In order to successfully achieve diversity and inclusion, the culture of engineering must ensure that all people feel comfortable and included, and that they are able to bring their own identity and their own differences to the sector. Care must be taken to change the culture rather than changing people to fit the existing culture. Failure to do this prevents the ‘diversity premium’
from being achieved, and the rewards of less biased and more socially just engineering solutions will not be maximized (RAEng, 2017) such that the retention of diverse talent will falter.
Employee resource or affinity groups play an effective role in supporting and empowering under-represented groups. There is also growing evidence that the non-inclusive culture in the construction sector is leading to mental health issues and an increased risk of suicide among male workers (Burki, 2018).
Some progress can be achieved through changes to structures and processes, such as: i) adopting inclusive recruitment mechanisms and leadership styles (Moss-Racusin et al., 2012); ii) embedding bias eliminators into systems such as pay and remuneration; and iii) implementing mentoring and reverse mentoring to ensure the progression of under-represented groups and the elimination of inequalities (Yin-Che, 2013). Targets, action plans, metrics and accountability are crucial for driving culture change (RAEng, 2016).
Finally, it should be noted that the inherent skills required from engineers are distinctly changing as technology evolves.
As Artificial Intelligence, machine learning and the use of robotics distance humans from the ‘hands-on’ skills that were synonymous with engineering in the past, the need for people with competencies that were previously described as ‘soft skills’
are increasingly being seen as the ‘critical skills’ of the future.
Competencies such as resilience, agility, the ability to acquire new knowledge, team working and communication will all become as important, if not more important, than the detailed technical knowledge that has previously been valued in engineering (Jackson and Mellors-Bourne, 2018). This in turn will call for a different type of engineer, one where diverse characteristics are valued at a premium. This shift in the perception of engineering will over time bring with it a change in employees, as people see engineering less as a dirty, mainly masculine occupation, and more as a profession that requires a wide range of skills to ensure success (World Economic Forum, 2016).
2
Recommendations
The following recommendations aim to address existing barriers that prevent the engineering sector from being more diverse and inclusive.
1. Educational institutions should provide barrier-free pathways and access to engineering education for all students and at every career stage, so as to enable a diverse educational environment where inclusive teaching and learning – with a consistent focus on the role of engineering to address the SDGs – will develop an inclusive mindset among future engineers.
2. Workplaces should foster a culture of change by assigning clear responsibility and accountability for success, as well as a business strategy with targets and metrics for achieving equality, diversity and inclusion.
3. Professional engineering institutions and registration bodies must provide leadership in order to embed the values of diversity and inclusion into training courses, accreditation and professional registration, and to develop benchmarking data, gathered in compliance with the Inclusive Data Charter (IDC) (GPSDD, 2018) to standardize monitoring and international comparisons.
4. Governments should increase funding for key priorities in conjunction with: i) levers such as the integration of equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI) metrics and targets into public procurement contracts; ii) structural enablers such as shared parental leave, flexible working policies and mandatory pay gap reporting; and iii) the use of Diversity Impact Assessment (DIA) audits for all policy decisions.
5. Organizations should identify and address systemic and structural discrimination, intolerance and inequalities that prevent certain sectors of society from obtaining equal access to opportunities.
6. The engineering sector as a whole should embrace the
‘leave no one behind’ ethos of the SDGs and ensure that technological solutions address current inequalities.
2
References
Angwin, J., Larson, J., Mattu S. and Kirchner, L. 2016. Machine bias: There’s software used across the country to predict future criminals. And it’s biased against blacks.
ProPublica, May. www.propublica.org/article/machine-bias-risk-assessments-in-criminal-sentencing
Burki, T. 2018. Mental health in the construction industry. In: The Lancet, Vol. 5, No. 4, p. 303. www.thelancet.com/journals/
lanpsy/article/PIIS2215-0366(18)30108-1/fulltext Criado-Perez, C. 2019. Invisible women. Exposing data bias in a
world designed for men. London: Chatto & Windus.
GPSDD. 2018. Inclusive Data Charter. Global Partnership for Sustainable Development Data. www.data4sdgs.
org/initiatives/inclusive-data-charter
Hunt, V., Layton, D. and Prince, S. 2015. ‘Why diversity matters’.
McKinsey & Company. www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/organization/our-insights/why-diversity-matters Huyer, S. 2015. Is the gender gap narrowing in science and
engineering? In: S. Huyer (ed.), UNESCO Science Report: Towards 2030. Paris: UNESCO Publishing.
https://en.unesco.org/USR-contents
Jackson, P. and Mellors-Bourne, R. 2018. Talent 2050: Engineering skills and education for the future. London: National Centre for Universities and Business. www.ncub.co.uk/reports/
talent-2050-engineering-skills-and-education-for-the-future Moss-Racusin, C.A., Dovidio, J.F., Brescoll, V.L., Graham, M.J. and
Handelsman, J. 2012. Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students. In: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 109, No. 41, pp. 16474–16479.
RAEng. 2016. Diversity and Inclusion. Professional framework for professional bodies. London: Royal Academy of Engineering. www.raeng.org.uk/publications/
other/diversity-progression-framework
RAEng. 2017. Creating cultures where all engineers thrive. A unique study of inclusion across UK engineering. London: Royal Academy of Engineering. www.raeng.org.uk/publications/
reports/creating-cultures-where-all-engineers-thrive RAEng. 2019. Global Engineering Capability Review. London: Royal
Academy of Engineering. https://www.raeng.org.uk/
publications/reports/global-engineering-capability-review Ro, H.K. and Loya, K. 2015. The effect of gender and race
intersectionality on student learning outcomes in engineering. In: Review of Higher Education, Vol. 38, No. 3, pp. 359–396. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1059327 UN. 2019. The Sustainable Development Goals Progress Report 2019. United Nations Economic and Social Council.
https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/report/2019/
secretary-general-sdg-report-2019--EN.pdf
UN. 2020. The Sustainable Development Goals Progress Report 2020. United Nations Economic and Social Council.
https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/report/2020/
secretary-general-sdg-report-2020--EN.pdf
UNESCO. 2017. Cracking the code: Girls’ and women’s education in science technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM). Paris: UNESCO Publishing. https://
unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000253479 WHO. 2011. Gender, Climate Change and Health. Geneva: World
Health Organization. www.who.int/globalchange/
GenderClimateChangeHealthfinal.pdf
World Economic Forum. 2016. The future of jobs. Cologny, Switzerland: World Economic Forum. http://
reports.weforum.org/future-of-jobs-2016 Yin-Che, C. 2013. Effect of reverse mentoring on traditional
mentoring functions. In: Leadership and Management in Engineering, Vol. 13, No. 3. https://ascelibrary.org/doi/
full/10.1061/%28ASCE%29LM.1943-5630.0000227