Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
This paper examines how senior male engineering faculty at aSwedish technical university who have introduced gender knowledge into engineering coursework position this knowledge in relation to engineering knowledge, and what such positionings mean for change efforts. Drawing on positioning theory and interviews with program directors and course coordinators – who are neither feminist scholars nor formally expected to engage with gender knowledge – we identify two competing discourses shaping their positionings. One constructs gender knowledge as separate from engineer-ing knowledge, framing it as non-technical and ideological. The other integrates gender knowledge, framing it as practical or transformational. Our central finding is that ambivalence characterizes these men’s engagement. Rather than indicating lack of awareness or resistance, ambivalence reflects productive tensions that can constrain deeper engagement but also foster what is labeled knowledge-curiosity, reflection, and openings for incremental change. This study advances research on gender and engineering education by showing how ambivalence operates as a productive but unstable modeof engaging with contested knowledge in androcentric academic cultures.
Blomstrand et al. (Wed,) studied this question.