ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING SCIENCE

Volume 35, Number 6, 2018

ª Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.
DOI: 10.1089/ees.2017.0337

Another Grand Challenge: Diversity in Environmental Engineering

Lee Blaney,1,*,{ Judith A. Perlinger,2,{ Shannon L. Bartelt-Hunt,3,{ Ramanitharan Kandiah,4,{ and Joel J. Ducoste5,{
1
Department of Chemical, Biochemical and Environmental Engineering, University of Maryland Baltimore County, Baltimore, Maryland.
2
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, Michigan.
3
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, Nebraska.
4
International Center for Water Resources Management, Central State University, Wilberforce, Ohio.
5
Department of Civil, Construction, and Environmental Engineering, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina.

Received: August 24, 2017 Accepted in revised form: October 9, 2017

Abstract
Downloaded by 190.232.106.114 from www.liebertpub.com at 05/07/20. For personal use only.

As efforts to address grand challenges in engineering move forward, one important challenge has been con-
spicuously absent—improving diversity in science, technology, engineering, and math fields. Previous research
has shown that diverse teams perform better in a range of output measures and are better equipped to objectively
and creatively evaluate problems. Here, we make the case for including diversity as a critical component of our
ability to enable transformative solutions to the grand challenges in environmental engineering.

Keywords: environmental engineering; engineering education; demographics; gender; ethnicity; race

T he National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and

Medicine have commenced a study on the Grand Chal-
lenges and Opportunities in Environmental Engineering and
Science for the 21st century (National Academies, 2017).
The study committee is charged with identifying current and
emerging challenges in environmental engineering and science and
describing how the field might evolve to address those needs.
Owing to the strong representation of environmental engineering
and science within the 14 Grand Challenges for Engineering pro-
posed by the National Academy of Engineering (NAE), this new
effort is expected to align with previously identified topics, in-
cluding development of affordable and clean energy, management
of the nitrogen cycle, and provision of clean water and sanita-
tion (NAE, 2017). Mihelcic et al. (2017) aggregated infor-
mation from the 14 NAE Grand Challenges, the 17 United
Nations Sustainable Development Goals, and other reports to
identify 10 grand challenges associated with the role of envi-
ronmental engineering in achieving sustainability in the de-
veloping world. One of those challenges focused on integrating
culture, perception, and behavior with advances in science and
technology. Similarly, we maintain that gender, race, ethnicity,
and other forms of diversity are important aspects for the field
of environmental engineering that significantly affect our
ability to tackle the grand challenges facing society. The ob-
jective of this work is to justify the need for improving di-
versity in environmental engineering as a grand challenge.
*Corresponding author: Department of Chemical, Biochemical
and Environmental Engineering, University of Maryland
Baltimore County, 1000 Hilltop Circle, ECS 314, Baltimore, MD
21250. Phone: 1-410-455-8608; Fax: 1-410-455-1049; E-mail:
blaney@umbc.edu
{
Member of AEESP.
There are a number of motivations for improving diversity
in our field: pursuing social and environmental justice; gen-
erating a talented workforce; increasing objectivity; and,
enabling the creative and transformative solutions needed to
address grand challenges. In 2006, underrepresented minor-
ity groups comprised 28.5% of our national population but
only 9.1% of college-educated Americans in science and
engineering occupations (National Academy of Sciences
2011). Previous research has shown that gender-, ethnically-,
and racially-diverse groups perform better across a range of
output measures related to profitability, innovation, and
solving complex problems in the social sciences, business,
healthcare, technology, and natural sciences (Herring, 2009;
Hunt et al., 2014; Valantine and Collins, 2015). With a wider
range of personal backgrounds and experiences, diverse
teams are also better equipped to objectively evaluate work
without introducing implicit (or unconscious) bias (In-
temann, 2009). For similar reasons, ethnically diverse groups
have also been shown to be more creative than homogeneous
groups (McLeod et al., 1996). Switzer and Teodoro (2017)
reported that Safe Drinking Water Act violations were higher
in lower income communities with higher Hispanic and Af-
rican American populations. We posit that the increased ob-
jectivity and creativity inherent in diverse teams can ensure
environmental justice through increased collective under-
standing of complex systems of social inequality. Never-
theless, as Williams and Multhaup (2017) note, the ‘‘imagined
rationality of engineering’’ continues to inhibit efforts aimed at
improving diversity.
Previously, we reported on the population and demo-
graphics of U.S. environmental engineering students and
faculty for the 2005–2013 period (Blaney et al., 2016). Since
that time, three more years of data have become available

568
 DIVERSITY IS ALSO A GRAND CHALLENGE 569

through the American Society for Engineering Education
(ASEE), Engineering Management Database System (ASEE,
2017). Using the same methods from our prior research, we
have analyzed these new data to better understand gender,
ethnicity, and racial demographics for environmental en-
gineering students and faculty. Here, we mostly focused
on comparison of the 2008, 2012, and 2016 demographics
data for degrees and faculty. Over the 2008–2016 period,
the number of BS, MS, and PhD degrees awarded increased
154%, 81%, and 43%, respectively. In fact, students earned
*1,200 BS, 1,000 MS, and 200 PhD degrees in environ-
mental engineering in 2016.
The 2016 race and ethnicity demographics for students
earning degrees in environmental engineering are shown in
Fig. 1. Approximately 65.7% of BS degrees were awarded to
Caucasians, followed by Hispanic Americans (10.1%), Asian
Americans (7.8%), African Americans (2.6%), and Native
Americans (0.6%). U.S. census data indicate that African
Americans, Asian Americans, Caucasians (not of Hispanic or
Downloaded by 190.232.106.114 from www.liebertpub.com at 05/07/20. For personal use only.
No clear gains have been made with respect to the per-
centage of BS, MS, or PhD degrees awarded to underrepre-
sented minorities since 2008 (Fig. 2). Although the percentage
of PhDs granted to African Americans was 8.7% in 2016, it
varied from 0% to 4.8% for the previous 15 years. Based on
PhD enrollments, which averaged 4.6% African American for
the 2013–2016 period, the apparent increase in PhDs awarded
to African American students for 2016 is likely an artifact.
Hispanic Americans account for 11.1% (2013–2016 average)
of PhD enrollments. The demographic deficits in PhD enroll-
ments (i.e., U.S. demographics minus PhD student demo-
graphics) for African Americans and Hispanic Americans
were 8.7% and 6.7%, respectively, for this 4-year period.
African Americans, Hispanic Americans, and Native
Americans are also underrepresented in environmental engi-
neering faculty (Fig. 1), and the extent of underrepresentation is
greater than that for students (Fig. 3). In 2016, 2.3%, 5.4%, and
0.0% of assistant, associate, and full professors, respectively,
were African American. Hispanic Americans accounted for

Latino origin), Hispanic Americans or Latinos, and Native
Americans made up 13.3%, 5.7%, 61.3%, 17.8%, and 1.3%,
respectively, of the U.S. population in 2016. As such, African
Americans, Hispanic Americans, and Native Americans are
underrepresented in environmental engineering. With chang-
ing national demographics (Colby and Ortman, 2015), it is
important to actively address diversity now to prevent in-
creased underrepresentation of select racial and ethnic groups
in the coming decades.
4.5%, 5.4%, and 1.0% of assistant, associate, and full professors.
No Native American professors of environmental engineering
were identified in the ASEE data for 2014–2016, although Bla-
ney et al. (2016) noted that environmental engineering faculty
may be housed within other disciplines, including civil and
chemical engineering, in the ASEE database and, therefore, un-
derreported in environmental engineering. Previous research
(Appel, 1996; Smith et al., 1997) has shown that diverse faculty
members are needed to motivate and encourage diverse students

FIG. 1. (top) Race and ethnicity demographics for students being awarded BS, MS, and PhD degrees in environmental
engineering and (bottom) diversity of assistant, associate, and full professors associated with environmental engineering
programs. Note that the legend (top-to-bottom) proceeds in a clockwise pattern from the top of the pie charts. For the sake of
clarity, demographic groups with 0.0% are not labeled. All data were retrieved for the year 2016 from the American Society
for Engineering Education, Engineering Management Database System.
 570 BLANEY ET AL.
Downloaded by 190.232.106.114 from www.liebertpub.com at 05/07/20. For personal use only.

FIG. 2. Percentages of BS, MS, and PhD degrees awarded to African Americans, Asian Americans, Caucasians, Hispanic
Americans, and Native Americans in environmental engineering for 2008, 2012, and 2016. In this case, the data were adjusted to
domestic students, that is, international students were not counted in the denominator. ASEE also reports ‘‘Other’’ (1998–2009),
‘‘Native Hawaiian,’’ ‘‘Two or more,’’ and ‘‘Unknown’’ (2010–present). The ‘‘Other’’ and ‘‘Unknown’’ categories were the next
most populated, but for the sake of brevity, these groups were not plotted here. U.S. demographic levels are for 2016.

to enter and persist in science, technology, engineering, and math
majors. The lack of a racially and ethnically diverse faculty,
therefore, represents a negative feedback on student diversity.
Gender diversity in environmental engineering students
has steadily improved over the past two decades. Figure 4
shows the percentage of degrees awarded to women for 2008,
2012, and 2016. These data demonstrate moderate improve-
ments at the BS and MS levels, with more drastic changes for
PhD students. For the 2013–2016 period, 46.7 (–2.0)%, 43.8
(–2.6)%, and 42.7(–3.7)% of environmental engineering BS,
MS, and PhD degrees, respectively, were awarded to women.
For the same period, women earned 22–27% and 31–34%
of degrees in civil and chemical engineering, respectively.
Notably, Gelbgiser and Albert (2017) reported that green
fields in higher education are characterized by greater
gender equality than nongreen fields. In this context, women
are comparatively well represented in the environmental
engineering student body but still below U.S. demographic
levels (*51% women). One potential strategy for further
improvement of gender representation is to reframe fields as
both humanistic and scientific (Barone, 2011), a space in
which environmental engineering is naturally positioned.
In general, the percentage of female assistant professors has
been relatively steady at 30–40% over the past 15 years.
 DIVERSITY IS ALSO A GRAND CHALLENGE 571
Downloaded by 190.232.106.114 from www.liebertpub.com at 05/07/20. For personal use only.

FIG. 3. Race and ethnicity data for assistant, associate, and full professors in environmental engineering for 2008, 2012,
and 2016. The ‘‘Other’’ (1998–2009) and ‘‘Unknown’’ (2010–present) categories were combined for this analysis. U.S.
demographic levels are shown for 2016.
However, clear gains have been made at the full professor rank, Given these data, we reiterate our claim that improving
where women comprised 24% of environmental engineering diversity needs to be considered a grand challenge in envi-
faculty in 2016 compared with 12% in 2008. As full professors ronmental engineering. Without a more diverse faculty, un-
approach the 30% women level, we do not expect continued derrepresented students may be discouraged from pursuing
growth because associate professors have been fairly constant environmental engineering degrees since the faculty mem-
at 31 (–2)% women for the past 8 years. Importantly, a gap bers who are teaching them do not reflect their own image.
exists with respect to PhDs awarded to women (44.7% in 2016) For the same reason, improving diversity with respect to
and the percentage of female assistant professors (34.1% in disability status, gender identity, and sexual orientation is
2016). Blaney et al. (2016) further discussed the intersection of also important. The National Science Foundation analyzes
race, ethnicity, and gender demographics in faculty. To ensure data on women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in
that faculty diversity keeps pace with student diversity, systems STEM (NSF, 2017); however, demographics data for these
that encourage and support women to join and succeed in ac- domains are not available for environmental engineering,
ademia are necessary. which makes it difficult to assess current levels of
 572
Downloaded by 190.232.106.114 from www.liebertpub.com at 05/07/20. For personal use only.
FIG. 4. Percentage of BS, MS, and PhD degrees awarded
to women and percentage of female assistant, associate, and
full professors for 2008, 2012, and 2016.
representation. As we build a more diverse faculty and stu-
dent body, we will also increase objectivity in hiring pro-
cesses, proposal reviews, and scientific citations, all of which
have been shown to be impacted by implicit bias (Lee et al.,
2013; Carnes et al., 2015). Improvements in these areas may
lead to a positive feedback loop as students will have more
faculty at all ranks to look to for support, encouragement, and
motivation to pursue graduate degrees and careers in acade-
mia. The world cannot afford to produce incremental solutions
to the grand challenge of integrating culture, perception, and
behavior with advances in science and technology in either the
developing or the developed world. To overcome this chal-
lenge, we must build a truly diverse cohort of students in our
classrooms and laboratories to not only generate a more tal-
ented and creative workforce, but also enable transformative
solutions to grand challenges in environmental engineering.
Author Disclosure Statement
No competing financial interests exist.
References
Appel, M. (1996). The Impact of Diversity on Students. A
Preliminary Review of the Research Literature. Washington,
DC, Education Resources Information Center, Association of
American Colleges and Universities.
ASEE. (2017). American Society of Engineering Education,
Engineering Data Management System. Available at: http://
edms.asee.org/session/new (accessed June 20, 2017).
Barone, C. (2011). Some things never change. Sociol. Edu. 84,
157.
BLANEY ET AL.
Blaney, L., Kandiah, R., Ducoste, J.J., Perlinger, J.A., and
Bartelt-Hunt, S.L. (2016). Trends in population and demo-
graphics of U.S. environmental engineering students and
faculty from 2005 to 2013. Environ. Eng. Sci. 33, 578.
Carnes, M., Devine, P.G., Manwell, L.B., Byars-Winston, A.,
Fine, E., Ford, C.E., Forscher, P., Isaac, C., Kaatz, A., Magua,
W., Palta, M., and Sheridan, J. (2015). Effect of an intervention
to break the gender bias habit for faculty at one institution: A
cluster randomized, controlled trial. Acad. Med. 90, 221.
Colby, S.L., and Ortman, J.M. (2015). Projections of the Size
and Composition of the U.S. Population: 2014 to 2060.
United States Census Bureau, US Department of Commerce,
Economics and Statistics Administration.
Gelbgiser, D., and Albert, K. (2017). Green for all? Gender
segregation and green fields of study in American higher
education. Soc. Probl. spx019.
Herring, C. (2009). Does diversity pay?: Race, gender, and the
business case for diversity. Am. Sociol. Rev. 74, 208.
Hunt, V., Layton, D., and Prince, S. (2014). Diversity Matters.
McKinsey & Company, London, UK.
Intemann, K. (2009). Why diversity matters: Understanding and
applying the diversity component of the national science foun-
dation’s broader impacts criterion. Soc. Epistemol. 23, 249.
Lee, C.J., Sugimoto, C.R., Zhang, G., and Cronin, B. (2013).
Bias in peer review. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 64, 2.
McLeod, P.L., Lobel, S.A., and Cox, T.H. (1996). Ethnic diversity
and creativity in small groups. Small Group Res. 27, 248.
Mihelcic, J.R., Naughton, C.C., Verbyla, M.E., Zhang, Q.,
Schweitzer, R.W., Oakley, S.M., Wells, E.C., and Whiteford,
L.M. (2017). The grandest challenge of all: The role of envi-
ronmental engineering to achieve sustainability in the world’s
developing regions. Environ. Eng. Sci. 34, 16.
NAE (2017). National Academy of Engineering, Grand challenges
for engineering. Available at: www.engineeringchallenges.org
(accessed October 1, 2017).
National Academies (2017). National Academies of Sciences,
Engineering, and Medicine, Grand Challenges and Opportu-
nities in Environmental Engineering and Science for the 21st
Century. Available at: http://nas-sites.org/dels/eeschallenges
(accessed October 1, 2017).
National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of En-
gineering and Institute of Medicine. (2011). Expanding Un-
derrepresented Minority Participation: America’s Science
and Technology Talent at the Crossroads. Washington, DC,
The National Academies Press.
NSF (2017). Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities
in Science and Engineering. Available at: www.nsf.gov/
statistics/2017/nsf17310 (accessed October 1, 2017).
Smith, D.G., Gerbick, G.L., Figueroa, M.A., Watkins, G.H.,
Levitan, T., Moore, L.C., Merchant, P.A., Beliak, H.D., and
Figueroa, B. (1997). Diversity Works: The Emerging Picture
of How Students Benefit. Washington, DC, Education Re-
sources Information Center, Association of American Col-
leges and Universities.
Switzer, D., and Teodoro, M.P. (2017). Class, race, ethnicity,
and justice in safe drinking water compliance. Soc. Sci. Q.
DOI:10.1111/ssqu.12397
Valantine, H.A., and Collins, F.S. (2015) National Institutes
of Health addresses the science of diversity. Proc. Natl.
Acad Sci. 112, 12240.
Williams, J.C., and Multhaup, M. (2017). How the imagined
‘‘rationality’’ of engineering is hurting diversity—and engi-
neering. Harvard Business Review, August 10, 2017.