and society. I believe that these transformative processes also reflect leadership behavior, even if the students were not yet able to conceive of themselves in that role. Professional competency skills were very important to the students. They identified the need for knowledge, skills, decision-making ability, and working with others, all of which relate to leadership behavior. For over a decade, “soft skills” have been referred to as professional skills including communication, teamwork, ethical decision-making, understanding global and social factors, and lifelong learning (Smerdon, 2000). Another aspect of professional identity emphasized one’s ability to navigate the work culture (Goldberg, 1995; McCarthy, 2000). Students recognized their cooperative experience as a type of socialization process to the field of engineering. The students wanted to establish themselves as employees who added value to the company. They recognized the importance of fostering an environment in which individuals can work with and depend on each other. The engineering profession enables individuals to make decisions that can literally change the world, specifically regarding quality of life issues. This awareness and being in a role to make change happen were clearly significant for these students. Commitment to improving the quality of life and staying up to date with the most current research and technology reflects one’s capacity for leadership. Students also identified 164 the need to recognize the risks that are involved in change. Some students addressed society’s hesitance to accept change, while others shared engineering leaders must take action and educate the community as to the benefits of the changes to their lives. Overall, this study provided an initial exploration of students’ meaning making regarding socially responsible leadership. I believe the findings warrant continuing this investigation and creating more intentional processes for students to integrate the qualities of socially responsible leadership as they begin the transformation to be a professional engineer. 165 BIBLIOGRAPHY ABET (1998). Engineering Criteria 2000. Available on the World Wide Web at http://www.abet.org/eac/EAC_99-00 Criteria.htm#EC2000. ABET (2003). Criteria for accrediting engineering programs. Baltimore, MD: ABET, Inc. Allen, KB. (1990). Making sense out of chaos: Leading and living in dynamic systems. Campus Activities Programming, p. 57. Allen, K.B., & Cherrey, C. (2000). Systemic leadership: Enriching the meaning of our work Washington, DC: American College Personnel Association and national Association of Campus Activities. Anderson, J .W. (1989). Corporate social responsibility: Guidelines for top management. New York, NY: Quorum Books. Ary, D., Jacobs, L.C., & Razavieh, A. (Eds.). (2002). Introduction to research in education (6th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomas Learning. Association of American Colleges and Universities. (2005). Liberal education outcomes: A preliminary report on student achievement in college. Washington, DC: AAC&U Publications. Astin, AW. (1993). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Astin, A.W., Astin, H.S., Boatsman, K.C., Bonous-Hammarth, M., Chambers, T., Goldberg, L.S., et al. (1996). A social change model of leadership development: Guidebook (Version 111). Los Angeles: UCLA, Higher Education Research Institute. Astin, HS. (1996) Leadership for social change. About Campus, 1, 4-10. Astin, H.S., & Astin, AW. (1996). A social change model of leadership development. Los Angeles: UCLA Higher Education Research Institute. Astin, H.S., & Leland, C. (1991). Women of influence, women of vision: A cross- generational study of leaders and social change. San Francisco: Jossey —Bass. Bartkus, K.R., & Stull, WA. (1997). Some thoughts about research in cooperative education. Journal of Cooperative Education, 32 (2),7-16. Baxter Magolda, M. (1999). Creating contexts for learning and self-authorship. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press. 166 Bayles, M. (1981). Professional ethics. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Berrnan, S. (1997). Children’s social consciousness and the development of social responsibility. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Berman, S., & LaFarge, P. (1993). Promising practices in teaching social responsibility. New York: State University of New York Press. Borgenschutz, M. , & Anderson, E. (1992). How students perceive the ethics of the job search. Journal of Career Planning and Employment, 52(4), 34-3 7. Bowen, H. R. (1953). Social responsibilities of the businessman. New York: Harper & Brothers. Bruffee, K.A.(1993). Collaborative learning: Higher education, interdependence, and the authority of knowledge. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Business-Higher Education Forum (1997). Spanning the chasm: Corporate and academic cooperation to improve work-force participation. NSEE Quarterly, 23(3), 6-9. Career Services Network. (2004) Twelve essentials for success: Competencies employers seek in college graduates. Retrieved August 10, 2006 from: http://www.csp.msu.edu/students/gettingexperience/index_html Chickering, A. W., & Reisser, L.(1993).Education and identity. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Clark, K. E. (1985). Teaching undergraduates to be leaders. AAHE Bulletin, 3 7(7), 11-14. Coll, R.K. (1998). International cooperative education placements: Benefits and barriers. In Proceedings of the Third Asia-Pacific Conference on Cooperative Education, Hong Kong: World Association for Cooperative Education. Collins, SB. (1971). Types of programs. In A.S. Knowles, J. Axelrod, & M.B. Freedman (Eds), Handbook of cooperative education (pp. 29-36). San Francisco: Jossey- Bass. Cress, C. M., Astin, H. S., Zimmerman-Oster, K.,,& Burkhardt, J. C. (2001). Developmental outcomes of college students’ involvement in leadership activities. Journal of College Student Development, 42, 15-27. Creswell, J .W. (1994). Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 167 Creswell, J .W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Cuevas, V. (1998). What companies want: The ‘whole engineer’. EE Times Online Edition, The Industry Source for Engineers & Technical Managers Worldwide. http://www.eetimescom/salarysurvey/1998/work_companies.html. Dewey, J. (1999). Building coop programs around the principles of effective student learning. In C. Cates, & P. Jones (Eds), Learning outcomes: The educational value of cooperative education (pp. 21-27). Columbia, MD: Cooperative Education Association, Inc. Drath, W.H. (1998). Approaching the future of leadership development. In C.D. McCauley, R.S. Mosley, and E.Velson (Eds), The center for creative leadership handbook of leadership development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Dugan, J. P. (2006). Involvement and leadership: A descriptive analysis of socially responsible leadership. Journal of College Student Development, 4 7(3), 335-343. Barnes, C. (2000). Learning in the workplace through cooperative education placements: Beginning a longitudinal qualitative study. Journal of Cooperative Education, 35(2-3), 76-83. Education Commission of the States. (1996). Transforming the state role in undergraduate education: Time for a dijferent view (Report No. PS-86-3). Denver, CO.(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 275219) Fleddermann, CB. (2004). Engineering ethics (2“d ed.). Upper‘Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Glesne, C. (1999). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. New York: Longrnan, Inc. Glesne, C., & Peshkin, A. (1992). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. White Plains, NY: Longman. Goldberg, DE. (1995). Life skills and leadership for engineers. New York: McGraw- Hill, Inc. Guba, E.G., & Lincoln, Y.S. (1985). Fourth generation evaluation as an alternative. Educational Horizons, 63(Summer), 139-141. Guillory, WA. (2000). The living organization: Spirituality in the workplace. Salt Lake City: Innovations International. 168 Gustafson, J .G. (2004). Socially responsible leadership: Lifting humanity to positively transform the world. Digital Dissertations: Benedictine University. Harlander, HS. (1998). Institutional culture and the development of socially responsible leadership among male college undergraduates. Digital Dissertations: University of Minnesota. Herkert, J .R. (1999). ABET ’s Engineering Criteria 2000 and Engineering Ethics: Where Do We Go From Here? The Online Ethics Center For Engineering and Science at Case Western Reserve University. http://onlineethics.orglessays/education/herkertZ.html Heybome, R.L. (2002). A crisis in cooperative education. In the 75m CED Anniversary Edition (pp. 18-20). Cooperative Education Division of the American Society for Engineering Education. Higher Education Research Institute. (1996). A social change model of leadership development: Guidebook version 111. College Park, MD: National Clearinghouse for Leadership Programs. Hilton, M. H. (1996). The importance of civil engineering leadership in the government sector. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, ASCE, 122(2), 51. Howard, A. (2004). Cooperative education and internships at the threshold of the twenty- frrst century. In P.L. Linn, A. Howard, & E. Miller (Eds), Handbook for research in cooperative education and internships (pp. 3-10). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Associates. ' Howe, N. & Strauss, W. (2000). Millennials rising: The next great generation. New York, NY: Vintage Books. Hutcheson, P. (1995). Postsecondary cooperative education: A view of the firture. In J .W. Wilson (Ed.), The Journal of Cooperative Education, 200((2), pp. 68-79. Karp, T. (2003). Socially responsible leadership. Foresight: The Journal of Future Studies, Strategic Thinking and Policy, 5(2), 15-23. Keeling, R. P. (Ed.). (2004). Learning reconsidered: a campus-wide focus on the student experience. American College Personnel Association, Association of College and University Housing Officers-Intemational, Association of College Unions- Intemational, National Academic Advising Association, National Association for Campus Activities, National Association of Student Personnel Administrators, and National Intramural-Recreational Sports Association. 169 Kegan, R. (1994). In over our heads: The mental demands of modern life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Kemper, J .D., & Sanders, BR. (2001). Engineers and their profession. New York: Oxford University Press. Kerka, S. (1999). New Directions for Cooperative Education. ERIC Digest No. 209. http://www.ericdigests.or2/2000-2/new.htm King, P.M.,& Kitchener, KS. (1994). Developing reflective judgment: Understanding and promoting intellectual growth and critical thinking in adolescents and adults. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Komives, SR. (1995). Scholarship and research updates: Civic life and civic leadership education. Concepts and Connections: A Newsletter for Leadership Educators, 4(1), 12-14. Komives, S.R., Lucas, N., & McMahon, TR. (1998). Exploring leadership: For college students who want to make a diflerence. San Francisco: J ossey-Bass. Komives, S.R., Owen Casper, J ., Longerbearn, S.D., Mainella, F., & Osteen, L. (2006). A leadership identity development model: Applications from a grounded theory. Journal of College Student Development, July/August, http://findarticles. com/p/articles/migqa3 75 2/is_2 006 0 7/ai_ n1 6 6294 1 3/print Komives, S. R., & Schoper, S. (2006). Developing learning outcomes. In R.P. Keeling (Ed.), Learning reconsidered 2: Implementing a campus-wide focus on the student experience (pp. 17-41). American College Personnel ASsociation, Association of College and University Housing Officers-Intemational, Association of College Unions-Intemational, National Academic Advising Association, National Association for Campus Activities, National Association of Student Personnel Administrators, and National Intramural-Recreational Sports Association. Kotler, P. & Lee, N. (2005). Corporate social responsibility: Doing the most good for your company and your cause. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Krathwohl, DR. (1993). Methods of educational and social science research: An integrated approach. White Plains, NY: Longman. Kurstedt, P. ( 2001). An arnerican viewpoint on engineering education, pp. 23-25, in Weichert, D., Rauhut, B., & Schmidt, R. (eds), Educating the Engineer for the 21st Century. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Kumar, A. (2005). Engineering: Engineers really do change the world. The Independent, May, 2005, 1-3. 170 Lave, J ., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press. Lindenmeyer, RS. (1967). A comparison of the academic progress of the cooperative and the four-year student. Journal of Cooperative Education, 3(2), 8-18. Linn, P.L., Howard, A., & Miller, E. (2004). Handbook for research in cooperative education and internships. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Associates, Inc. London, S. (2003). Higher education for the public good: A report from the national leadership dialogues. Ann Arbor, MI: National Forum on Higher Education for the Public Good. Loui, MC. (2005). Ethics and the development of professional identities of engineering students. Journal of Engineering Education, October, 383-390. Louis, M. (1980). Surprise and sensemaking: What newcomers experience in entering unfamiliar organizational settings. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, 226-251. Marini, RC. (1999). Developing a learning worksite. In C. Cates, & Jones, P. (Eds), Learning outcomes: The educational value of cooperative education (pp. 35-41). Columbia, MD: Cooperative Education Association, Inc. Mark, J. (2001). Ethical issues in cooperative education-The practitioner’s perspective. Journal of Cooperative Education, 36(2), 32-36. Marsic, V. (1987). Learning in the workplace. New York: Croom Helm. Martinazzi, R., Rose, A. T., & Samples, J. (2004). Leadership 10]: Developing the leader in engineering and engineering technology students. Washington, DC: Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition. Matusak, LR. (1996). Finding your voice: Learning to lead... anywhere you want to make a difference. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. McCarthy, SP. (2000). Engineer your way to success. Alexandria, VA: National Society of Professional Engineers. McCuen, R. H. (1999). A course of engineering leadership. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, July, 79-82. .Miller,T. K., & Winston, RB. (1990). Assessing development from a psychological perspective. In Don G. Creamer (Ed.), College student development: Theory and practice for the 1990s (pp.99-126). Alexandria, VA: American College Personnel Association. 171 Moriarty, D., & Kezar, A. (2000). The new leadership paradigm: expanding our notions of leadership development. NASPA’s Net Results. Retrieved April 26, 2004 from http:// www.n_aspa.org/ netresults/PrinterFriendlv.cfm?id=1 8 National Academy of Engineering. (2004). The engineer of 2020: Visions of engineering in the new century. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press. National Clearinghouse for Leadership Programs. (2005). Socially Responsible Leadership Scale-Revised. College Park, MD: University of Maryland. Nemerowicz, G., & Rosi, E. (1997). Education for leadership and social responsibility. Washington, D.C.: The Palmer Press. Oakes, W.C., Leone, L.L., & Gunn, O]. (2002). Engineering your future: An introduction to engineering. Okemos, MI: Great Lakes Press, Inc. Oakes, W.C., Leone, L.L., & Gunn, C.J. (2006). Engineering your future: A comprehensive introduction to engineering. Okemos, MI: Great Lakes Press, Inc. Oberst, B.S., & Jones, RC. (2004). Canaries in the mineshaft: Engineers in the global workplace. (CD) Proceedings, American Society for Engineering Education Conference. Washington D.C.: American Society for Engineering Education. Outcalt, C.L., Faris, S.K., McMahon, K.N., Tahtakran, P.M., & Noll, CB. (2001). A leadership approach for the new millennium: A case study of UCLA’s Bruin Leaders project. NASPA Journal, 38(2),]78-188. Patton, M. (1987). How to use qualitative methods in evaluatiOn. London: Sage Publications. Patton, M. (1991). Qualitative research on college students: Philosophical and methodological comparisons with the quantitative approach. Journal of College Student Development, 32, 389-396. Peters, T. (1987). Thriving on chaos. New York: Harper & Row. Pister, KS. (1993). A context for change in engineering. Journal of Engineering Education, 82 (2), 66-69. Ricks, F., Cutt, J ., Branton, G., Loken, M., & Van Gyn, G. (1993). Reflections on the cooperative education literature. Journal of Cooperative Education, 29(1),6-23. Rochefort, W. E. (1998). Leadership and mentoring in undergraduate engineering programs. ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition: Engineering Education Contributing to US. Competitiveness, Seattle, WA: American Society for Engineering Education. 172 Rubin, J. (2000). Program demonstrating excellence: The emerging leaders: An evaluation of the social change model of leadership. Digital Dissertations: The Union Institute Graduate College. Seidman, LB. (1991). Interviewing as qualitative research: a guide for researchers in education and the social sciences. New York: Teachers College Press. Shuman, L.J., Besterfield-Sacre, M., & McGourty, J. (2005). The ABET “Professional Skills” — Can They Be Taught? Can They Be Assessed?, Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1),41-55. Sirkin, RM. (1999). Statistics for the social sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Smerdon, E. (2000). An action agenda for engineering curriculum innovation, presented at the 11th IBEE-USA Biennial Careers Conference, San Jose, CA, http://www.ieeeusa.org/careercon/proceeding/esmerdon.pdf. Smith, H. (1965). The influence of participation in the cooperative program. Journal of Cooperative Education, 3(1), 7-20. Sovilla, ES. (1998). Coop’s Odyssey. ASEE Prism, 7, 18-23. Spradley, J.P.(1979). The ethnographic interview. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers. Stull, W.A., Crow, D., & Braunstein, LA. (1997). An investigation to identify needed research in cooperative education. Journal of Cooperative Education, 32(2), 30- 35. Tyler, R.W. (1961). Introduction to the study; conclusions and recommendations. In J .W. Wilson and E. H. Lyons (Eds), Work-study college programs. New York: Harper & Row. Tyler, R.W. (1971). Values and Objectives. In A.S. Knowles, J. Axelrod, & M.B. Freedman (Eds), Handbook of cooperative education (pp. 29-36). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Tyree, T. (1998). Social Change Model Assessment. National Clearinghouse for Leadership Programs http://www.inform.umd.edu/OCP/NCLP/. Upcraft, M., & Shuh, J. (1996). Assessment in student aflairs. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass. Weichert, D., Rauhut, B., & Schmidt, R. (Eds). (2001). Educating the Engineer for the 21 st Century. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 173 Weick, K. E. (1979). The social psychology of organizing (2"d ed.). New York: Random House. Weick, KB. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Wilson, J .W. (1971). Historical development. In A.S. Knowles, J. Axelrod, & M.B. Freedman (Eds), Handbook of cooperative education (pp. 29-36). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Wilson, J .W. (1988). Research in cooperative education. Journal of Cooperative Education, 24(2-3), 77-89. Wueste, D. E.(l994). Professional ethics and social responsibility. Lanham,MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Yin, R. (1984). Case study research: Design and methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Zimmer, K. (1999). Student learning outcomes developed through cooperative education. In C. Cates, & P. Jones (Eds), Learning outcomes: The educational value of cooperative education (pp. 53-60). Columbia, MD: Cooperative Education Association, Inc. 174 Appendix A Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology 2000 Criteria Three Outcomes a) an ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering; b) an ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to interpret and analyze data; c) an ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs; d) an ability to function on multi-disciplinary teams; e) an ability to identify, formulate; and solve engineering problems; )9 an understanding of professional and ethical responsibility; g) an ability to communicate effectively; h) the broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global and societal context; 1) a recognition of the need for life-long learning; j) a knowledge of contemporary issues; k) an ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering practice. ABET (1998). Engineering Criteria 2000. Available on the World Wide Web at http://www.abet.org/eac/EAC_99-00_Criteria.htm#EC2000. 175 Appendix B Social Change Model of Leadership Development Connections of Values Diagram Group Values Collaboration Common Purpose Controversy with Civility Individual Values Consciousness Society/Community of self Values Congruence Citizenship Commitment 1’ Connections among values in the Social Change Model of Leadership Development Note. From A Social Change Model of Leadership Development (pp. 22, 24-26), by A. W. Astin, et al., 1996, Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles, Higher Education Research Institute. 176 Appendix C Social Change Model for Leadership Development Interaction Table The Interactions Between the Levels and glues in the Social Change Model of Leadership Development Feedback Loop Interaction Individual/Group Values 3 Individuals are more effective members of groups when they are conscious of self, committed, and behave in ways that are congruent with their personal values. b Groups that work collaboratively around a common purpose and approach controversy with civility enhance the individual values of the members. Group/Society Values c Groups working collaboratively, with common purpose, and encouraging civility in the expression of controversy are more likely to positively impact a larger community. d When a group becomes responsibly connected to the community, group values are reinforced. Individual/Society Values e The community is likely to respond positively to the efforts of an individual who exhibits self-understanding, congruence, and genuine commitment. The evidence of one’s ability to impact a community strengthens his or her personal values. Note. From A Social Change Model of Leaderglm Development (pp. 19-20, 23-26), by A. Astin, et al., 1996, Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles, Higher Education Research Institute. 177 Appendix D Invitation Letter to Study Participants October 2005 «FIRSTNAME» «LASTNAME» «STREETI » «CITYSTATEZIP» Dear «F IRSTNAME»: As a doctoral student in the MSU College of Education, I am conducting a study focused on the meaning of socially responsible leadership to cooperative education engineering students. The study is intended to examine your understanding of socially responsible leadership and to learn about your experiences that have influenced your understanding as a cooperative engineering student. You have been selected for this study because you have at least one work semester of cooperative education in an engineering environment. If you agree to participate, you are asked to complete the enclosed Social Responsibility Leadership Scale inventory and return it to me, Amy Radford at 1426 Engineering Building by October 25th. The inventory takes about 10 to 15 minutes to complete. Based on the results of the assessment, some participants will be contacted for a follow- up individual interview. The individual interview will take approximately one hour and will be recorded on a cassette tape with participant permission, and later transcribed by the researcher. The interviews will be conducted in a reserved space within the Engineering Building for your convenience and comfort. Audio tapes will be kept in a locked filing cabinet at the residence of the investigator until 6 months after the project is completed, at which point they will be destroyed. I will be conducting the study under the direction of my adviser, Dr. Marilyn Amey and with the approval of the University Committee of Research Involving Human Subjects (U CRIHS). All information shared by participants in this study will remain confidential. If you have any questions about your participation in this study, please contact me, Amy Radford by email radforda@egr.msu.edu , on campus 1426 Engineering Building, or by phone (517) 432-1350 or (517) 775-0299. If you have any questions about the study, please contact my advisor Dr. Marilyn Amey, 427 Erickson Hall, at (517)432-1056 or by email: mey@msu.edu. Sincerely, Amy Radford PhD. Candidate Higher, Adult, and Lifelong Education radforda@egr.msu.edu 178 Appendix E Informed Consent Information Project Title: The Meaning of Socially Responsible Leadership for Cooperative Education Undergraduate Engineering Students Project Summary: Through the use of an assessment inventory and a qualitative semi-structured interview, this project will examine the experiences of undergraduate cooperative engineering students at Michigan State University. In particular, the study focuses on cooperative engineering students’ meaning of the concept of socially responsible leadership. Estimate of Subject’s Time: The inventory takes about ten to fifteen minutes to complete. Some participants, selected based on the results of the assessment, will have the opportunity to participate in a follow-up individual interview for further clarification that will last approximately one hour in length. Voluntary Participation: Your participation in this study is voluntary. You may choose not to participate at all or may refuse to answer certain questions or may discontinue the inventory or interview at any time without penalty or loss of benefits to which the subject is otherwise entitled. Whether or not you participate will have no effect on your student status at Michigan State University. Confidentiality: As the investigator, I will treat all data and results with strict confidence and your identity will remain confidential in any report of research findings; on request and within these restrictions results may be made available to you. Your privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law. Permission to be audio recorded: Your interview will be audio taped. These materials will be used for the sole purpose of reminding me of what was discussed. If you choose to withdraw from this study, the audiotape of your interview will be destroyed immediately. Audio tapes will be kept in a locked filing cabinet at the residence of the investigator until 6 months after the project is completed, at which point they will be destroyed. Contact Person(s) for Subjects: If you have any questions about this study, please contact the investigator — Amy Radford by phone: (517) 432-1350 or (517) 775-0299 or by e-mail: radforda@egr.msu.edu or Dr. Marilyn Amey, 427 Erickson Hall, at (517)432-1056 or by email: amey@msu.edu. If you have questions or concerns regarding your rights as a study participant, or are dissatisfied at any time with any aspect of this study, you may contact anonymously, if you wish — Peter Vasilenko, Ph.D., Chair of the University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS) by phone: (517) 355-2180, fax: (517) 432-4503, e-mail: ucrihs@msu.edu, or regular mail: 202 Olds Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824. Your signature below indicates your voluntary agreement to participate in this study. Participant’s signature Date 179 Appendix F Participant Information Sheet Please complete the following items. Read through each item and circle or write in the appropriate response as requested. 1. 2. 10. ll. 12. Your sex is: male female Your age is years. Your racial/ethnic group is (circle all that apply): 1 . African-American/Black 2. Asian/Asian-American/Pacific Islander 3. White/Caucasian 4. Hispanic/Latino/Latina 5. Native American/American Indian/Alaskan Native 6. Other, please specify: Based on the number of credits you have earned, your classification is: l. freshman (1-27 credits) 3. junior (56-85 credits) 2 sophomore (28-55 credits) 4. senior (86 or more credits) What is your major? How many cooperative education work semesters have you had? What company did you work for? Have you held any leadership roles while at MSU? yes no a. If so, please list organization(s) and position(s) held. Have you had any group leader or project manager experiences in your cooperative education setting? a. If so, please describe. What does being a leader mean to you? What does social responsibility mean to you? Who is someone in the field of engineering that you respect? Why? (If more space is needed, please use other side) 180 Appendix G Social Responsibility Leadership Scale-Revised Inventory Assessing Leadership Development Please read through each of the following items and indicate your agreement or disagreement. You should do this by writing the number at the end of the statement that most closely represents your opinion about that statement. If you agree with a statement very much, list a 5; if your agreement is more moderate, a 4; if you are not inclined to agree or disagree, a 3; if you disagree moderately, a 2; and if you disagree with the statement very much, a 1. For the statements that refer to a group, think of any group of which you have been a part. . This might be a formal organization or an informal study group. For consistency, use the same group in all your responses. You want to indicate your general feelings about participating in a group. Strongly ' Disagree Neither Agree 5 I Agree Strongly Disagree Nor Disagree Agree 1 2 3 ' 4 5 I am open to others’ ideas. Creativity can come from conflict. I am committed to the collective purpose of the group. I value differences in others. Describing myself to another person would be difficult. I am able to articulate my priorities. I believe that better outcomes result when many people work together. I believe in having a shared vision. Hearingdifferences in oflnions enriches my thinking. It is important to me that I play an active role in my communities. l have a low self esteem. I take a stand when I believe in somethinL I struggle when group members have ideas that are different from mine. I volunteer my time to the community. Transition makes me uncomfortable. I am usually self confident. I believe my work has a greater purpose for the larger community. I am seen as someone who works well with others. A lot of time is wasted in learning new ways to do somethinL Greater harmony can come out of disagreement. 386838826§38©mflmmewwa I am comfortable initiating new ways of lookinggt things. 22 I stick with activities that are important to me. 23 My behaviors are coggruent with my beliefs. 24 I am committed to a collective purpose in those groups to which I bem. 25 I am willing to devote time and energy to my leadership responsibilities. 26 It is important to develop a common direction in a group in ordergget anything done. 181 27 I respect Opinions other than my own. 28 Change brings new life to an organization. 29 The things about which I feel passionate have priority in my life. 30 I contribute to the goals of the group. 31 There is energy in doing something a new way. 32 I persist in carryigg out my gals. 33 I am uncomfortable when someone diggrees with me. 34 Others in mygroup have similar goals to mine. 35 I know myself pretty well. 36 I am willing) devote time and enemy to things that are important to me. 37 I stick with others throggh the difficult times. 38 When there is a conflict between two people one will win and the other will lose. Change makes me uncomfortable. 40 It is important to me to act on my beliefs. 41 I am focused on my responsibilities. 42 I can make a difference when I work with others on a task. 43 l actively listen to what others have to say. 44 I think it is important to know other people's priorities. 45 I find group work draining. 46 My actions are consistent with my values. 47 I believe I have responsibilities to my community. 48 I could describe my personality. 49 l have helped to shape the mission of the group. 50 New ways of doing things frustrate me. 51 My beliefs are contradictory to my behaviors. 52 When a group achieves success, everyone deserves credit. 53 Common values drive an organization. 54 I fle time to makinga difference for someone else. 55 I work well in changi_ng environments. 56 Ordinary people can make a difference in their community. 57 I work with others to make my communities better places. 58 I can describe howl am similar to other people. 59 I enjoy working with others toward commomals. 60 I am Open to new ideas. 61 I have the power to make a difference in my community. 62 I look for new ways to do something. 63 I am willing to act for the rights of others. 64 I participate in activities that contribute to the common M. 65 Others would describe me as a cooperative group member. 66 I am comfortable with conflict. 67 I can identify the differences between positive and negative changg 68 I can be counted on to do my part. 69 Being seen as a person of intefiity is important to me. 70 I follow throggh on my promises. 71 I hold myself accountable for responsibilities I agree to. 72 I believe I have a civic responsibility to the greater public. 73 Self-reflection is difficult for me. 74 Collaboration produces better results. 182 75 I know the purpose of the groups to which I belong. 76 I am comfortable exgessigg myself. 77 My contributions are recognized by others in the groups I belongli. 78 I work well when I know the collective values of mup. 79 I share my ideas with others. 80 My behaviors reflect my beliefs. 81 I am ggnulne. . 82 I am able to trust the people with whom I work. 83 I value opportunities that allow me to contribute to my community. Tyree, T. (1998). Social Change Model Assessment. National Clearinghouse for Leadership Programs http://www.infonn.umd.edu/OCP/NCLP/. National Clearinghouse for Leadership Programs (2005). Socially Responsible Leadership Scale- Revised. 183 Appendix H Instructions for Completing the SRLS-R Instrument Dear Student, I am enlisting your help in research for my doctoral dissertation in the College of Education at Michigan State University. The primary focus of this research study is to learn about what socially responsible leadership means to you. It is believed that all students participate in processes of leadership during their college experience. Thus, your participation in this study is very important to help explore this concept as it relates to your role as a practicing engineer. You have been selected as a cooperative engineering undergraduate student within the College of Engineering at Michigan State University. HOW do you complete this instrument? J There are no right or wrong answers to the items on this instrument. You are asked to indicate a level of agreement with each statement. Please answer according to your own beliefs and not what you think someone would want you to say. Sometimes you may feel as though you have already responded to an item on the questionnaire. Items are not duplicated, so do not look back and forth through the items. Completing the instrument will take approximately 10 minutes. : How are your responses kept Confidential? 1 Your responses will remain confidential. DO NOT write your name on the instrument. The instruments are coded only to track their return and will not be connected to your responses. Only the researcher will know these codes assigned to the students completing the instrument. After the data has been collected, the codes will be destroyed. yshould you complete this instrurhent?J In addition to contributing to a new body of knowledge, you will be entered into a drawing. The researcher will also enter those who return the instrument into a drawing for one of two $25 gift certificates. The winners will have the choice of the University Book Store, The Student Book Store (SBS) or a phone card for their gift certificates. To enter, return the participant information sheet when you return the SLRS-R instrument. The information sheet automatically enters you to win!!! Please complete and return the instrument as soon as possible, but no later than betober,25tfi. THANK YOU FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION!!! Please direct any questions or requests for more information on this r earch to - Amy Radford at (51 7) 775 -0299 184 Appendix I Individual Interview Protocol Guide Interviewer: Location: Time: Date: Subject Name: Introduction: This research project is designed to explore your perspectives of what socially responsible leadership means to you. Specifically, this study looks at your experience as a cooperative education engineering student in regard to your understanding and meaning of the concept of socially responsible leadership. The consent form you signed acknowledges that you agree that this interview will be taped. Do you still agree with this? Taping the interview helps me keep accurate records of your responses. (If the participant does not agree to be taped, conduct the interview and take hand-written notes.) - What does it mean for you to be a competent engineer? - What are expectations of yourself as a competent engineer? expectations of your company? expectations of society? - In your cooperative education role, describe an experience in which you made a decision that impacted/had an effect on others. - Describe a decision you made that you believe benefited others? - Do you believe that engineers have the ability to make a difference in society? Why or why not? - Under what circumstances, have you felt that you have made a difference as a cooperative engineering student? - What does it mean to make a difference? - What influences your ability to make a difference? - As an engineer, what is your responsibility to the community? to your company/client, to yourself? - Talk about a decision that you saw someone make in your cooperative education environment that you disagreed with and why. What would you have done differently? - What did you do with that information? How did you handle the situation? What was your response? - What does being a leader mean to you? - What does it mean for an engineer to be a leader? - What have you come to understand regarding your experience of leadership as an engineer? - Do you think of yourself as a leader? why or why not? 185 llillllzlgllllllj