Received: 12 December 2018 Revised: 1 May 2019 Accepted: 22 July 2019

DOI: 10.1002/jee.20301

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Empathy and engineering formation

Joachim Walther | Michael A. Brewer | Nicola W. Sochacka | Shari E. Miller

University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia

Abstract
Correspondence Background: The engineering education discourse increasingly recognizes the
Joachim Walther, University of Georgia,
role of empathy in preparing students for 21st century challenges. This pedagog-
597 D. W. Brooks Drive, Athens,
GA 30602. ical and theoretical interest is not supported by an empirical understanding of the
Email: jwalther@uga.edu role empathy plays in students' professional formation.
Purpose: This study investigated how undergraduate engineering students
Funding information
National Science Foundation, Grant/ made sense of empathy during a series of empathic communication modules
Award Number: 1463829 as part of a mechanical engineering design course.
Methodology: Post-module reflections from 146 students were collected in
two iterations of the course. The data were qualitatively analyzed using social
phenomenology to focus on participants' meaning making in the context of
their overall experiences. A model of empathy as interrelated skills, orienta-
tions, and ways of being theoretically framed the data gathering and analysis.
Findings: Three analytic categories structured the significant variation in stu-
dents' meaning making. (a) Relationships with Others captured students'
understandings of the relationship with and role of others along the three
dimensions of Distance, Difference, and Power. (b) The Act of Learning identi-
fied varying degrees of resonance or disconnect between students' expectations
of engineering learning and the forms of learning encountered in the modules.
(c) Empathy as a Conceptual Object described the variation of students' own
understandings of the nature and function of empathy in the context of their
engineering learning.
Conclusions: The experiential significance of engaging with empathy makes
visible and pedagogically accessible students' value orientations that frame
their relationships toward others and their self-understanding as engineers,
thus providing potential new avenues for research and education to engage
less tangible facets of engineering formation.

KEYWORDS
emotional learning, empathy, engineering culture, identity, phenomenology

1 | INTRODUCTION

The complexity and interconnected nature of 21st century global challenges (National Academy of Engineering, 2013;
National Academy of Sciences, 2007) necessitates different engineering approaches and, consequently, differently pre-
pared practitioners (Grasso, Brown Burkins, Helble, & Martinelli, 2010; Penzenstadler, Haller, Schlosser, & Frenzel,

J Eng Educ. 2020;109:11–33. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jee © 2019 ASEE 11

12 WALTHER ET AL.

2009; Ravesteijn, Graaff, & Kroesen, 2006). In ongoing discussions around what kinds of qualities future professionals
must possess, empathy is increasingly being recognized for the central role it may play in connecting crucial inter- and
intrapersonal skills with enhanced abilities to understand and productively work in multidisciplinary environments
with diverse stakeholder groups (Hecker, 1997; Pink, 2006; Rieckmann, 2017; Walther & Sochacka, 2017). A broader
burgeoning discourse in the scholarly and popular literature presents empathy as central not only to healthy human
relationships (Agosta, 2015; McLaren, 2013; Perry & Szalavitz, 2011) but also to the peaceful continuation of a demo-
cratic society (Blank-Libra, 2016; De Waal, 2009; Rifkin, 2009; Trout, 2009). Mirroring this broader interest, a discussion
in engineering is currently emerging around the role of empathy in education and professional practice. For example,
references to empathy in the American Society for Engineering Education's (ASEE) conference proceedings increased
more than fivefold from 2010 (n = 16) to 2018 (n = 72) (ASEE Peer Document Repository, 2018; Hess & Fila, 2016).
However, scholars and educators have also recognized a range of challenges due to a scarcity of conceptual models
and empirical bases that limit the broader integration of empathy into the discussion and practices of engineering edu-
cators and professional engineers (Strobel, Hess, Pan, & Wachter Morris, 2013; Walther, Miller, & Sochacka, 2017). A
prominent example of work that highlights the potential consequences of not attending to the empathic development
of engineering students is a study by Cech (2014) that revealed a decline in engineering students' concern for public
welfare over the duration of their engineering education.
In this article, we report the findings from an empirical study of the role that empathy plays in the professional for-
mation of engineering students. More specifically, we drew on a conceptual model of empathy in engineering (Walther,
Miller, et al., 2017) to develop and implement a series of four empathy modules in a sophomore Engineering and
Society course, which is a compulsory component of a three-part design sequence in a mechanical engineering program
at a large public university in the Southeastern United States. The integrated delivery of these modules formed the
empirical context for the study reported here. Data were collected from multiple reflections of 146 students in two itera-
tions of the course and analyzed using a social phenomenological lens (Schütz, 1967; Vagle, 2014).

2 | LITERATURE R EVIEW: EMPATHY I N ENGINEERING AND

ENGINEERING EDUCATION

The following captures two strands of the current discourse around empathy in engineering, specifically (a) the broad
recognition of the importance of this facet of student learning across diverse contexts and (b) a range of challenges and
tensions that prior work has identified.

2.1 | Importance: Goals and perceptions of empathy in engineering

Emerging discussions around empathy in technical fields point to the importance of this concept across diverse aspects
of practice that range from teamwork and professional ethics to working in complex global settings.
In the context of individuals functioning on diverse teams, a study conducted by Woolley, Chabris, Pentland,
Hashmi, and Malone (2010) identified the “average social sensitivity” (p. 686) of team members as a key predictor for
team performance, where social sensitivity, akin to empathy, is defined as the ability to accurately perceive and compre-
hend the behavior, feelings, and motives of other individuals (Rothenberg, 1970). Similarly, a study conducted by
Google (Duhigg, 2016) on team composition and performance found that a team's ability to create an atmosphere of
psychological safety, defined as a shared belief that the team is safe for interpersonal risk taking, was one of only two
factors that consistently correlated with team success; the other factor was conversational turn-taking (Edmondson,
1999). Leading design companies (Battarbee, Fulton Suri, & Gibbs Howard, 2014; Duhigg, 2016; Hansen, 2010) and
cutting-edge university programs (Stanford d.school, 2017) across the United States have likewise pointed to empathy
as one of the most crucial ingredients for professional success.
In discussions of professional ethics, empathy has been linked to students' ability to take the perspectives of other
stakeholders and integrate these insights into engineering design and decision making processes (Hess, Strobel, &
Brightman, 2017; Patil, 2005).
Empathy has also been identified as a key factor in engineers' overall career success (Hecker, 1997) and, more
specifically, engineers' ability to work in complex global (Balaji & Somashekar, 2009; Rasoal, Danielsson, & Tomas,
2012) and intercultural (Sheppard, Dominick, & Aronson, 2004) settings.
WALTHER ET AL. 13

In definitional discussions of the qualities and orientations for professional engineers, these facets are echoed both
in professional codes of ethics and learning goals defined for engineering programs. For example, in the United States,
the Code of Ethics for Engineers requires that engineers “hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public”
(National Society of Professional Engineers, 2007). It stands to reason that to fulfill this duty, engineers must be aware
of, concerned with, and attuned to society's needs.
While in the United States student learning outcomes for engineering programs do not explicitly refer to empathy,
they do provide a number of implicit connections to the ways discussed above in which empathy is relevant for engi-
neering (ABET, 2018). More specifically, ABET outcomes that speak to students' “ability to function on multi-
disciplinary teams,” (p. 4) “an ability to communicate effectively,” and the ability to “understand the impact of
engineering solutions in global, economic, environmental, and societal context” (p. 5) mirror the points discussed
above. This said, the congruence of ABET learning outcomes with areas of engineering work where empathy has been
identified as important does not necessarily mean that empathy as an underlying skill, orientation, and way of being
(Walther, Miller, et al., 2017) is pedagogically addressed in engineering programs (Algra & Johnston, 2015; Baillie &
Levine, 2013; Hess, Beever, Strobel, & Brightman, 2017; Koskinen & Battarbee, 2003; Walther, Miller, & Sochacka,
2016; Zoltowski, Oakes, & Cardella, 2012).

2.2 | Challenges: Tensions around empathy in the engineering context

Set against a growing recognition of the relevance of empathy for engineering learning and practice, increased scholarly
attention has been directed toward perceptions of empathy among practicing engineers and engineering faculty (Hess,
Beever, et al., 2017; Hess & Fila, 2016; Hess, Strobel, et al., 2017; Strobel et al., 2013). These studies present a nuanced pic-
ture of empathy characterized by significant tensions. More specifically, while empathy is acknowledged as important
and seen as implicitly present in both education and industry, the practice of empathy appears challenging in both
domains.
Similarly, a range of studies explores tensions between engineering education practices and cultures and the devel-
opment of empathy. Cech (2014) explored the relationship between engineers and society in a longitudinal study of
how undergraduate students' public welfare beliefs change during their engineering education. In other words, Cech
sought to investigate if engineering education in the United States is “actually succeeding at nurturing students' sense
of professional responsibility to the welfare of the public” (p. 44). The results of this longitudinal survey study revealed
that students' interest in public welfare concerns seemed to decline as they progressed through their engineering
studies. When Cech's study was picked up by the media, reporters interpreted her findings as a failing on the part of
engineering programs to teach students empathy (Marcus, 2013; May, 2014).
Cech attributed her research findings to a “culture of disengagement” in engineering education, which she
described as

the ideology of depoliticization, which frames any “non-technical” concerns such as public welfare as irrel-
evant to “real” engineering work; the technical/ social dualism, which devalues “social” competencies such
as those related to public welfare; and the meritocratic ideology, which frames existing social structures as
fair and just. (p. 45)

Emerging research from the neurosciences offers further insight into Cech's notion of a culture of disengagement in
engineering programs and the mixed findings from the studies conducted by Hess, Strobel, and colleagues. Using func-
tional magnetic resonance imaging techniques, Jack et al. (2013) investigated the relationship between social and ana-
lytic cognitive tasks and found “clear evidence of reciprocal suppression: social tasks deactivated regions associated
with mechanical reasoning and mechanical tasks deactivated regions associated with social reasoning” (p. 385). Put
simply, they found that on a level of cognitive processing, brains cannot analyze and empathize at the same time
(Matyszczyk, 2012; Vanasupa, Sochacka, & Streveler, 2018).
In our view, the findings of Jack et al. (2013) and Cech (2014) suggest that the argument for incorporating empathy
into undergraduate education is more complex than simply adding another “nice to have” professional skill to the list.
Rather, we argue that students need explicit training in empathy to offset the analytic cognitive bias of undergraduate
engineering degree programs. If we do not actively foster social reasoning and concern for public welfare, Cech argues
that we risk limiting how engineering students will approach future problems:
14 WALTHER ET AL.

The way engineering students understand their responsibilities to the public likely informs their future epistemo-
logical approaches to and day-to-day production of technoscience—what puzzles they consider important, which
solutions they consider desirable, and the methods with which they design and test their innovations. (p. 44)

The study reported here addresses the need to empirically understand the complexity and tensions that prior work sug-
gests are inherent to considering empathy in the sociocultural context of engineering. Focusing at the undergraduate
level, our study examines how engineering students encounter and give meaning to empathy in the context of their
overall professional formation.

3 | R ESEAR CH QUESTION

In our experience, the introduction of empathy-based activities into an engineering classroom evokes a range of
responses from students (Walther, Miller, et al., 2016). To effectively foster empathic engineers, it is important for
engineering educators to understand the nature and origin of these responses as well as the opportunities they present
for transformational learning. This study thus examined students' experiences in engaging in and reflecting on
empathy-focused, active-learning modules in a classroom setting to investigate the following research question:

How do undergraduate engineering students make meaning about the role of empathy in their learning
and overall professional formation?

4 | THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

In our prior work, we developed a theoretical model of empathy in engineering (Walther, Miller, et al., 2017). This
model conceptualizes empathy as a skill, a practice orientation, and a professional way of being. As shown in Figure 1,
this model is purposefully composed to illustrate the mutually dependent and supportive nature of each dimension
without ascribing a conceptual hierarchy or developmental trajectory.
The skill dimension comprises five distinct socio-cognitive processes that interact with one another to form the
foundation for empathic communication, relationship building, and decision-making. The orientation dimension

FIGURE 1 A model of empathy in engineering (from Walther et al., 2017)

WALTHER ET AL. 15

captures a range of mental dispositions that influence how engineers or engineering students engage in practice situa-
tions. The model posits that these orientations around epistemology and the role of values influence efforts to engage
empathically with others. Finally, the being dimension highlights the need to situate empathic skills, practice orienta-
tions, and their development within a contextualizing framework of broader commitments to self, society, and the nat-
ural environment. For more details on this model, we refer readers to Walther, Miller, et al. (2017).
This model of empathy in engineering informed our study in two ways. First, the set of four empathy modules that
provide the context for the data gathering were developed using the model. More specifically, the modules addressed
the development of empathic skills in a series of exercises (e.g., around body language and proximity, affective
responding, etc.) and then contextualized these skills in engineering scenarios through role plays as well as critical class
readings and discussions around the role of engineering and technology in society (for more detail, see Sochacka,
Walther, & Miller, 2018; Sochacka, Walther, Wilson, & Brewer, 2014; Walther, Miller, et al., 2016).
Second, the empathy model served as the theoretical framework for the analysis in that it informed the scope for
examining the data. In other words, the model guided us to look across skill, orientation, and being levels and explore
their rich developmental interactions in the students' lived experiences. This framing ensured a consistent theoretical
and empirical commitment to the breadth of professional formation and socialization processes.

5 | STUDY S ETTI N G

Based on this theoretical model, we designed and implemented a series of empathy modules in a sophomore Engineering
and Society course, which is a compulsory component of the design sequence in a mechanical engineering curriculum at a
large public university in the Southeastern United States. The course design combines group-based, open-ended design chal-
lenges that focus on problem framing in complex sociotechnical contexts, with a series of readings and critical discussions
that provide the theoretical and conceptual underpinnings for working in sociotechnical systems. The readings and facili-
tated group discussions guide students to understand engineering work as inherently socially situated (e.g., Jonassen,
Strobel, & Lee, 2006) and explore aspects of sociotechnical complexity such as the relationship of technology to politics and
power (e.g., Winner, 1988) or the challenges of sustainable development (e.g., McDonough, Braungart, & Clinton, 2013).
Other readings invite students to critically question assumptions around technological determinism (e.g., Pool, 1999) and
perceptions of engineering expertise (e.g., Pacey, 2001), and explore the relationship between engineering work and a
broader service to society (e.g., Bornstein, 2007).
In this context, students participated in a series of four empathy modules that focused on (a) Encountering Others,
(b) Self and Other Awareness and Affective Sharing, (c) Affective Responding, and (d) Mode Switching. Attendance at these
class sessions was not mandatory, and participation in the modules did not have an impact on students' grade in the course.
Each module was 1 hr and 15 min long and began with an introduction to the focus of the module. Then, students
were guided to explore a particular facet of empathy through skill-based exercises. The first module engaged students
in body language and proximity exercises when encountering others to develop self and other awareness as the basis
for the intentional use of the self in later modules. Module 3, for example, focused on affective responding and showed
students how to attend to their partner (i.e., give their undivided attention), paraphrase what they heard their partner
say, and reflect back feelings they observed or heard. After the skills-based exercises, the students applied these skills in
a real-life scenario that involved engineers, other professionals, and members of the community (for additional details
on the modules, see Walther, Sochacka, & Miller, 2016). These role plays (McSharry & Jones, 2000; Nestel & Tierney,
2007; Van Ments, 1999) were designed to give students an opportunity to contextualize and explore empathy skills in
situations they might encounter as practicing engineers. This progression of the modules provided students' with experi-
ential access to the topic of empathy at the skills level without prescribing a particular understanding of its role or
meaning at an orientation or way of being level (Walther, Miller, et al., 2017).
After each module, students were asked to answer a series of reflection questions and submit their responses online
to the eLearning Commons (eLC) site for the course. Students received 1% for submitting each reflection (4 reflec-
tions = a total of 4%); students who did not participate in a module could respond to an alternative reflection prompt.
The content was not graded. In discussing the reflections, instructors paid particular attention to reinforcing their
appreciation for both positive and critical responses.
The reflection prompts for the first three modules prompted students to think back through the module and discuss
moments of enjoyment or discomfort, and reflect on the role of empathy in engineering. This reflection built on the
experiential access to empathy in the modules and allowed students to broadly ascribe personal meaning to these
16 WALTHER ET AL.

TABLE 1 Examples of reflection prompts

Reflection prompt for Module 2 Reflection prompt for Module 4

Today you participated in exercises about self and other
awareness and affective sharing.
1. Describe your feelings during the body proximity exercises.
Why do you think you felt this way?
2. What was your experience as the engineer or stakeholder
during the interview exercises?
3. What did you learn from this module? What does it mean for
you becoming a professional engineer?
You are not limited to just answering these questions in your
reflection. Please include any other thoughts and feelings you
think are important.
Submit your reflection (about two pages) as a PDF file.
Read through the following statements and think of specific
incidents they bring to mind. Write about them. You don't have to
directly or specifically answer the statements.
• There was a moment during today's module when I started to
realize that…
• During today's module, I struggled to get my head around…
• When my partner responded analytically to my story, I was
surprised to feel that…
• When my partner responded empathetically to my story, I was
surprised to feel that…
• As the engineer/stakeholder in the role play, I suddenly
understood how…
• During the role play, I found it challenging to…
Submit your reflection (about two pages) as a PDF file on.

experiences on their own terms. The reflection prompt for the last module was designed based on Walther, Sochacka,
and Kellam's (2011) emotional indicator approach to elicit a range of critical learning moments encountered during the
role play. Examples of both types of prompts are given in Table 1.

6 | METHODOLOGY A ND METHODS

6.1 | Data collection and analysis

Data for the study included the students' reflections on the empathy modules in the Engineering and Society course
during the Fall 2015 (n = 110) and Spring 2016 (n = 36) semesters. These two iterations of the course were taught by
the first and the third authors, respectively. The differences in student numbers were an artifact of curriculum planning
in the college but offered the opportunity to capture students' experiences of the modules in different learning settings.
The research team obtained IRB approval and participants' informed consent to collect and analyze these data; of the
total enrollment, 95% of the students participated in the study and for each module, the research team collected reflec-
tions from 92% of the participants. All student names referred to in this article are pseudonyms.
The length of individual students' submissions ranged from one to three typed pages, and each student submitted four
reflections over the course of the semester. Given the open nature of the prompts (Table 1), responses ranged from deeply
personal accounts of experiences to more impersonal observations about the dynamic of the modules or the role of
empathy in engineering. A similar range of responses was observed concerning the students' characterization of the mod-
ules as useful or not useful. The range, diversity, and depth of student responses suggest that the data gathering process
was able to elicit a wide range of authentic student experiences (see theoretical validation in Walther, Sochacka, &
Kellam, 2013). This depth and richness of the responses stood in contrast to the relatively low impact of the reflections on
students' grades and indicates a level of experiential relevance for participants, a dynamic that speaks to the quality of the
data in the sense of the pragmatic validation of concepts brought to the study (Walther et al., 2013). Final exam submis-
sions were included in the data set in cases where students offered reflections on the empathy modules. These reflections
were not directly prompted but stood in the context of students' broader sense-making of the course.
The data were imported into NVivo 11 (Richards, 1999), a qualitative data analysis software package, and analyzed
through the lens of social phenomenology. We describe the methodological foundation of social phenomenology and
our analytic procedures in the following sections.

6.2 | Social phenomenology

Our analysis was guided by the social phenomenology of Alfred Schütz (1967) as a methodological framework (Brown,
1996; Finlay, 1999; Jesus et al., 2013) to examine students' meaning making around the role of empathy in engineering.
WALTHER ET AL. 17

In the following, we discuss specific aspects of this methodological lens that were particularly relevant for framing the
inquiry and the findings presented here.
Building primarily on the work of Edmund Husserl (Husserl & Hardy, 1999; Zahavi, 2003) and Max Weber
(Heydebrand, 1994; Weber & Winckelmann, 2002), Schütz's (1967) phenomenology of the social world deals with the
active and contextual processes of meaning making by which individuals construct their understanding of the social
world (life world in Husserl & Hardy, 1999). Those understandings are formed through and, in turn, inform social
actions, where social actions are defined as the ways individuals actively engage in the social world based on their sub-
jective understandings. Eliciting accounts of these social actions allows researchers to understand the subjective
meaning these experiences have for the actor and how this meaning is formed in the social, intersubjective context
(Schütz, 1967). Our decision to approach the data from a social phenomenological perspective was driven by two main
considerations.
First, the methodological framework privileges the participants' agentic meaning making as the object of the inquiry—
social phenomenology refers to this meaning making as forming intentional relationships. This philosophical commitment
uniquely aligns with this study's focus on investigating how students come to understand the role of empathy in engineering
on their own terms. Second, social phenomenology directs the researcher's attention to the social, intersubjective setting in
which individuals negotiate their meaning making—social phenomenologists use the terms “meaning context” (Schütz,
1967, p. 75) or “project” (p. 66). This second tenet informs the study's consideration of the important role that the learning
and disciplinary context played in how students developed through the empathy modules.
To further understand the intentional relationship between a subject and an object (Schütz, 1967; Vagle, 2014) as the
unit of analysis in social phenomenology, we consider the following example. Juliet (the subject) is in love (intentional
relationship) with Romeo (the object)—social phenomenologists study the in-loveness. Intentionality refers to the agentic
role of the individual in making and experiencing meaning, the “aboutness,” or “orientation towards” something
(Smith & McIntyre, 2012, p. 336). In our example, Juliet's mental act of love is “about,” “oriented towards,” or directed at
Romeo. The first and most basic intentional act is to give one's attention to an experience, selecting it out of many candi-
dates as the meaningful experience of the moment. A further intentional act might be to take an attitude toward the expe-
rience or to generalize it into an abstract conceptual object (Schütz, 1967). In this study, we examine how students
individually experience and actively come to understand empathy in engineering. We are neither concerned with
empathy as a phenomenon reduced to its essence as investigated in phenomenology nor in differently comprehensive
ways students experience empathy as interpreted by researchers in the framework of phenomenography.
When trying to understand what subjective meaning an intentional relationship has for another person, we must
also know something about the “meaning-context” (Schütz, 1967, p. 75) in which that relationship exists. The meaning-
context is the synthesis of multiple experiences into a unified object of attention. For an engineering student, experi-
ences such as “applying for scholarships” or “studying calculus” would not make sense in a vacuum; they are only
meaningful in the context of “pursuing a degree” or “becoming an engineer.” If these examples of meaning-contexts
have the additional characteristic of being motivated or goal-oriented, we can call such a meaning-context a project
(Schütz, 1967). Projects carry with them an “aura of expectations.” When these expectations are apparently fulfilled, it
is “the result of the ‘feeding’ of the project into this particular moment” (p. 61). An important feature of meaning-
contexts is that they are intersubjective; they are constructed under social influence in reference to the world and are,
therefore, shared to some degree.
In addition to understanding the meaning-context in which a relationship exists, social phenomenology also distin-
guishes between intentional relationships with human (“Others”) and non-human objects, and offers a range of classifi-
cations for the former. More specifically, Others are conceived of as other Selves. For instance, when “I” recognize that
another person is a Self, which has subjective experiences just like I do, I can have attitudes about them and form inten-
tional relationships through which I understand those Others. This recognition of other Selves is called Other-
orientation (Schütz, 1967). Intentional relationships with Others are further categorized by how readily they can be
experienced. In face-to-face interactions, the two parties directly experience one another as consociates. Such an inter-
action is called a “We-relationship” (Schütz, 1967, p. 164). When people are alive at the same time but do not directly
experience one another, they exist as contemporaries in a They-relationship (Schütz, 1967, p. 183). In a They-relation-
ship, the existence of other people is known but not directly experienced, and so intentional social relationships of this
kind rely on ideal types to be made meaningful. For example, there are postal workers and farmers with whom “I”
have an indirect social relationship, but they are anonymous to me; I know of them as simplified ideal types who must
exist somewhere. Ideal types serve as interpretive schemes for understanding parts of the social world that cannot be
readily accessed in a We-relationship.
18 WALTHER ET AL.

As part of making sense of the life world, social phenomenology also recognizes intentional relationships with non-
human objects—these are not necessarily material objects but classes of experiences that constitute conceptual under-
standings. When encountering these non-human objects, one forms “ideal objects” that capture the “essences” (Schütz,
1967, p. 77) of this type of experience. These ideal objects tend to be taken for granted without thought to the inten-
tional, agentic processes that created them. Unlike a direct experience, they exist as passive, static objects in a person's
internal model of the world. When brought to one's attention, however, ideal objects can be “unfrozen and brought
back to their original active state” (Schütz, 1967, p. 77), reconstituted and potentially altered by an active intentional
relationship.

6.3 | Analytical procedures and research quality

While the framework of social phenomenology offered a useful way to frame and understand the “social reality under
investigation” (Walther et al., 2013, p. 402), it does not prescribe a particular set of analytic techniques to come to
understand the nature of the intentional relationships. In the following, we describe the analytic techniques employed
in this study that draw on systematic ways of coding data that progress from experience near constructs (Geertz, 1974)
that are captured in topic codes to interpretive codes at a higher level of abstraction (Richards, 2005). These analytic
methods are similarly used in other qualitative methodological frameworks such as grounded theory (Charmaz, 2006;
Glaser & Strauss, 1967).
The data analysis was conducted primarily by the second author in combination with weekly debrief and shared coding
sessions with the research team. The analytic process followed an emergent design and comprised four broad phases.

1. Focusing of the analytic lens

We approached the data collection and initial analysis with a focus on students' lived experiences around empathy
in engineering. This focus did not imply a particular analytic structure; rather, the first stage of the analysis explored
which methodological lenses would reveal meaningful structures in the data. After experimenting with other ana-
lytic approaches, such as phenomenography, the dynamic developmental nature of students' experiences combined
with their diverse and tension-laden understandings of empathy led us to a social phenomenological lens. We under-
stood this focusing of the analytic lens as an interplay of theoretical validation and of pragmatic validation (Walther
et al., 2013). More specifically, the emergent process of choosing a methodology through engagement with the data
made room for us to “see the full extent of the participants' social reality” (Walther, Miller, et al., 2017, p. 401) and
the focus on intentional sense-making inherent to social phenomenology strongly resonated with and made visible
meaningful patterns in the data.
2. First pass: Coding for statements that reflect intentional sense-making
In this iteration, the researchers selected statements in the written reflections that indicated intentionality in that
the experience was selected by the writer as something worth writing about. Only statements that described or
implied an intentional relationship with some aspect of the empathy modules were selected for further analysis.
Some parts of the reflections, such as descriptive accounts of the activities in the modules or broader comments
about other aspects of the course, did not fit this criterion and were not analyzed further. The understanding of
empathy as the basis for this selection was conceptually broad and guided by the theoretical framework that mapped
a space of skills, orientations, and ways of being.
3. Second pass: Development of coding structure
In an emergent coding process that comprised cycles of individual analysis by the second author and regular collabo-
rative coding sessions of the entire team, a structure of the three main nodes presented in the Findings
section emerged and guided the further phenomenological analysis of the intentional relationships that participants
had in each of these categories. This iterative process was characterized by a continuous grounding in the partici-
pants' accounts in the shared coding sessions (theoretical validation in handling the data) and a significant degree of
what we have previously described as “productive interpretive dissonance” (Walther et al., 2013, p. 418), where a
consensus and sense of resonance are achieved through a robust process of argument and disagreement (communi-
cative validation).
4. Third pass: Coding and recoding of entire data set
The coding scheme developed in the second pass was then consistently applied to the entire data set. As part of this
WALTHER ET AL. 19

process, the research team observed both an iterative refinement and delineation of the categories (constant compar-
ative method in Glaser, 1969) and a sense of saturation across the full range of participants' accounts.

7 | F IN D I NG S

Our analysis of the student reflection data revealed three categories of intentional relationships that were salient in the
students' experiences of engaging with empathy in an engineering learning context. Participants formed intentional
relationships with (a) Others, (b) the Act of Learning, and (c) the Content of Learning. The meaning making around
the relationship with Others explored the role of stakeholders both encountered in the role plays and imagined in
students' professional futures. The analytic axes of Distance, Difference, and Power emerged from the analysis to fur-
ther illuminate the complexity of these Relationships with Others. The relationship with the Act of Learning concerned
students making sense of encountering empathy exercises as part of their engineering learning. Engagement with the
Content of Learning comprised diverse ways in which participants individually interpreted the notion of empathy.
These three categories of analysis are illustrated in Figure 2.

7.1 | Relationships with Others: Who are They, and what do They want?

Engaging with the empathy modules prompted students to consider, question, and try to make sense of the roles
Others would play in their engineering futures and the ways in which the students would engage as professionals with
stakeholders or colleagues. As described above, social phenomenology offers a characterization of relationships with
Others as existing along a We-to-They continuum (Schütz, 1967), which provided a productive lens for further delin-
eating the diverse range of student reflections that fell into the category of Self and Other.
Relevant We-relationships were, by definition, limited to interactions that took place in the classroom. The range
of They-relationships was comparatively vast—the reflection prompts did not specify any particular people or even
explicitly direct students to reflect on their relationships with Others, and so students who talked about Them were
obliged to define or assume who They were. A special in-between case existed in the context of the stakeholder role
plays in which students effectively had face-to-face relationships with anonymous ideal types (Schütz, 1967), whom the
students portrayed with varying degrees of seriousness and intimacy. When the students discussed imagined stake-
holders, perhaps the purest They-relationships in the data, Others were not completely anonymous because the stu-
dents expected to someday engage in We-relationships with representatives of these ideal types and were in the process
of learning how they would interact with them as real individuals.
In analyzing the variation in this category of the data, the three axes of Distance, Difference, and Power emerged as
a productive way to illuminate and understand the various ways in which participants made sense of Self and Other
relationships. Distance describes the degree to which students perceived Others to be present, full persons, or removed,
abstracted ideal types—social phenomenology offers the notions of immediacy or anonymity (Schütz, 1967) to describe
the Other's location on the We–They continuum. Difference refers to the variation in participants' understandings of
Others as similar or dissimilar to themselves. Finally, Power is defined as students' different ways of understanding
control, authority, and responsibility in their Relationships with Others.

FIGURE 2 Three types of intentional relationships identified in the data

analysis
20 WALTHER ET AL.

7.1.1 | Distance

Across the data set, students differently made sense of the degree of distance between themselves and Others they
encountered in the role plays or Others they would encounter as engineers. More specifically, students framed Others,
particularly stakeholders, both as individual humans directly experienced and as abstracted or anonymized stakeholder
types. One prevalent pattern in the data was the tension students experienced as they struggled to reconcile the imme-
diacy of the stakeholders in the role plays with previously held notions of a degree of separation between engineers and
stakeholders.
In the following quote, Glenn reflects on a role play exercise in which he was an engineer trying to address the con-
cerns of a single father, John, whose utility expenses might increase as the result of remediation efforts around the Flint
water crisis that served as the engineering scenario for the in-class role play:

When “John” was talking about his story and his struggles, I noticed that I was leaning in a just kind of
nodding and falling prey to his story. I caught myself midway through the story and I was able to refocus
my attention to more of an analytical approach. As evidence of this transformation, I changed from saying
“I'm sorry” or “aww that's too bad” to “so what have you done to fix that?” This change happened when I
realized that I had other people to worry about and that I [had] to take into account the other stakeholder
options. (Glenn, Module 4 reflection)

In this reflection, Glenn negotiates his understanding of his own position as a developing engineer relative to the stake-
holder encountered in the role play and other stakeholders more broadly. As part of this meaning making process,
Glenn attempts to define the appropriate level of distance between himself and the stakeholder. In his reflection, he is
aware of distance as a factor in his intentional relationship with the stakeholder. He realizes that his immediate
response as a person is to connect to his counterpart on an emotional level (“nodding and falling prey to his story”).
However, he does not perceive this emotional connection to be an appropriate way of engaging with a stakeholder as
an engineer. He describes a sense of discomfort with this experience of closeness and emotional connection with the
sympathetic character of the struggling father. The evocative language of “falling prey” suggests an anxiety caused by a
threat to his self-definition as an analytical and pragmatic professional. After this uncomfortable conflict between
Glenn's self-definition as an engineer and the more intimate intentional relationship with the stakeholder, Glenn
retreats to a more objective engineering persona in which John is just one among many interested parties. He makes
reference to having a responsibility to all stakeholders as a motivation or justification for this pragmatism. Glenn feels
that to adopt what he considers an appropriately professional mode, he needs to anonymize the stakeholder and replace
the expressions of sympathy with an orientation toward problem solving (“so what have you done to fix that”).
On a broader level, this and similar sense-making processes in the data revealed how engaging with empathy in an
embodied, experiential manner through the role plays challenged students' prior assumptions about being an engineer
that, in some cases, appeared to be deeply internalized and firmly held. In the students' reflections coded for the cate-
gory of Distance, objectivity emerged among other facets as a prominent definitional marker of their engineering selves
that stood in contrast with their experiences and emerging understandings of empathy in the engineering context.
More specifically, students articulated a sense that engineers need to be neutral in their engagement with different
groups, exclusively rely on factual information in their decision making, even at the expense of Others' feelings. Such
notions imply an emotional distance or detachment that provided a sometimes stark contrast with students
experiencing genuine, and thereby emotional, connections with stakeholders in the role plays. As students grappled
with these tensions, various levels of disconnect between their orientations and reactions as whole persons and their
perceived ways of being engineers were revealed. Some students engaged with these tensions in explicit ways to resolve
them to some degree. Yet, other participants experienced and acknowledged a level of discomfort from the tensions
without attempts to reconcile them, at least as far as we could determine through the post-module reflections.

7.1.2 | Difference

While Distance describes a spectrum ranging from closeness to anonymity experienced in students' relationship with
Others, Difference refers to categorical distinctions perceived by students to exist between engineers and Others. From
an engineering student's perspective, a stakeholder may or may not have similar interests, values, motivations, and
WALTHER ET AL. 21

ways of thinking compared to those of an engineer. In reflecting on their interactions with non-engineering characters
in the role plays, many students assumed or identified a unique engineering way of thinking that is unlikely to be
shared by non-engineers. Across the data set, the degree of difference that students perceived between themselves and
non-engineers varied greatly. At the high-difference end of this range, students described a sense of consternation
about non-engineering ways of thinking and even conveyed a sense of hostility toward those different Others. A broad
range of students perceived a degree of difference but expressed a desire to understand and be understood by stake-
holders who are different from them. At the low-difference end of the spectrum, students acknowledged that there are
differences of approach among people with different backgrounds but emphasized commonality and shared
understandings.
The following quote illustrates a student's experience of a high degree of difference between himself as an engineer
and a stakeholder in a role play.

I remained professional, but John, who would experience very real consequences from higher water prices,
began to get upset as he told me his opinions about the water crisis. I listened and tried to take his sugges-
tions and opinions into account, but I found it difficult at times to understand everything he was saying
because he was getting emotional. From this, I learned that stakeholders may not be clear in their explana-
tions for a few reasons. First of all, most of the time, stakeholders have little technical expertise. Second of
all, stakeholders are not always calm when they tell you what they want. (Blair, Module 2 reflection)

From Blair's perspective, the two main aspects that set him apart as an engineer from the stakeholder were that the
character of the father lacked technical knowledge and control over his emotions. The student experienced these differ-
ences as significant and interpreted them as a barrier to effectively communicating with the stakeholder. More specifi-
cally, the communication was understood as a somewhat one-sided process of gathering information across the chasm
of a lack of technical knowledge and expression of feelings. Blair recognized John's perspective and concerns as legiti-
mate but the vivid experience of difference precluded him not only from connecting with the stakeholder but even
from receiving the informational content of his statements.
Mirroring this process of defining the other and their position, the quote also illustrates a developing definition of
self as the student makes sense of the relationship. More specifically, the experience of contrast led Blair to articulate
and perhaps reaffirm a conception of himself as an engineer who is, and should be, calm and not have particular emo-
tional investment in a project.
Other students similarly experienced a high degree of difference between themselves as engineers and the stake-
holders, but differently interpreted the implications for the relationship and for their own role as engineers. In the con-
text of a question on the final take-home exam for the class that asked students to reflect on their personal journey
through the class, Jason chose to elaborate on his developing relationship with stakeholders:

From a reflexive engineer's standpoint, these stakeholders are viewed as a “knowledge resource,” and often
they will not be engineers, so interacting with them as if they were, would likely be ineffective. We would
role play as these stakeholders in our exercises. This not only gave the student acting as an engineer the
chance to improve listening and interaction skills, but it also allowed us to take on a different mindset, that
of a person who has their own perspective outside of the engineering one. (Jason, Final exam)

Jason described a perceived difference between himself and stakeholders and attributed the separation to a different
“mindset” or “perspective.” While the description suggests a fundamental and categorical otherness, Jason's reflection
focuses on the pragmatic need to bridge these perspectives and does not imply an element of judgment of the stake-
holder. His reflection evokes the professional knowledge of engineers as a differentiator but also acknowledges the
stakeholder as a necessary knowledge source for the project.
Building on this recognition of the value of stakeholder perspectives, Jason recognized his own need as an engineer
to develop so that he can productively engage in such relationships in the future. Unlike Blair, he did not attribute the
inherent challenge of communicating across difference as a shortcoming of the stakeholder but acknowledged his own
need to “improve listening and interaction skills.” Interestingly, Jason linked this skill development to the benefits he
perceived in being able to take on “a different mindset” in the role play, an experience that has perhaps contributed to
his recognition that there is a “perspective outside the engineering one” that is valid and valuable.
22 WALTHER ET AL.

Another interesting implication of this idea is Jason's perception that communicating with other engineers does not
require the ability to take other perspectives. While there are perhaps commonalities in the ways engineers or, in
Jason's experience, engineering students interact, such an assumption of sameness could impact a student's ability to
collaborate with different engineering disciplines, diverse personality types among engineers, or engineers who have
vastly different life experiences, values, career goals, and so on. In addition, viewing engineers as a homogenous group,
a notion that appears to be anchored in technical expertise, frames them as categorically different from the public, and
affirms a certain degree of separation.
On the low-difference end of the spectrum, some students made sense of their Relationships with Others from a
departure point that assumes more common ground than differences. Cloe, for example, reflected on her experience of
the emotional content of her interactions during a role play:

During this practice, I think expressing empathy and sharing emotional feelings are more important than
directly jumping into analytic conversation and offering some substantial solutions because we are all
human beings and human[s] are emotional animals. As engineers, no matter how rational and logical we
are, we still want to get some understandings from others, so do other non-engineering professional
people. (Cloe, Module 4 reflection)

In making sense of her role play experience, Cloe acknowledges the sameness of all people, whether they are
engineering professionals or others, rather than focusing on difference. Interestingly, she identifies the emotional
aspect of communication and connection with the Other as the element shared by all parties. Moreover, she clearly
identifies the emotional dimension as central to the relationship and describes aspects of a “rational and logical” engi-
neering identity as peripheral and secondary. Based on this fundamental assumption of a shared humanity, Cloe also
comes to understand the relationship of engineers with others as defined by an authentic connection and reciprocity.
The informational exchange and the focus on “substantial solutions” which, for other students defined a large part of
their engineering selves, are explicitly understood as secondary, with the main focus being a connection and mutual
understandings. She also does not view this connection as a means to bridge a perceived separation between engineers
and stakeholders that serves project-related ends. Rather, Cloe focuses on the need for engineers to “get some under-
standings from others,” thereby perhaps beginning to challenge the dominant stereotype of the “rational and logical”
engineer in her own professional and personal development.
Across the data set, students framed difference predominantly through notions of engineering expertise but also
referenced other markers of engineering identity such as objectivity and a dispassionate stance. Engaging with and
making sense of difference not only led students to grapple with the role Others would play in their professional futures
but also prompted them to reflect on and define their own position in those relationships. Based on the visceral experi-
ences of the role plays, these processes of Self- and Other-definition were at times vivid and emotional in students'
reflections and, across participants, comprised a range of diverse starting points and outcomes. Some of the assumptions
of categorical otherness appeared to be at odds with students developing and embodying some of the empathic skills
that were the focus of the modules.

7.1.3 | Power

In the analysis, Power emerged as a third dimension along which students made sense of their relationship with Others
and their own role and position as engineers. We use the term power to refer to a position of influence or control over
Others and the interactions with them. Across the data set, students differently interpreted the degree to which they, as
individuals or as engineers, had power over Others they interacted with. However, a predominant pattern across the
reflections was that being an engineer was associated with a power differential in reference to stakeholders, both when
students took on the role of the engineer and when they embodied different stakeholder roles in the role plays. This
perceived and enacted power differential was both a source of authority and influence but for some respondents also
served as an anchor for understanding their sense of responsibility to the stakeholder.
One student's reflection on the role playing exercise with the struggling single father, which we mentioned previ-
ously, illustrates the complex interplay of both influence and responsibility that defined students' sense making along
the Power dimension:
WALTHER ET AL. 23

For instance, the father who could hardly provide for his children made my job feel even more important. I
feel like this emotional aspect could be beneficial in this way, because it would make me more motivated. I
would feel like he was counting on me to keep my word and find a solution. (Rebecca, Module 2 reflection)

For Rebecca, the Power dimension of her relationship with the stakeholder is defined by her perception of the stake-
holder's dependence on her. Prompted by a level of emotional connection with the situation of the father, she inter-
preted the position of the stakeholder as one of vulnerability and her own position as an engineer as characterized by
importance, influence, and a sense of altruism.
This understanding implies a significant difference in agency both in the relationship and in the conversation
enacted in the role play. It is also interesting to note that Rebecca's interpretation of this relationship seems to be pre-
dominantly based on her own positionality toward it, that is, she considers her reaction to the father and not the
father's potential reaction to her as an engineer. In describing the father's assumed vulnerability, she does not make ref-
erence to any conversational cues but rather draws on her own assumptions about engineering (“made my job feel
important”) and her own needs as a developing engineer (“it would make me more motivated”).
In a similar manner, Rebecca drew on prior assumptions around engineering when responding to the father's per-
ceived need and in trying to resolve her own self-definitional considerations. More specifically, the notion of the engi-
neer as a problem solver provided her with an anchor point to understand both the influence and responsibility that
she assumes come with her role. At the same time, this self-definition as a problem solver with a general responsibility
to “keep my word” created a significant separation from the individual along the Power dimension with the engineer as
the altruistic helper and the stakeholder as the helped and helpless.
Rebecca continues:

On the downside, emotions can hurt an engineer's career. If a project fails, I would feel like I let my cus-
tomers down. In an instance like this where my job could affect an individual's family's state of being, I
would be heartbroken to know that I could not help them. This would probably put a damper on my moti-
vation, and I feel like it would take me a while to get over my failure. (Rebecca, Module 2 reflection)

In further reflecting on the implications of her understanding of the relationship, Rebecca explored her strong emotional
response to the interaction (see Distance dimension above), a process that reveals how her professional role was inter-
twined with a deeply personal dimension. She initially references her sense of responsibility as an engineer (“let my cus-
tomers down”), but then uses evocative language to describe the impact on her as a whole person (“I would be
heartbroken”). This personally devastating outcome is again tied to her ability to solve the problem in her role as an engi-
neer (“I could not help them”).
Rebecca's sense-making of the Power dimension of stakeholder relationships mirrors similarly complex and tension-
laded considerations that her peers engaged with and reveals how the meaning-context, that is, students' assumptions of
what it means to be an engineer, played a crucial role in how they came to understand their relationship with Others. In
the analysis of data coded for the Power dimension, the notion of engineers as problem solvers emerged as a prominent
anchor point for students' understanding of their position as engineers to imply a sense of agency, control, influence, and
responsibility. Some of the respondents experienced a similar sense of ambivalence where assumptions about the position
of power in which they would find themselves as engineers contributed to motivation, efficacy, and a sense of responsi-
bility but also harbored the possibility of disappointment from not being able to manifest the goal of providing clear, right
solutions to engineering problems and meeting expectations for saving vulnerable stakeholders through technical
problem solving. In the context of developing empathy as part of students' professional formation, these assumptions and
tensions inherently led to a degree of separation between the engineer and stakeholders, a dynamic that can be problem-
atic for embodying the empathic skills that form the basis for a genuine connection.

7.1.4 | Interpretations across subcategories

Looking across the dimensions of Distance, Difference, and Power that characterized students' sense-making around
their Relationships with Others, we offer a few broader insights about empathy development in the context of engi-
neering formation.
24 WALTHER ET AL.

The data analysis revealed the crucial importance of the meaning-context when students engaged with empathy as
part of their engineering learning. More specifically, students' assumptions about ways of being engineers crucially
influenced the ways in which they were able to develop and embody empathic skills. In reflecting on their experiences,
these assumptions also provided critical anchors for their sense-making around the ways in which empathy could fit
into their own trajectory of becoming an engineer. In the analysis, we highlighted patterns around objectivity, expertise,
and problem solving, as these were particularly relevant in the context of the role plays and also emerged as experien-
tially significant for participants. While these patterns demonstrate the importance of students' individual meaning-
contexts in developing engineering empathy, we do not suggest that these aspects comprehensively capture all relevant
facets or their complex interplay in students' accounts.
Across the data, these elements of students' assumptions around being an engineer often provided points of tension
when trying to understand their experiential encounters with various forms and degrees of empathic connections.
Many of the students who actively engaged these tensions in their reflections reported strong emotional responses. This
affective dimension in the data revealed that profoundly personal aspects, such as values and individual aspirations,
played a significant role in students' experiences of the modules. However, many participants also found it challenging
to reconcile this personal dimension with their perception of becoming a professional that did not seem to provide a
space for personal or affective elements.

7.2 | Relationships with the act of learning: New experience in context

For the students in this study, the empathy modules took place in the meaning-context of an engineering class, which
carries with it a range of prior assumptions about its purpose and accepted modes of interactions. These assumptions
are, in turn, formed in the context of students' overall “project” (Schütz, 1967, p. 66) of pursuing an engineering degree
that is informed by disciplinary cultures and practices. The empathy modules were characterized by physical interac-
tions in the classroom, including role play elements, and an explicit focus on emotions, and thus offered students a
learning environment and associated activities that differed from their experiences in typical engineering courses.
Beyond initial reactions of consternation or awkwardness, how students engaged in these activities was profoundly
informed by their meaning-context of becoming an engineer. In other words, assumptions around what learning in
engineering should look like and what the focus of an engineering class should be inextricably informed how students
made use of the empathy modules and associated reflections. The following presents the range of student reactions in
the data and explores their relationships to students' perceptions of broader cultural or pedagogical practices in engi-
neering. More specifically, the following quotes show the intricate, mutual interactions between the students' sense-
making of their experiences with the empathy modules and their broader meaning-context of becoming an engineer.
As part of his post-module reflection, Samir makes sense of the novel learning experience:

Thursday's in-class modules were interesting in that they were different from what one typically expects in
a college classroom, let alone an engineering one. Although I was aware that we would be participating in
communication activities, I didn't expect them to be as enjoyable and challenging …. I was fairly surprised
at how much this activity resembled real life scenarios and was a good way to start me thinking about my
interactions with people in the professional world. Something as simple as being able to approach and talk
to others can be extremely useful. (Samir, Module 1 reflection)

In the first part of the excerpt, we see that Samir held certain expectations within the meaning-context of an engi-
neering classroom. His reflection indicates that the empathy exercises did not align with those expectations, and so
they did not readily fit into the meaning-context. However, through further consideration of his expectations of “the
professional world,” Samir was able to make sense of the experience as part of his larger project of becoming a profes-
sional. This realization resulted in a modification of the meaning-context to accommodate the new experience and
relate it to his personal motivation. Samir's recognition of the value of this learning experience mirrors the reflections
discussed previously where students reported authentic reactions to their role play experiences as if the interactions
with the stakeholders were in some way real.
While many of the students experienced a dissonance between the empathy modules and what they typically expect
in an engineering course, not all students were able to reconcile this dissonance, as illustrated in the following excerpt:
WALTHER ET AL. 25

It seemed like you didn't want us to solve the problem and just make small talk. Next time you do the
activity I think it should be an investor, an engineer and a local talking discussing how to solve the food/
poverty/job issue in [city]. (Justin, Module 1 reflection)

In this reflection, Justin appears to grapple with a profound experience of disconnect between his experience of the
empathy modules and his expectations of engineering learning. At one level, he does not see the mode of interaction in
the modules as acceptable for an engineering classroom and appears to dismiss the intended focus on human interac-
tions under the label of “small talk.” While the module in question was designed to foster an awareness of self in inter-
actions and an intentional focus on the reactions of others, Justin does not appear to have a reference point in his
meaning-context from which he could engage in the activity.
At another level, Justin also seems to struggle with what he perceives as a lack of purpose of the activity. While the
discussion of the module in class paid particular attention to the purpose of developing the use of self as a key profes-
sional tool for engineers, Justin is unable to see what he was meant to learn. This disconnect appears to be informed by
his assumptions of what it means to develop as an engineer. In trying to make sense of the experience, he identifies
problem solving as the closest anchor point through which he could understand the purpose of the activity. However,
as he does not recognize problem solving as the purpose of the activity, his meaning-context remained unchanged by
the new experience, as further indicated by his suggestion that the experience should be modified to fit into what he
deems suitable as a learning modality and purpose of an engineering class.
Across the data set, many students experienced a level of disconnect between their assumptions about engineering
learning and the experience of the empathy modules. The struggles in reconciling this difference, which sometimes led to a
rejection of the learning experience, stood in sharp contrast to students' overall motivation to learn, and succeed in the
course. For instructors who attempt to engage students in other learning modalities with a purpose that does not necessarily
align with students' meaning-contexts, an immediate impulse might be to dismiss negative response as a lack of student com-
mitment. Based on the analysis presented previously, this assumption appears to be too simplistic in that students seriously
attempted to make sense of the experience, and the emotional nature in which they at times rejected some activities is a tes-
tament to their commitment to learning. The analysis of data in this category offers avenues for educators to consider the
impact of students' meaning-contexts on the ways in which they engage in similar learning activities. More specifically,
the data revealed that students' assumptions about engineering learning offer both useful anchors for them to
engage in affective learning processes as well as providing a range of tensions they might grapple with when inte-
grating new learning experiences into their project of becoming an engineer. The former, such as the connection to
professional interactions in the workplace, offers opportunities for educators to frame empathy experiences in
ways that connect to relevant aspects of students' expectations. The latter, such as notions of engineering learning
as the purely intellectual engagement with objective facts, provides opportunities for engaging students in critical
discussions and reflections around those assumptions that are made visible through the tensions experienced.

7.3 | Relationships with the content of learning: Empathy as a conceptual object

While empathy was named as the focus of the modules, the exercises provided students with experiential access to the topic
without guiding students to develop a particular understanding of it. The experiences and reflections provided students with
opportunities to form or modify their intentional relationship with empathy as a conceptual object. In other words, student
were free to arrive at whatever understanding of empathy they chose; the data demonstrate that these understandings varied
greatly and that students found different language and anchor points in their prior experiences to discuss empathy. The fol-
lowing provides a sense of the space in which students engaged with the notion of empathy along two dimensions that
emerged as significant across the data set. First, students differently understood the function and purpose of empathy relative
to the engineering context, and second, they also had varied understandings of the nature of empathy in an epistemic sense.

7.3.1 | Varied understandings of the function of empathy in engineering

In making sense of their experiences, participants came to understand the role and purpose of empathy in a range of
ways that serve different functions in their overall ways of being an engineer. Craig, for example, reflected on the expe-
rience of an emotional connection he experienced in a role play:
26 WALTHER ET AL.

I learned a LOT about the emotional connection that I would be challenged with when I portrayed a single
father stakeholder. It hit me pretty hard when I realized that I might very well be working on things that
could mean life or death for people, or the difference between a hot meal and nothing some nights. It's
honestly terrifying, but I trust God with that. (Craig, Module 2 reflection)

Craig describes how his experience in a role play exercise opened up a new dimension of considering the emotional
connection to stakeholders, a recognition that was framed in the larger context of his responsibility as a professional,
thus touching on the being level in the model of empathy that informed this study (Figure 1). In the language of social
phenomenology, the experience destabilized his ideal concept of stakeholder relationships to also include an “emo-
tional connection.” While Craig did not use the label of empathy, his conception of an emotional connection captures
aspects of empathy as an orientation toward others, a notion that he also connects with a sense of trepidation given the
magnitude of the responsibility he sees (see discussion of Power dimension of Relationships with Others above).
While Craig made sense of the experiences of empathy through the proxy of “emotional connection,” other students
identified entirely different ideal objects as the content of their learning. Glenn, for example, reflected on his experience
of encountering others:

As far as each individual activity, each has its unique carry over to industry. The interviewing [a] peer is a
great networking practice. Networking is huge in industry because it helps you to get to know other profes-
sionals in other sectors of industry which can help make your individual work more applicable when you
have a bigger picture of the industry to work with. (Glenn, Module 1 reflection)

This reflection refers to a module that helped students develop an awareness of self when encountering others and invited
them to explore this skill in a role play that comprised an initial meeting between an engineer and specific stakeholder per-
sonas. In this context, Glenn draws on his broader understanding of preparation for professional practice to make sense of
the purpose of the learning experience. More specifically, he experiences exercises that offer an opportunity to “get to know”
others and frames their purpose through the lens of “networking.” Accordingly, he emphasizes “other professionals,” a
selective focus that, while not necessarily aligned with the framing of the exercise, fit his prior conception of networking.
Glenn's ideal object of networking, which is reinforced and not necessarily modified by the experience, has some overlap
with the skills level of the conception of empathy that informed this study. However, his prior assumptions and expectations
frame its focus and purpose differently through utility in interacting with other professionals.

7.3.2 | Varied epistemic attitudes about empathy

Another important intentional relationship between students and their concepts of empathy can be described as epi-
stemic attitude, that is, in what sense empathy is known to exist and what kind of “thing” it is varied among students.
Some students came to understand empathy as a “way of being,” that is, real in the sense that one's identity is real:

It is not about how much knowledge I have learned, it is about how I interact with people and environ-
ment; empathy is the most essential part of being a successful engineer. (Cloe, Module 3 reflection)

Through her reflections on the empathy modules, Cloe identifies that interactions with others will play an essential role in her
future practice as an engineer. She interestingly expands the notion of the interactions to concern not only people but also the
environment, a focus that was not necessarily dominant in the framing of the modules, but that is part of the conceptual model
that underpins them (see “way of being”). Based on her recognition of the central role of authentic connections, she comes to
understand empathy as “the most essential part of being a successful engineer”—not only is this notion real and experientially
grounded for her, it becomes an essential and integrative aspect of her own experience of becoming an engineer.
Other students came to understand empathy as a kind of interpersonal relationship that can be known by direct
experience. Craig, for example, elaborated on the notion of an emotional connection with others:

In class, I realized that empathy helps so much in building rapport and building a personal, lasting rela-
tionship with people in the real world. (Craig, Module 1 reflection)
WALTHER ET AL. 27

In this part of his reflection, Craig elaborates on his experiencing a realness of empathy in the role play. This tangible
experience also provides the anchor for his perception of the value of empathy that lies in establishing and maintaining
“lasting relationships,” a notion that he, in turn, connects to his own development of an engineer who functions in the
“real world.”
In contrast, other students did not necessarily encounter an experiential realness of empathy through the modules
but made sense of it as a method used to achieve other ends:

To my understanding, empathy is important in the personal and professional realms because it allows you
to see a problem from more than one angle and to gain additional insight into possible solutions. (Blair,
Module 1 reflection)

Blair recognized the importance of empathy as a means to advance one's own understanding of a problem context. He
frames the notion of perspective taking as a tool to analyze problems from multiple perspectives, a goal that is anchored
in his understanding of engineering as problem solving. Other students similarly came to understand empathy as a part
of their professional toolkit to serve different ends ranging from customer discovery to networking in the workplace.
Looking across the data set and the analytic categories illustrated above demonstrates significant variations in the
ways in which students came to understand the purpose and outcomes of their learning in the empathy modules. This
variation was informed by students' prior experiences and drew on specific conceptual anchors in their understanding
of engineering, a dynamic that affirms the importance of the meaning-context for developing empathy in engineering.
In an educational sense, this variation was often productive in that it allowed students to engage in the exercises and
associated sense making from their individual departure points. Some students, who were perhaps looking for human
elements in their engineering experience, were able to embrace empathy in a formative sense. Others were able to pro-
ductively integrate aspects of empathy in their professional development trajectories. While a wide range of students'
individual ways of conceptualizing empathy is productive, there were also some facets and conceptual anchor points
that provided tensions and were perhaps ultimately less productive. More specifically, we suggest that extremely utili-
tarian perspectives of empathy, anchored in an engineering ethos of pragmatism and efficiency, can make it chal-
lenging for students to fully attend to others they encounter and embody the genuineness that is essential for an
empathic connection.

8 | DISCUSS I ON : I MPLI CAT I O NS FO R E NGI NE E R I NG EDUC A T I O N

The study reported here sought to investigate the role of empathy in engineering students' professional formation. The
data analysis revealed meaningful patterns that illuminated students' sense-making around their experiences of the
empathy modules. More specifically, students formed significant intentional relationships around the role Others
would play in their professional futures, with the Act of Learning, and with empathy as the content of learning.
Exploring what these findings mean in the context of students' experience revealed that their sense-making was charac-
terized by a large degree of variation within each analytic category and included engagement with significant tensions.
Relating these findings to the broader context of engineering education points to interesting insights that relate to
(i) teaching empathy in engineering programs, (ii) the role of empathy in engineering students' professional develop-
ment, and (iii) opportunities to examine underlying assumptions that inform engineering education at large.

8.1 | Teaching empathy in engineering

The data suggest that fostering empathy in an engineering classroom is, in some crucial ways, very much unlike other
forms of engineering teaching and learning, an observation that also corresponds to the authors' experiences who par-
ticipated in the empathy modules as instructors (Authors 1, 3, and 4) and as an undergraduate student (Author 2).
More specifically, both the data and our observations indicate that teaching and developing empathy is characterized
by a significant affective component and does not necessarily present as an incremental or convergent process of knowl-
edge or skill acquisition.
At one level, the empathy modules make visible and provide opportunities for students and instructors to discuss emo-
tions in an engineering classroom, a dynamic that in itself may feel unusual and unfamiliar for both parties. As the data
28 WALTHER ET AL.

show and as we as instructors observed, students engaged with this emotional content and the associated in-class activities
with varying degrees of discomfort and awkwardness but also with excitement, laughter, and a sense of camaraderie. In
the debriefing conversations interspersed throughout the activities, it can be challenging to share and explicitly name
emotions. For some students, these experiences were unsettling and required the instructor to make time for sense
making and discussion, be transparent about pedagogy and purpose, and build a sense of trust and psychological safety in
the classroom, goals that closely align with embodying empathy as an instructor. In this context, we as instructors shared
many of the students' discomforts, were challenged by the unusual format and focus of the classroom interactions, and
had to gradually develop the orientations and skills necessary to facilitate them. In this development and in introducing
new instructors to the modules, we benefited from a collaborative approach that included role playing the modules in the
teaching team as well as reflecting on observations and challenges across multiple iterations of the course.
Beyond the explicit emotional content of classroom interactions, the prolonged engagement with the modules over
the course of the semester and the associated reflection activities brought up very strong emotional responses and devel-
opments in students; we explored some of these challenges and tensions in the Findings section. A main theme across
the data was a clash between students' firmly held assumptions and beliefs that underpin their development as engi-
neers and the experiential significance of empathy they sometimes encountered in a powerful, embodied manner in the
modules. These disconnects and students' discomfort can be understood through the lens of cognitive dissonance,
where an individual experiences psychological stress as a result of holding two contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values
(Brehm & Cohen, 1962; Festinger, 1957; Wicklund & Brehm, 2013).
Working through these emotional responses, tensions, and struggles over the course of a semester, in turn, informed
how they engaged in further modules and became visible in classroom interactions. In line with the variation across
the data, students expressed attitudes toward the empathy exercises that ranged from rejection and hostility to percep-
tions of transformational learning. When instructors facilitate such classroom activities that profoundly and directly
speak to some students' inner processes of becoming engineers, we have to be aware that we are not only transmitting
knowledge about empathy and skills associated with practicing empathy. More than that, we are facilitating an essen-
tially affective developmental process. Some ways to help students along those journeys include instructors sharing vul-
nerabilities through participating in classroom activities and empathically understanding and responding to student
reactions, including some students' rejection of or hostility toward the activities.
The findings also suggest that students' developmental trajectories when engaging with empathy in the context of
engineering are not necessarily part of a shared, incremental development whereby students gradually accrue the nec-
essary knowledge, skills, and practices; overcome misconceptions; and ideally converge toward the intended and
defined learning goals (ABET, 2018). The tensions and variations in the data revealed a picture of sometimes very
nonlinear developmental trajectories. For example, when some students felt challenged by the experiences of the mod-
ules, the snapshot of their development provided by the written reflection revealed that they, at least temporarily,
retreated more firmly to previously held assumptions. Similarly, other students reported a disconnect between their
experiences of empathy as an individual and as a future engineer, and their reflections simultaneously showed con-
flicting views and perceptions. We also showed in the analysis that these nonlinear, tension-laden trajectories took stu-
dents to a varied range of individual understandings of the nature of empathy and its role in their own professional
futures.
While we do not presume that data collected over the course of one semester, albeit from two cohorts, provide a
conclusive view on where these journeys will ultimately take students, our empirical view of the first part of this
journey has interesting implications for instructors engaged in similar educational initiatives. While the affective
dimension of student learning suggests that it is particularly important for the instructor to have a sense of where the
students are, the nonlinearity and variation make it much harder for us to tell. Previously, we suggested that embodying
empathic skills and orientations as instructors in the classroom provides a productive way to engage with this instruc-
tional challenge. Additionally, we hope that the findings, both the analytic categories and the rich characterization of
students' experiences, will provide instructors with a way of recognizing and understanding the challenges their stu-
dents might encounter and finding productive ways to support them in their varied journeys.
As a community of engineering educators, we might also consider ways in which we can create more explicit room
for affective developmental processes in our educational cultures and structures that often de-emphasize this crucial
dimension of engineering formation. If we assume with Michael Fabre (1994) that “to form is more ontological than to
instruct or educate, for one's entire being is at stake,” we not only need to create the required space but also learn to
purposefully and productively engage learners in these processes.
WALTHER ET AL. 29

8.2 | The role of empathy in engineering formation

The data analysis showed that the meaning-contexts that frame students' development as engineers were powerfully
salient in the ways they engaged with, and made sense of their experiences of empathy. In other words, experiencing
empathy in the engineering context and reflecting on those experiences prompted students to engage with fundamental
aspects of their own professional formation. It is interesting to note that the identity formation processes of the sopho-
more students in this study were fluid, yet they had some very distinct assumptions about what engineering is that are
held with sometimes significant emotional conviction. We examined how some ways in which students came to under-
stand their own trajectory of becoming engineers can be problematic when developing the skills and orientations neces-
sary to relate to others with genuineness, a quality that the literature suggests is essential for 21st century engineering
(Battarbee et al., 2014; Hecker, 1997; Patil, 2005; Rieckmann, 2017; Woolley et al., 2010). We also showed how engaging
with the empathy modules led some students to explore tensions between their identity as a whole person (as discussed
in Faulkner, 2000; Huff, Smith, Jesiek, Zoltowski, & Oakes, 2018) and their developing identity as engineers. In the con-
text of the formation of engineers, the dynamics surrounding these tensions point to two significant insights.
First, engaging with empathy in the engineering context makes key aspects of students' identity formation visible as
well as experientially and pedagogically accessible. Considerations around the future roles our students will play as
engineers in society, for example, in the context of engineering macroethics (Conlon & Zandvoort, 2011; Herkert,
2005), are often experienced as abstract and somewhat elusive (Newberry, 2004). Similarly, assessment focused on stu-
dent outcomes (Herkert, 2000; Shuman, Besterfield-Sacre, & McGourty, 2005) grapples with the challenge of assessing
ethics, a concept informed by deeply held orientations and values toward others, through the proxy of students' intellec-
tual performance in discussions or writing. In contrast, student engagement with empathy activities can allow students
to experientially appreciate the significance of both skills and values orientations that fundamentally frame their orien-
tations toward others and their self-understanding as engineers. In other words, the embodied experiences of empathic
communication allow students to access and make sense of both their espoused theories and their theories in action
(Schön, 1983) that inform who they will be as an engineer.
Second, the rich interplay of empathic skills and orientations with aspects of engineering identity implies that
empathy is central and foundational to engineering formation. While a large discourse in engineering education focuses
on defining component skills, qualities, and attributes for engineering (ABET, 2018; Downey et al., 2006; Goldberg,
Somerville, & Whitney, 2014; Male, 2010), we suggest that empathy development is an integral core of being an engi-
neer in the 21st century and undergirds a broad range of qualities that range, for example, from embodied engineering
ethics to engineering communication and stakeholder interaction. In other words, we suggest that empathy informs
not only one's own interaction with others but also one's own relationships with them, and thereby one's own position
in the world as an individual and professional.
For engineering educators, these insights suggest exciting opportunities to use empathy exercises to tangibly engage
and purposefully support students in the less tangible aspects of their professional formation and, at the same time,
foster the synergistic impacts on facets of student learning that present persistent challenges for engineering instruction
and assessment. For engineering education researchers, the central and integrating quality of empathy for engineering
formation points to opportunities to not only deepen our empirical understanding of engineering empathy but also
explore its synergistic relationship with other domains of engineering learning.

8.3 | Consideration of engineering culture

The findings and this discussion highlight the crucial role of meaning-contexts both in students' development of
empathy and the inextricably linked dynamics of their professional formation. The tensions experienced by the students
in this study suggest opportunities for the engineering education community to critically examine the ways in which
we may shape features of students' meaning-contexts that are perhaps fundamentally at odds with our broader goals as
educators. While not the primary focus of this study, the empirical consideration of student experiences of empathy in
context allowed us to identify a few salient features of these meaning-contexts that are perhaps problematic for stu-
dents' broader development.
We observed a range of cultural elements of engineering learning environments that may limit opportunities for stu-
dent to effectively pursue all facets of their professional formations. Examples were the separation of engineering
learning from the whole person or, put another way, the lack of intentional engagement with affective development
30 WALTHER ET AL.

processes that are part of becoming a professional in the 21st century. Similarly, a range of narratives about engineering
may inadvertently limit the ways in which students can envision their future professional selves and work toward these
goals. For example, narratives around engineering as problem solving that emerged from the data may preclude stu-
dents from embracing problem framing or engineering work in “integral communities” (Catalano, 2006, p. 169) as part
of their professional self-definition. Even in contexts where students are oriented to using “engineering to help”
(Schneider, Lucena, & Leydens, 2009, p. 42), dominant narratives around engineering expertise combined with a, per-
haps unreflected upon, sense of altruism and associated assumptions about engineers as the primary locus of control
may prevent students from developing orientations that would allow them to engage others with genuineness and facil-
itate their empowerment in collaborative problem framing and solving.
Epistemological assumptions that explicitly or implicitly inform engineering programs may, likewise, narrow both
students' development and the range and scope of how they come to understand their future professional work. For
example, assumptions around engineering as value neutral could cause students to shy away from engineering practice
or learning settings that are characterized by the complex value dimensions of engineering work in sociotechnical con-
texts. In a similar manner, the strong positivist assumption of the “one right answer” to engineering problems may pre-
vent students from developing the skills and orientations to engage in the tensions and nuances of modern engineering
work (Jonassen et al., 2006).
As engineering educators, we have significant influence on these cultural elements, disciplinary narratives, and
epistemological assumptions that so powerfully shape the meaning-contexts in which our students develop as engi-
neers. Building on the insights from this study and the growing body of critical work around engineering cultures and
narratives (Foor, Walden, & Trytten, 2007; Godfrey & Parker, 2010; National Academy of Engineering, 2008; Pawley,
2009; Sochacka et al., 2014), we have a timely opportunity to generate further empirical insight around elements of our
education systems that may limit student participation and student development. This knowledge could, in turn, vali-
date and expand existing efforts to support the wide range of students' values and aspirations and prepare them in a
fashion that matches the breadth of their future career paths and professional responsibilities.

A C K N O WL E D G M E N T S
This material is based on work supported by the National Science Foundation under grant 1463829. Any opinions,
findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not neces-
sarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. We would like to thank the CLUSTER group at UGA for
supporting the development of this manuscript both in the nitty-gritty data analysis processes, by challenging and
redefining the patterns we saw, and in making sense of the bigger picture of what it all means. In the latter task that is
perhaps most important for this work, the perspective of the undergraduate researchers in the group was particularly
valuable in shaping the conclusions drawn.

R EF E RE N C E S
ABET. (2018). Criteria for accrediting engineering programs. Baltimore, MD: Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology.
Agosta, L. (2015). A rumor of empathy: Resistance, narrative and recovery in psychoanalysis and psychotherapy. New York, NY: Taylor &
Francis.
Algra, H. R., & Johnston, C. R. (2015). Encouraging empathy in engineering design. Paper presented at the Canadian Engineering Education
Association Conference, Hamilton, Ontario.
ASEE Peer Document Repository. (2018). Advanced search. Retrieved from https://peer.asee.org/
Baillie, C., & Levine, M. (2013). Engineering ethics from a justice perspective: A critical repositioning of what it means to be an engineer.
International Journal of Engineering, Social Justice, and Peace, 2(1), 10–20.
Balaji, K. V. A., & Somashekar, P. (2009). A comparative study of soft skills among engineers. IUP Journal of Soft Skills, 3(3/4), 50–57.
Battarbee, K., Fulton Suri, J., & Gibbs Howard, S. (2014). Empathy on the edge: Scaling and sustaining a human-centered approach in the
evolving practice of design. IDEO, 1–14. Retrieved from http://www.ideo.com/news/archive/2014/01/#pos5142
Blank-Libra, J. (2016). Pursuing an ethic of empathy in journalism. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
Bornstein, D. (2007). How to change the world: Social entrepreneurs and the power of new ideas. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Brehm, J. W., & Cohen, A. R. (1962). Explorations in cognitive dissonance. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Brown, T. (1996). The phenomenology of the mathematics classroom. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 31(1), 115–150. https://doi.org/10.
1007/bf00143929
Catalano, G. D. (2006). Engineering ethics: Peace, justice, and the earth. Synthesis Lectures on Engineers, Technology, and Society, 1(1), 1–80.
https://doi.org/10.2200/S00039ED1V01Y200606ETS001
Cech, E. (2014). Culture of disengagement in engineering education? Science, Technology, & Human Values, 39(1), 42–72. https://doi.org/10.
18260/p.2435510.1177/0162243913504305
WALTHER ET AL. 31

Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Conlon, E., & Zandvoort, H. (2011). Broadening ethics teaching in engineering: Beyond the individualistic approach. Science and Engineering
Ethics, 17(2), 217–232.
De Waal, F. (2009). The age of empathy: Nature's lessons for a kinder society. New York, NY: Harmony Books.
Downey, G. L., Lucena, J. C., Moskal, B. M., Parkhurst, R., Bigley, T., Hays, C., … Ruff, S. (2006). The globally competent engineer: Working
effectively with people who define problems differently. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(2), 107–122.
Duhigg, C. (2016). What google learned from its quest to build the perfect team. The New York Times Magazine. Retrieved from https://www.
nytimes.com/2016/02/28/magazine/what-google-learned-from-its-quest-to-build-the-perfect-team.html?_r=0
Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383. https://
doi.org/10.2307/2666999
Fabre, M. (1994). Penser la formation. Paris, France: PUF.
Faulkner, W. (2000). Dualisms, hierarchies and gender in engineering. Social Studies of Science, 30(5), 759–792.
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance (Vol. 2). Redwood City, CA: Stanford University Press.
Finlay, L. (1999). Applying phenomenology in research: Problems, principles and practice. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 62(7),
299–306. https://doi.org/10.1177/030802269906200705
Foor, C. E., Walden, S. E., & Trytten, D. A. (2007). “I wish that I belonged more in this whole engineering group:” Achieving individual
diversity. Journal of Engineering Education, 96(2), 103–115.
Geertz, C. (1974). From the native's point of view: On the nature of anthropological understanding. Bulletin of the American Academy of Arts
and Sciences, 28(1), 26–45.
Glaser, B. G. (1969). The constant comparative method of qualitative research. In G. J. McCall & J. L. Simmons (Eds.), Issues in participant
observation: A text and reader (pp. 216–228). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Pub. Co.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
Godfrey, E., & Parker, L. (2010). Mapping the cultural landscape in engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education, 99(1), 5–22.
Goldberg, D. E., Somerville, M., & Whitney, C. (2014). A whole new engineer: The coming revolution in engineering education. Douglas, MI: ThreeJoy.
Grasso, D., Brown Burkins, M., Helble, J., & Martinelli, D. (2010). Dispelling the myths of holistic engineering. In D. Grasso & M. Burkins
(Eds.), Holistic engineering education: Beyond technology. New York, NY: Springer.
Hansen, M. T. (2010). IDEO CEO Tim Brown: T-shaped stars: The backbone of IDEO's collaborative culture. Retrieved from http://
chiefexecutive.net/ideo-ceo-tim-brown-t-shaped-stars-the-backbone-of-ideoae%E2%84%A2s-collaborative-culture/
Hecker, P. (1997). Successful consulting engineering: A lifetime of learning. Journal of Management in Engineering, 13(6), 62–65. https://doi.
org/10.1061/(ASCE)0742-597X(1997)13:6(62)
Herkert, J. R. (2000). Engineering ethics education in the USA: Content, pedagogy and curriculum. European Journal of Engineering Educa-
tion, 25(4), 303–313.
Herkert, J. R. (2005). Ways of thinking about and teaching ethical problem solving: Microethics and macroethics in engineering. Science and
Engineering Ethics, 11(3), 373–385.
Hess, J. L., Beever, J., Strobel, J., & Brightman, A. O. (2017). Empathic perspective-taking and ethical decision-making in engineering ethics
education. In D. P. Michelfelder, B. Newberry, & Q. Zhu (Eds.), Philosophy and engineering: Exploring boundaries, expanding connections
(pp. 163–179). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
Hess, J. L., & Fila, N. D. (2016). The development and growth of empathy among engineering students. Paper presented at 2016 ASEE Annual
Conference & Exposition, New Orleans, LA.
Hess, J. L., Strobel, J., & Brightman, A. O. (2017). The development of empathic perspective-taking in an engineering ethics course. Journal
of Engineering Education, 106(4), 534–563. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20175
Heydebrand, W. (1994). Sociological writings: Max Weber. New York, NY: Bloomsbury Academic.
Huff, J. L., Smith, J. A., Jesiek, B. K., Zoltowski, C. B., & Oakes, W. C. (2018). Identity in engineering adulthood: An interpretative phenome-
nological analysis of early-career engineers in the United States as they transition to the workplace. Emerging Adulthood, 7(6), 451–467.
Husserl, E., & Hardy, L. (1999). The idea of phenomenology. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Jack, A. I., Dawson, A. J., Begany, K. L., Leckie, R. L., Barry, K. P., Ciccia, A. H., & Snyder, A. Z. (2013). fMRI reveals reciprocal inhibition
between social and physical cognitive domains. NeuroImage, 66, 385–401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.10.061
Jesus, M. C. P. d., Capalbo, C., Merighi, M. A. B., Oliveira, D. M. d., Tocantins, F. R., Rodrigues, B. M. R. D., & Ciuffo, L. L. (2013). The social
phenomenology of Alfred Schütz and its contribution for the nursing. Revista da Escola de Enfermagem da USP, 47(3), 736–741.
Jonassen, D., Strobel, J., & Lee, C. B. (2006). Everyday problem solving in engineering: Lessons for engineering educators. Journal of Engi-
neering Education, 95(2), 139–151.
Koskinen, I., & Battarbee, K. (2003). Introduction to user experience and empathic design. In I. Koskinen, K. Battarbee, & T. Mattelmäki
(Eds.), Empathic design, user experience in product design (pp. 37–50). Helsinki, Finland: IT Press.
Male, S. A. (2010). Generic engineering competencies: A review and modelling approach. Education Research and Perspectives, 37(1), 25–51.
Marcus, J. (2013). Engineering schools fail to teach empathy. PTC. Retrieved from http://blogs.ptc.com/2013/11/27/engineering-schools-fail-
to-teach-empathy/
Matyszczyk, C. (2012). Eureka! Engineers aren't empathetic because they can't be. cnet. Retrieved from https://www.cnet.com/news/eureka-
engineers-arent-empathetic-because-they-cant-be/
32 WALTHER ET AL.

May, V. (2014). Are women too empathetic to be engineers? The Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/vicki-may/
are-women-too-empathetic-_b_5522153.html
McDonough, W., Braungart, M., & Clinton, B. (2013). The upcycle: Beyond sustainability—Designing for abundance. New York, NY: Farrar,
Straus and Giroux.
McLaren, K. (2013). The art of empathy: A complete guide to life's most essential skill. Louisville, CO: Sounds True.
McSharry, G., & Jones, S. (2000). Role-play in science teaching and learning. School Science Review, 82, 73–82.
National Academy of Engineering. (2008). Changing the conversation: Messages for improving public understanding of engineering. Washington,
D.C.: National Academies Press.
National Academy of Engineering. (2013). NAE grand challenges for engineering. Retrieved from http://www.engineeringchallenges.org/
cms/8996/9221.aspx
National Academy of Sciences. (2007). Rising above the gathering storm: Energizing and employing America for a brighter economic future.
Washington D. C.: National Academies Press.
National Society of Professional Engineers. (2007). Code of ethics for engineers. Retrieved from https://www.nspe.org/sites/default/files/
resources/pdfs/Ethics/CodeofEthics/Code-2007-July.pdf
Nestel, D., & Tierney, T. (2007). Role-play for medical students learning about communication: Guidelines for maximising benefits. BMC
Medical Education, 7(1), 1–9.
Newberry, B. (2004). The dilemma of ethics in engineering education. Science and Engineering Ethics, 10(2), 343–351.
Pacey, A. (2001). Meaning in technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Patil, A. S. (2005). The global engineering criteria for the development of a global engineering profession. World Transaction on Engineering
Education, 4(1), 49–52.
Pawley, A. L. (2009). Universalized narratives: Patterns in how faculty members define “engineering.” Journal of Engineering Education, 98
(4), 309–319. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2009.tb01029.x
Penzenstadler, B., Haller, G., Schlosser, T., & Frenzel, G. (2009, 31 August). Soft skills required: A practical approach for empowering soft
skills in the engineering world. Paper presented at the Collaboration and Intercultural Issues on Requirements: Communication, Under-
standing and Softskills (CIRCUS), Atlanta, GA.
Perry, B. D., & Szalavitz, M. (2011). Born for love: Why empathy is essential and endangered. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
Pink, D. H. (2006). A whole new mind: Why right-brainers will rule the future. New York, NY: Riverhead Books.
Pool, R. (1999). Beyond engineering: How society shapes technology. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Rasoal, C., Danielsson, H., & Tomas, J. (2012). Empathy among students in engineering programmes. European Journal of Engineering Edu-
cation, 37(5), 427–435. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2012.708720
Ravesteijn, W., Graaff, E. D., & Kroesen, O. (2006). Engineering the future: The social necessity of communicative engineers. European
Journal of Engineering Education, 31(1), 63–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043790500429005
Richards, L. (1999). Using NVivo in qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Richards, L. (2005). Handling qualitative data: A practical guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Rieckmann, M. (2017). Education for sustainable development goals: Learning objectives. Paris, France: UNESCO Publishing.
Rifkin, J. (2009). The empathic civilization: The race to global consciousness in a world in crisis. New York, NY: Penguin.
Rothenberg, B. B. (1970). Children's social sensitivity and the relationship to interpersonal competence, intrapersonal comfort, and intellec-
tual level. Developmental Psychology, 2(3), 335–350.
Schneider, J., Lucena, J., & Leydens, J. A. (2009). Engineering to help. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, 28(4), 42–48.
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Schütz, A. (1967). The phenomenology of the social world (G. Walsh & F. Lehnert, Trans.). Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press
(Original work published 1932).
Sheppard, K., Dominick, P., & Aronson, Z. (2004). Preparing engineering students for the new business paradigm of international teamwork
and global orientation. Paper presented at the 2003 ECI Conference on Enhancement of the Global Perspective for Engineering Students
by Providing an International Experience, Tomar, Portugal. Retrieved from http://dc.engconfintl.org/enhancement/27/
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.
Smith, D. W., & McIntyre, R. (2012). Husserl and intentionality: A study of mind, meaning, and language. Boston, MA: D. Reidel Publishing
Company.
Sochacka, N. W., Walther, J., & Miller, S. E. (2018). Fostering empathy in engineering education. Scientia, 119, 110–113.
Sochacka, N. W., Walther, J., Wilson, J., & Brewer, M. (2014). Stories “told” about engineering in the media: Implications for attracting diverse
groups to the profession. Paper presented at the Frontiers in Engineering Education Annual Conference, Madrid, Spain.
Stanford d.school. (2017). Use our methods. Retrieved from http://dschool.stanford.edu/use-our-methods/
Strobel, J., Hess, J. L., Pan, R., & Wachter Morris, C. A. (2013). Empathy and care within engineering: Qualitative perspectives from engi-
neering faculty and practicing engineers. Engineering Studies, 5(2), 137–159. https://doi.org/10.1080/19378629.2013.814136
Trout, J. D. (2009). The empathy gap: Building bridges to the good life and the good society. New York, NY: Penguin Books.
Vagle, M. D. (2014). Crafting phenomenological research. New York, NY: Left Coast Press.
Van Ments, M. (1999). The effective use of role-play: Practical techniques for improving learning. London, England: Kogan Page Publishers.
WALTHER ET AL. 33

Vanasupa, L., Sochacka, N. W., & Streveler, R. (2018). Dynamic interactions of neurological states: Reflections on implications for learning
engineering. Murmurations, 1(1), 8–19. https://doi.org/10.31946/meee.v1i1.24
Walther, J., Miller, S. E., & Sochacka, N. W. (2016). Fostering empathy in an undergraduate mechanical engineering course. Paper presented at
the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition, New Orleans, LA.
Walther, J., Miller, S. E., & Sochacka, N. W. (2017). A model of empathy in engineering as a core skill, practice orientation, and professional
way of being. Journal of Engineering Education, 106(1), 123–148. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20159
Walther, J., & Sochacka, N. W. (2017). Interdisciplinarity at the cutting edge of post-secondary engineering education: Research and praxis.
In D. Pittich, B. Zinn, & R. Tenberg (Eds.), Technikdidaktik: Eine bestandsaufnahme (pp. 319–334). Stuttgart, Germany: Steiner Verlag.
Walther, J., Sochacka, N. W., Benson, L. C., Bumbaco, A. E., Kellam, N., Pawley, A. L., & Phillips, C. M. L. (2017). Qualitative research
quality: A collaborative inquiry across multiple methodological perspectives. Journal of Engineering Education, 106(3), 398–430. https://
doi.org/10.1002/jee.20170
Walther, J., Sochacka, N., & Kellam, N. N. (2011). Emotional indicators as a way to elicit authentic student reflection in engineering programs.
Paper presented at the American Society of Engineering Education Annual Conference (ERM Division), Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Walther, J., Sochacka, N. W., & Kellam, N. N. (2013). Quality in interpretive engineering education research: Reflections on an example
study. Journal of Engineering Education, 102(4), 626–659. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20029
Walther, J., Sochacka, N. W., & Miller, S. E. (2016, June 26–29). Fostering empathy in an undergraduate mechanical engineering course. Paper
presented at the ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, New Orleans, LA.
Weber, M., & Winckelmann, J. (2002). Wirtschaft und gesellschaft: Grundriß der verstehenden soziologie. Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck.
Wicklund, R. A., & Brehm, J. W. (2013). Perspectives on cognitive dissonance. Hove, England: Psychology Press.
Winner, L. (1988). The whale and the reactor: A search for limits in an age of high technology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Woolley, A. W., Chabris, C. F., Pentland, A., Hashmi, N., & Malone, T. W. (2010). Evidence for a collective intelligence factor in the perfor-
mance of human groups. Science, 330(6004), 686–688. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1193147
Zahavi, D. (2003). Husserl's phenomenology. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Zoltowski, C. B., Oakes, W. C., & Cardella, M. E. (2012). Students' ways of experiencing human-centered design. Journal of Engineering Edu-
cation, 101(1), 28–59. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2012.tb00040.x

AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES

Joachim Walther is an Associate Professor in the College of Engineering and Founding Director of the Engi-
neering Education Transformations Institute at the University of Georgia, 597 D. W. Brooks Drive, Athens, GA
30602; jwalther@uga.edu
Michael Brewer is an undergraduate research assistant in the College of Engineering of the University of Georgia,
597 D. W. Brooks Drive, Athens, GA 30602.
Nicola W. Sochacka is the Associate Director for Research Initiation in the Engineering Education Transforma-
tions Institute as well as a research professional and instructor in the College of Engineering at the University of
Georgia, 597 D. W. Brooks Drive, Athens, GA 30602; sochacka@uga.edu
Shari Miller is the Associate Dean, PhD Program Director, and an Associate Professor in the School of Social Work
at the University of Georgia, 279 Williams Street, Athens, GA 30602; semiller@uga.edu

How to cite this article: Walther J, Brewer MA, Sochacka NW, Miller SE. Empathy and engineering
formation. J Eng Educ. 2020;109:11–33. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20301