Abstract
Organizational climate is a macro-level factor that shapes science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) participation, particularly among students from diverse historically excluded groups. To revise understanding of the engineering doctoral education literature, we developed an integrative climate framework that applies an intersectional approach to organizational science and then conducted a meta-synthesis of research on climate in engineering doctoral education. We analyzed sources’ full text for engagement with intersectionality and the seven climates in our framework—diversity, authenticity, sexual harassment, psychological safety, psychosocial safety, mastery, and performance climates. Across 29 studies, diversity, mastery, performance, and psychological safety climates were most frequent; authenticity and psychosocial safety received little attention. Most sources took an additive approach to social categories, although one third analyzed multiple social categories and attended to power and inequality. Findings affirm the need to combine intersectionality and organizational science to guide both research and leadership efforts to support and broaden STEM participation among diverse groups students.
Keywords
Introduction
Broadening science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) participation is vital to strengthening the U.S. economy and innovation workforce and reducing social and economic inequalities among diverse historically excluded groups 1 (National Science Board [NSB], 2020). The imperative to broaden participation is especially urgent in engineering doctoral education, which accounts for a disproportionately larger share of the innovation workforce but does not reflect the diversity of the U.S. population (American Society for Engineering Education [ASEE], 2024; Okahana et al., 2018). In 2023, American women earned fewer than 13% of engineering PhDs in the United States (ASEE, 2024); of those, fewer than 20% were earned by Black, Latina, or Native American women, who face longer time-to-degree completion, lower retention, and greater risk of attrition than their male peers (Okahana et al., 2018). Academic leaders must develop and evaluate policies, practices, and procedures that broaden participation in STEM education, such as with assessment and analysis of organizational climate. Organizational climate has been identified as a significant barrier to STEM participation, for example, via policies and practices that tolerate discrimination and harassment or that emphasize competition and performance over learning and development (Griffin, 2019; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine [NASEM], 2018a, 2018b; National Science and Technology Council [NSTC], 2021). Organizational climate likely shapes disparate patterns of participation by contributing to a range of student outcomes, including but not limited to organizational commitment (i.e., identification and involvement with the institution or program), attrition (e.g., program withdrawal), retention (i.e., continued enrollment and participation), and time-to-degree completion. Yet, siloed from advances in organizational science, higher education has made insufficient progress fostering climates that broaden STEM participation.
Focusing on the STEM context of engineering doctoral education, this project had two objectives. First, applying an intersectional approach to organizational science, we sought to develop an integrative climate framework for examining organizational climates within engineering doctoral education. We drew from organizational science findings and focused on climates most likely to contribute to engineering doctoral students’ participation, especially among students from diverse historically excluded groups. Second, using this framework and the technique of meta-synthesis, we sought to revise our understanding of the research literature on climate with engineering doctoral students. That is, we aimed to reorient that literature to our integrative climate framework. With these objectives in mind, our project asks, within the literature on engineering doctoral education, what is the evidence for the organizational climates in our integrative framework? and How does the engineering doctoral education research engage with intersectionality?
An Intersectional Approach to Engineering Doctoral Education
An intersectional approach is key to studying how organizational climates shape the participation of students from diverse historically excluded groups in engineering doctoral programs. Much climate research in higher education has sought to amplify the voices of students and scholars who have long been excluded or marginalized (e.g., Begaye-Tewa et al., 2023; Douglas et al., 2025; Hurtado, 1992). Yet, this work often focuses on one social category in isolation (e.g., race or gender, but not both) without analyzing exclusion or marginalization tied to multiple social categories (Abrica et al., 2023; Duran, 2019). For example, initiatives to boost STEM participation of historically excluded groups are often limited in scope and target only one group at a time, leaving out those who belong to multiply marginalized groups (e.g., Black women; Metcalf et al., 2018) and/or implementing superficial interventions that are effective only for some students (e.g., White women or Black men, but not Black women; Collins & Bilge, 2016). This pattern—wherein the agendas of multiple ostensibly different groups (e.g., women and Black people) neglect the interests of those with overlapping group membership (e.g., Black women)—was termed political intersectionality by Crenshaw (1991).
Crenshaw (1989, 1991) described and advocated for the simultaneous analysis of the social categories of race and gender embedded within and perpetuated by systems of racism and sexism as essential to efforts to accurately and equitably capture the meaning and impact of each of those socially constructed categories. In addition to excluding those who are multiply marginalized, analysis of one social category alone or in isolation obscures experiences shared with others who are disadvantaged by similar mechanisms of stratification. Identifying and leveraging those shared experiences—without flattening differences—to build diverse coalitions is essential to intersectional praxis, requiring a macro-level analysis that focuses on the mechanisms of stratification that serve to divide and conquer multiple constituencies (Cole, 2008; Crenshaw, 1991; Moradi & Grzanka, 2017).
Crenshaw’s theorizing of intersectionality built on a deep foundation of 19th and 20th century feminisms of color, particularly in Black feminist activism and scholarship (Alexander-Floyd, 2012; Collins, 2019; Hancock, 2016). A throughline in this work is the invisibility and exclusion of women of color from the agendas of both anti-racist and feminist political movements and the acknowledgment of shared or connected struggles (e.g., Combahee River Collective, 1982; Cooper, 1892; Lorde, 1981; Truth, 1851). Since that time, as intersectionality has traveled and been deployed to analyze and subvert multiple intersecting systems of oppression, the theory’s reach has extended beyond the study of a specific group to identify and analyze both unique and shared experiences, build diverse coalitions, and dismantle interconnected systems of oppression (Cho et al., 2013).
Scholars continue to debate nuances in intersectionality’s applications (Collins, 2015). Of considerable concern is research with a micro-level analytic focus on individuals or identities without a macro-level analysis of power and mechanisms of stratification (Harris & Patton, 2019). Thus, to guide both research and praxis, Else-Quest and Hyde (2016a) synthesized intersectionality scholarship across disciplines and proposed that intersectional approaches must attend to the experience and meaning of belonging to multiple social categories simultaneously, consider those categories as properties of both the individual and the social context, and examine the power and inequality conferred via those categories.
In this study, we used an intersectional approach to examine climate in engineering doctoral education. Shifting from an individual or micro-level to a macro-level of analysis and orienting attention to institutional mechanisms of stratification, we analyzed engineering doctoral students’ perceptions of institutional policies, practices, and procedures, focusing on those most likely to shape student participation outcomes (e.g., organizational commitment, program attrition, retention or continuing participation, and time-to-degree completion) based on findings from organizational science. Noting the heterogeneity within and between students from diverse historically excluded groups, we aimed to recognize their shared experiences without assuming uniformity or flattening difference.
Intersectional approaches also require that scientists must confront their biases and limitations and examine their participation in systems of oppression (Cole, 2008; Rosenthal, 2016). Engaging in such reflexivity and humility is not unique to intersectional approaches—it is essential to rigorous and ethical science. In this spirit, we acknowledge our own positionality as scientists living within intersecting systems of oppression that confer benefits as well as disadvantages via our gender, race, class, and disability. We are mindful of how our lived experiences can shape our research questions, motivations, and interpretations of students’ experiences and perceptions of climate. In particular, our experiences as mentors and mentees working within different disciplines in higher education have cultivated our understanding of expected norms, hidden curricula, and explicit protocols regarding the power dynamics between departmental leaders, faculty mentors, and doctoral students. As one example, the first author (NEQ) experienced sexual harassment during her undergraduate and graduate education but did not report or even identify it as such because there were not clearly communicated policies or procedures addressing harassment, which appeared widespread and normative. Coming from a different academic discipline, the second author (JLA) was unprepared for the competitive, exclusionary, and at times seemingly hostile nature of engineering. Coupled with the knowledge that organizations condone and promote sexual harassment and hostility via climate, those experiences contribute to the motivation to study climates in doctoral education.
Moreover, as equal collaborative partners, we regularly discuss our individual experiences and values in higher education, how they align and diverge with one another, how they have advanced or undermined our personal and professional development, and how they have shaped our perspectives on the ways that departments can do better. Making sense of our complex experiences has included both learning and unlearning assumptions and expectations and being more intentional and explicit about how we support both students and ourselves and has prompted our advocacy for climates that equitably foster the success and development of all students. Throughout the research process, we have reflected on and challenged our personal assumptions and values as well as those embedded within the theories and methods guiding the project, returning to an interdisciplinary intersectional approach that rejects unnecessary disciplinary constraints and prioritizes equity. Guided by these values, we take seriously our moral and scientific imperatives to identify, examine, and repair organizational processes that perpetuate inequity in higher education.
Contested Definitions of Climate
Climate in Higher Education
Well known in higher education assessment and research, climate is imprecisely defined and functions as a heuristic to characterize the general college environment (Abrica et al., 2023). Although an exhaustive review of higher education climate research is beyond the scope of this paper, we note that much of that work (e.g., Hurtado et al., 1998; Nightingale, 2022; Parker & Trolian, 2020; Ryder et al., 2016; Worthington et al., 2008; Yi & Todd, 2022) is directly or indirectly based on Peterson and Spencer (1990, p. 7), who defined climate nebulously as “the current common patterns of important dimensions of organizational life or its members’ perceptions of and attitudes toward those dimensions.” In particular, the meteorological metaphor has been used for decades to explain educational disparities, with research on improving diversity outcomes in higher education pointing to a generally negative or “chilly” atmosphere or environment that erodes students’ persistence and contributes to attrition. Coined by Hall and Sandler (1982) to describe a range of inhospitable college faculty and student behaviors rooted in gender stereotypes, “chilly climate” continues to be identified as an explanation for the low numbers of women obtaining engineering degrees (e.g., Cross et al., 2018; Davis et al., 2023; Dutta, 2015; Kim & Kim, 2023; Thomas et al., 2021).
While Hall and Sandler (1982) also made policy recommendations and delineated procedures to improve the climate and outcomes for women, higher education climate research has given limited attention to that original emphasis. Without attention to those mechanisms of inequality, general or molar conceptualizations of climate as “chilly” or “negative” can provide only a crude sense of how members perceive their organization but little direction to leadership (Schneider & Reichers, 1983). Thus, the imprecise definition and assessment of climate limits its meaning and utility, thereby undermining efforts to change higher education and improve student outcomes (Hart & Fellabaum, 2008; Hutchinson et al., 2008).
In contrast, organizational science offers a more precise and measurable definition of climate that can guide leadership. Despite shared origins (e.g., Pace & Stern, 1958), higher education research has been siloed from developments and advances in organizational science (Schneider et al., 2017). To understand how to promote student success in engineering doctoral education, we reintroduce organizational science into higher education climate research.
Climate in Organizational Science
Organizational science defines organizational climate as the shared meaning organizational members attach to the events, policies, practices, and procedures they experience and the behaviors they see being rewarded, supported, and expected (Ehrhart et al., 2014; Ehrhart & Schneider, 2016; Schneider & Reichers, 1983; Schneider et al., 2013, 2017; Zohar & Hoffman, 2012). Organizational climate is not an objective characteristic of an organization (e.g., the mere existence of specific policies) but rather a shared perceptual construct (e.g., the perceived meaning of those policies). As the aggregate of individual perceptions that are socially derived, it comprises a collective phenomenon and property of an organization (Beus et al., 2023; Kuenzi & Schminke, 2009).
A major contribution of organizational science is the domain-specific climates approach. In their centennial review of the Journal of Applied Psychology, Kozlowski et al. (2017) documented the field’s evolution from vague, molar constructs in the 1980s to precise and actionable models of domain-specific climate today. By focusing on specific domains or strategic outcomes of climates (e.g., diversity, safety, and performance), this approach has significantly improved the validity of climate research (Ehrhart et al., 2014; Kuenzi & Schminke, 2009). In contrast with the molar approach of higher education research that provides only a general sense of member experiences as positive or negative, the domain-specific approach offers a more precise and nuanced level of description and analysis (Ehrhart & Schneider, 2016). The shift from molar to domain-specific climates confers a significant practical advantage: Rather than simply reflecting members’ affective valence, assessment of domain-specific climates can indicate the policies, practices, and procedures that may serve as interventions to improve outcomes (Patterson et al., 2005; Schneider et al., 2017). Bringing this evolution into education, we drew from organizational science findings to focus on climates that are likely relevant to engineering doctoral student participation, especially among students from diverse historically excluded groups. To guide this effort, we developed an integrative climate framework that takes an intersectional approach to organizational science.
Integrative Climate Framework
Our framework considers how power and inequality tied to multiple social categories are embedded within or perpetuated by domain-specific climates within the context of engineering doctoral education. With this intersectional examination of power and inequality (Cho et al., 2013; Else-Quest & Hyde, 2016b), we respond to Cole’s (2009) call for intersectional research to ask, “What role does inequality play?” We seek to clarify how climates may promote inequality and therefore be especially relevant to the participation of students from historically excluded groups. Put another way, our intersectional approach identifies climates’ emphases on equity/inequity, inclusion/exclusion, empowerment/disempowerment, and belonging/isolation, all of which may contribute to student participation.
Presented in Table 1, our integrative climate framework comprises seven climates. To manage the scope of this project and provide a foundation for future research and institutional improvement efforts, the framework focuses on a selection of strategic outcomes within engineering doctoral education. Whereas organizational science scholars have not studied these climates in concert or articulated a coherent theory that integrates or connects them (Beus et al., 2023; Schneider et al., 2017), our framework can facilitate such efforts. We ground our descriptions of these climates in the social context of an academic department but note their origins in the study of diverse types of organizations. We clustered the seven climates into three groups to introduce them cohesively and meaningfully within our intersectional approach.
The Integrative Climate Framework
Climates Pertaining to Social Categories
Three climates—diversity, authenticity, and sexual harassment—directly pertain to perceptions about who belongs or is included in the department based on membership in social categories (e.g., race/ethnicity, gender, sexuality, and nationality).
Diversity Climate
As evident in an organization’s formal structure, informal values, and social integration of members of historically excluded groups, diversity climate refers to collective perceptions about the extent to which an organization values diversity (McKay et al., 2007; Perry & Li, 2019). It includes perceptions about appropriate behaviors and the meanings associated with diversity within a particular context, such as a doctoral program (Dwertmann et al., 2016). Diversity climate comprises two facets. The fairness and discrimination facet describes how the organization successfully promotes fairness and elimination of bias and discrimination, such as through the implementation of personnel practices, diversity-specific practices aimed at improving employment outcomes for members of historically excluded groups, and norms for fair interpersonal treatment. The synergy facet describes members’ shared perception that their organization promotes valuing and integrating diverse perspectives to enhance collective learning and performance. A strong diversity climate explicitly conveys an organization’s value of equity and inclusion and its efforts to eliminate bias and empower members of diverse historically excluded groups, consistent with intersectionality theory. And, because it is not focused on a single social category such as race or gender, a diversity climate avoids fostering intersectional invisibility in those efforts. A strong diversity climate does not necessarily prevent negative personal dynamics and behaviors, but it does promote reporting such problems. For example, when women perceive a positive diversity climate, they are more likely to express claims of gender discrimination (Leslie & Gelfand, 2008).
Across a range of organizations, diversity climate has been positively linked to members’ organizational commitment, organizational identification, job satisfaction, and intention to stay or leave (Avery & McKay, 2010; Boehm et al., 2014; Buttner & Lowe, 2017; Hofhuis et al., 2012) and negatively associated with poor communication and interpersonal conflict (McKay & Avery, 2015). The association between diversity climate and work-related attitudes is stronger for members of historically excluded groups, who may benefit the most from a diversity climate that emphasizes the fairness facet (Perry & Li, 2019). When they perceive that their department values diversity and makes earnest efforts to promote fairness and eliminate discrimination, we expect students—particularly those from historically excluded groups—to feel welcome, included, and committed to degree completion in their department.
Authenticity Climate
Authenticity climate refers to perceptions of the extent to which an organization encourages and provides a safe environment for members to express their true or authentic selves at work (Ostermeier et al., 2022). This climate is rooted in research on how individuals define themselves in terms of their unique traits, valued roles, and group membership and how identity facilitates organizational identification or the perception of belongingness to the organization (e.g., Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Ashforth et al., 2008). Power is plainly embedded within authenticity climate and its emphasis on inclusion. Insofar as strong authenticity climate empowers members to express their authentic selves without fear of exclusion or rejection (e.g., being excluded from a project or a research team), this climate is especially potent for members of historically excluded groups. For example, some Black students may perceive a need to code switch to fit into their predominantly White and Asian engineering programs, and transgender students may perceive that it is appropriate to mask aspects of their gender among predominantly cisgender peers. However, code switching and masking may incur a high psychosocial cost and contribute to adverse student outcomes, including feelings of isolation as well as increased time-to-degree completion and attrition. Authenticity climate has been positively linked to a range of employee outcomes, including job satisfaction, but also negatively associated with dimensions of job burnout, including emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and diminished sense of personal accomplishments (Grandey et al., 2012; Ostermeier et al., 2022). Thus, given those findings, a strong authenticity climate is likely to empower engineering doctoral students to be their whole selves in graduate school, support their sense of belonging, and promote their organizational commitment and degree completion.
Sexual Harassment Climate
First conceptualized as organizational tolerance for sexual harassment, this undesirable climate reflects normative expectations about the extent to which sexual harassment (including gender harassment, unwanted sexual attention, and sexual coercion; NASEM, 2018b) is rewarded, supported, or sanctioned in an organization (Bondestam & Lundqvist, 2020; Hulin et al., 1996; Siuta & Bergman, 2019). Encompassing perceived risk of retaliation against victims for complaining, a lack of consequences for offenders, and the perception that complaints will not be taken seriously, sexual harassment climate is a powerful antecedent of sexual harassment (Goldberg & Ahmad, 2019). Through its passive and/or active support of gender-based violence and victimization, sexual harassment climate fosters inequity and disempowerment, particularly for members of diverse historically excluded groups. Power and inequality are embedded within and perpetuated by sexual harassment climate most obviously vis-à-vis gender, yet sexuality, disability, and race/ethnicity are dimensions that further characterize sexual harassment perpetration and victimization. Although sexual harassment is most frequently experienced by women and can differ qualitatively based on their race/ethnicity and sexuality (Cantor et al., 2015; Woods et al., 2009), higher education “racial climate” research has largely neglected sexual harassment (Lundy-Wagner & Winkel-Wagner, 2013).
In academic science and male-dominated contexts such as engineering, sexual harassment is rampant, and organizational tolerance for it is high (NASEM, 2018b). Sexual harassment contributes to lower work satisfaction and poorer physical and mental health (Sojo et al., 2016). Among science and engineering faculty, sexual harassment and gender discrimination predict women’s job satisfaction regardless of race, academic rank, or scientific discipline (Settles et al., 2006). Thus, given such findings, a strong sexual harassment climate in a doctoral program is likely to predict a range of negative student outcomes not limited to decreased organizational commitment and increased student attrition.
Climates Providing Student Support
Two climates—psychological safety and psychosocial safety—regard the department’s provision of support to students in the vulnerable positions of taking risks and experiencing threats to psychological well-being, providing a sense of security or protection.
Psychological Safety Climate
This climate describes members’ shared beliefs about whether it is safe to engage in interpersonal risk taking in the organization (Edmondson, 1999; Edmondson & Bransby, 2023; Newman et al., 2017). In a psychologically safe environment, members feel that their peers respect each other’s competence, are interested in each other as people, have positive intentions for one another, and can engage in constructive conflict or confrontation. Members also feel that it is safe to experiment, speak up, and take risks free from fear of rejection. This climate encourages members to give and receive constructive feedback and positive encouragement (Johnson et al., 2020; London et al., 2023). Thus, in supporting open, respectful, and authentic communication, psychological safety climate is essential to diversity and inclusion efforts (Edmondson & Bransby, 2023). And, because it characterizes asking questions and making mistakes as normal, low-risk parts of the learning process, psychological safety climate may be especially impactful for students who, despite contradictory evidence (e.g., being admitted to a competitive graduate program), feel like “imposters” in STEM contexts. This experience of impostorism—rooted in harmful societal stereotypes, minoritization, and exclusionary institutional norms—is more common among students from historically excluded groups (Chrousos & Mentis, 2020). Although research has found that a psychological safety climate facilitates individual (Carmeli & Gittell, 2009; Carmeli et al., 2009) and team learning (e.g., Edmondson, 1999; Wong et al., 2010), it has especially strong effects for members of historically excluded groups (Edmondson & Bransby, 2023).
This climate is also essential for speaking up, such as reporting problems with one’s lab supervisor or advocating for fair and transparent grading policies. Meta-analysis revealed that psychological safety climate is associated with voice behavior (i.e., the discretionary citizenship behavior of making suggestions for improvement to current practices and policies) and feeling safe to voice opinions (Frazier et al., 2017). Indeed, psychological safety is critical for women in male-dominated occupations because women who speak up in such environments are often interrupted or shot down before they can finish communicating their ideas (Halliday et al., 2022). Thus, if an engineering doctoral student observes inequality or inequity in their program, a strong psychological safety climate may empower them to speak up and advocate for change. Research findings with sociology undergraduates (Zalewski & Brudvig, 2023) and first-year engineering students (Cole et al., 2022) suggest that psychological safety climate supports student performance and retention.
Psychosocial Safety Climate
This climate captures collective perceptions of organizational policies, practices, and procedures for protecting psychological health and safety from organizational risks and stressors (Dollard et al., 2019; Hall et al., 2010; Law et al., 2011). Distinct from psychological safety climate, psychosocial safety climate is specifically concerned with organizational efforts to protect members’ psychological well-being and manage stress, prioritizing members’ well-being over productivity (Dollard & Bakker, 2010). Because this climate pertains to the department’s protection of students’ psychological well-being, we are especially mindful of experiences such as discrimination and bias. For example, given that experiencing racial microaggressions is stressful and linked to depression and suicidal ideation as well as poorer physical health (Lui & Quezada, 2019), students who belong to historically excluded racial/ethnic groups may especially benefit from a strong psychosocial safety climate. This climate is also potentially crucial for the continuing participation and retention of students with psychiatric disabilities, who are overrepresented among students from other historically excluded groups. For example, women, trans, and queer students are more likely to experience mental health conditions such as depression (Salk et al., 2017). And, mental health care disparities persist across racial/ethnic groups, with White students being most likely to receive treatment (Lipson et al., 2018).
Psychosocial safety climate can buffer the impact of high work demands and stress and predict job satisfaction, performance, and organizational commitment, and it is inversely associated with fatigue and exhaustion, workplace bullying and harassment, and psychological distress (Amoadu et al., 2023; Dollard, 2012; Garrick et al., 2014; Geisler et al., 2019; Hall et al., 2013; Idris et al., 2012, 2015; Law et al., 2011). Thus, given those findings in the workplace, we would expect psychosocial safety climate within the context of demanding engineering doctoral programs to predict students’ psychological well-being and, in turn, participation outcomes like retention and degree completion.
Climates Defining Student Success
Two climates—mastery climate and performance climate—refer to perceptions of the existing criteria for success and failure emphasized through policies, practices, and procedures (Nerstad et al., 2013). Rooted in achievement goal theory, these motivational climates delineate the mastery and performance goal structures in a learning environment (Ames, 1992; Ames & Archer, 1988). Although most domain-specific climates are theorized and studied in isolation (Beus et al., 2023; Kuenzi & Schminke, 2009), these two climates interact and often exist simultaneously (Buch et al., 2017). Because perceptions of mastery and performance climates help members understand what behaviors are expected and rewarded in an organization (Černe et al., 2014), these climates confer power to students by defining success and setting standards.
Mastery Climate
Mastery climate attends to structures that support effort and cooperation, emphasize learning and mastery of skills, and focus on self-development and building competence. It motivates members to learn through the sharing of information (i.e., to support and help each other) and by facilitating the development of peer norms that encourage each other’s efforts (Černe et al., 2014). This climate is associated with positive outcomes such as cooperation, helping behaviors, knowledge sharing, work engagement, job satisfaction, trust, creativity, and reduced turnover, high-quality work and high work effort, job embeddedness, and enhanced mental health (Černe et al., 2014, 2017; Nerstad et al., 2013, 2019; Van den Broeck et al., 2016). In other words, mastery climate likely promotes multiple student participation outcomes. Equitably supporting students’ learning and development is inherently a social justice project. And, mastery climate affirms communality, a value that tends to be more strongly held by members of multiple historically excluded groups, including women, Black, Latine, and Native Americans (e.g., Dasgupta et al., 2022; Hall & Sandler, 1982; Smith et al., 2014). Thus, for students with strong communal values, a strong mastery climate can signal inclusion.
Performance Climate
In contrast, performance climate emphasizes normative ability, social comparison, and competition, whereby only the highest achievers are acknowledged as successful, and members are overwhelmed with comparisons such as being grouped by ability (Černe et al., 2014). Because competition is inherently exclusionary, experiences of failure, marginalization, or rejection are inevitable in a strong performance climate. Competition is ubiquitous in science and engineering (Fang & Casadevall, 2015), reflecting the pervasive masculinity-contest cultures that emphasize and reward competition, ambition, and dominance (Berdahl et al., 2018; Vial et al., 2022). Insofar as competition can be at odds with collaboration, performance climate may contribute to the isolation and marginalization of students with communal values. And, given evidence of impostorism experiences, performance climate may be especially impactful for students from diverse historically excluded groups. Based on findings that performance climate is linked to maladaptive workplace outcomes such as knowledge hiding, distrust, job burnout, mental health problems, turnover intention, and work alienation (Černe et al., 2014; Kopperud et al., 2020; Lee et al., 2022; Nerstad et al., 2019; Stornes & Bru, 2011), we expect performance climate to predict a range of negative student outcomes, including decreased organizational commitment and increased student attrition.
The Current Study
Guided by our integrative climate framework, this study uses an intersectional approach to organizational science in an effort to reorient the research on engineering doctoral education to the framework and revise our understanding of that literature. Our research questions ask, “Within the literature on engineering doctoral education, what is the evidence for the organizational climates in our framework?” and “How does the engineering doctoral education research engage with intersectionality?” Seeking evidence for the organizational climates in our framework and examining how that literature engages with intersectionality, we conducted a meta-synthesis of empirical research on climate with engineering doctoral students. Meta-synthesis is a qualitative technique that can be used to identify patterns, develop insights, and revise understandings of phenomena as well as identify gaps or limitations in the existing literature (Ong et al., 2024; Siddaway et al., 2019). Therefore, we synthesized empirical studies of engineering doctoral students from diverse theoretical perspectives and methodologic approaches and gathered evidence of the seven climates in our framework. Intentionally incorporating qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods research, we analyzed the full research process as described in each source—including conceptualization of climate, sample characteristics, scale items, qualitative themes, participant quotes, and interpretations of study findings—for evidence of the climates. Our framework’s intersectional approach prompted us to also examine sources for their engagement with intersectionality in study rationale and conceptualization, measurement, analytic strategy, and interpretation of findings (e.g., Else-Quest & Hyde, 2016b; Harris & Patton, 2019). By revising how climate is understood in engineering doctoral education research, particularly as it relates to the success of students from historically excluded groups, and evaluating how that work engages with intersectionality, we sought to inform and shape efforts to broaden STEM participation.
Methods
Database Searches and Screening
To conduct and report on our meta-synthesis, we drew on the guidance of Ong et al. (2024), Siddaway et al. (2019), and the PRISMA 2020 statement (Page et al., 2021). We adhered to standard procedures to identify eligible sources; Figure 1 displays a flow diagram of the search process. To be eligible for inclusion in the meta-synthesis, we sought sources that (a) reported empirical research on climate, (b) sampled engineering doctoral students in the United States, and (c) were written in English. We combined the search terms “climate” and “engineering” and “education” and “graduate OR doctora*” across five databases (i.e., Web of Science, ERIC, Scopus, Academic Search Complete, and PsycInfo) in January 2025. We limited the searches to sources written in English but set no other search limits. This procedure resulted in n = 1,453 records, of which n = 153 were duplicate records of the same source and were removed.
Flow diagram of study identification, screening, eligibility, and inclusion.
In the first round of screening, we screened abstracts and titles of the remaining n = 1,300 records and achieved 96% agreement on a random subsample of n = 100 records. As detailed in Figure 1, we excluded sources because they did not report empirical research on climate and/or did not include engineering doctoral students in the United States. Most of these excluded reports used “climate” in a strictly climatological or meteorological sense, frequently in environmental engineering research; that is, they did not pertain to organizational climate in education. This output is to be expected in a search on “climate,” given the multiple uses and meanings of the term, and is preferable to narrowing the search and potentially excluding relevant research. Based on the first round of screening, n = 115 full-text sources remained and were retrieved for the second round of screening.
We screened the full-text sources to determine eligibility. Consistent with our project objectives, research questions, and eligibility criteria, we retained only sources that reported empirical research with methods that assessed or captured climates in graduate education in the United States, as reported by engineering doctoral students. We independently screened each full-text source and reexamined sources in cases of disagreement. As detailed in Figure 1, we excluded n = 80 sources at this stage because they did not meet eligibility criteria; we retained n = 35 full-text sources in the final sample.
Coding of Full-Text Sources
Guided by our integrative climate framework and research questions, we developed a detailed protocol to code essential information from each eligible full-text source. We double-coded each source, and in cases of disagreement, we reexamined sources and/or refined the protocol to achieve agreement and precision. We coded a range of variables to describe our sample of sources and answer our research questions (described below).
Describing the Studies
To describe the studies in our meta-synthesis and provide context for the evidence of organizational climates in engineering doctoral education research, we coded several characteristics of each source and the reported study. Each source was categorized as a journal article or book chapter, conference proceeding, unpublished doctoral dissertation or master’s thesis, or institutional report. In addition, because we set no limitations on the empirical methods used in the reported studies, we noted whether quantitative, qualitative, or mixed-methods research methods were used. We recorded as much information about sample characteristics as was provided, including the sample sizes and identification of the STEM disciplines sampled (i.e., engineering alone vs. engineering lumped with other disciplines). Some samples included faculty, undergraduate students, or postdocs with doctoral students; whenever possible, we focused on disaggregated findings with doctoral students. In addition, we recorded participants’ gender, race/ethnicity, nationality, and any other social categories provided.
Engagement with Intersectionality
To answer the research question, “How does engineering doctoral education research engage with intersectionality?” we evaluated how our sample of studies incorporated an intersectional approach. We considered the full research process as described in the text (i.e., from theory and rationale and design through methods, results, and discussion). Using research guidelines on incorporating intersectionality in empirical research (e.g., Else-Quest & Hyde, 2016b) and reviews of how intersectionality is engaged in higher education research (e.g., Harris & Patton, 2019), and taking stock of the entire text of the source, we analyzed how study rationale and research questions reflected intersectionality theory, how samples and measures represented or attended to multiple social categories, and how data were described, analyzed, and interpreted.
We coded engagement with intersectionality as follows: 0 = no attention to social categories or their power (e.g., in research questions, study rationale, design, measurement, or data analysis); 1 = superficial attention to social categories as mere sample characteristics (e.g., sample demographics are described but not analyzed or considered relevant to research questions); 2 = additive approach to a single social category (e.g., measurement of phenomena unique to women); 3 = additive approach to multiple social categories (e.g., gender and racial/ethnic group differences are analyzed or are used as covariates but are not theorized or discussed in the context of interconnected axes of inequality); and 4 = intersectional approach to multiple social categories (e.g., gender and racial/ethnic group differences are analyzed simultaneously or the study questions, design, sample, and/or measures focus on a specific intersectional group—such as queer women, Black men, etc.—and are theorized or discussed in the context of interconnected systems of oppression or axes of inequality). For example, a study that analyzed gender differences in students’ perceptions of performance climate would be coded as using an additive approach to a single social category. Alternatively, if the study simultaneously analyzed gender and disability (e.g., comparing disabled women, disabled men, nondisabled women, and nondisabled men), it would be coded as using an additive approach to multiple social categories. However, to be coded as using an intersectional approach to multiple social categories, the report would need to consider the roles of power and inequality in some way, for example, by posing a research question that explores how sexism and ableism may both contribute to student attrition, by measuring students’ perceptions of inequitable or biased standards of success in the program, or by interpreting findings from an explicitly intersectional theoretical lens.
Evidence of Climates
To answer the research question, “Within the literature on engineering doctoral education, what is the evidence for the organizational climates in our framework?” we carefully reviewed and coded each source for evidence or indications of the climates from our integrative framework, examining the full research process. We examined studies for evidence that captured elements, facets, or themes within the domain-specific climates in our framework, with the recognition that the reports may not precisely or comprehensively define, assess, and differentiate the climates. Given our focus on the empirical study of organizational climate, we collected data pertaining to the assessment of climate from the “Methods” and “Results” sections of sources and gathered information regarding the theoretical framing and conceptualization, methodological contextualization, and interpretation of findings from the “Introduction” and “Discussion” sections. For quantitative studies, we reviewed scale items and compared them with those of existing, validated climate scales and the domain-specific climate definitions in Table 1. For qualitative studies, we reviewed findings and considered quotes from participants, when available, to identify aspects of the climates. For mixed-methods studies, both qualitative and quantitative findings were evaluated as above. Thus, evidence of the empirical assessment of climates could include survey or scale items as well as themes or participant quotes indicating those climates; for example, the item “collaboration among classmates is encouraged in my graduate-level engineering classes” indicates mastery climate. In addition, we considered assessments of climate outcomes as indications of climates; for example, reports of witnessing or experiencing sexual harassment were coded as indications of sexual harassment climate. Our expansive criteria for coding climate evidence facilitated a more nuanced synthesis of the literature, which is aligned with our framework’s interdisciplinary approach.
Consistent with theorizing from organizational science, we approached climate as a multilevel phenomenon (Schneider & Barbera, 2014) with the understanding that members can and do distinguish what happens in different levels (Ehrhart et al., 2014). Despite our initial focus on department-level climate, higher education climate research may target the level of the research group, team, or lab; the university or campus; or even combine levels. Therefore, we also coded each study’s climate level as department, research group or lab, or university; when climate level was combined or ambiguous, we coded it as undifferentiated.
Findings
Description of Studies
Table 2 lists the final sample of studies and their key characteristics. Systematic coding of the full-text sources resulted in a sample of 35 reports published between 1990 and 2024, comprising 13 conference proceedings, 14 journal articles, and eight dissertations. Multiple reports described data from two projects, duplicating findings across reports. To remove redundancy in climate analysis, those reports were considered collectively; such cases are noted in Table 2. Therefore, the sample comprises 35 reports of 29 studies.
Sample Study Characteristics and Climates Indicated in Meta-synthesis.
Note. URM = underrepresented minority; PWIs = predominantly White institutions.
Source type: 1 = conference proceedings; 2 = journal article; 3 = thesis/dissertation.
Level: 1 = department; 2 = research group or lab; 3 = university; 4 = undifferentiated.
Method: 1 = quantitative (e.g., Likert items); 2 = qualitative (e.g., interviews, focus groups); 3 = mixed (e.g., interviews and surveys).
Sample: To be faithful to the source data, we present sample characteristics such as race/ethnicity, gender, sexuality, nationality, and first-generation status of participants as described by study authors but note that norms regarding such labels change over time.
Climates: 1 = diversity; 2 = authenticity; 3 = sexual harassment; 4 = psychological safety; 5 = psychosocial safety; 6 = mastery; 7 = performance.
Engagement with intersectionality: 0 = no attention to social categories or their power; 1 = superficial attention to social categories; 2 = additive approach to a single social category; 3 = additive approach to multiple social categories; 4 = intersectional approach to multiple social categories.
Of the 29 studies, 18 used a quantitative survey design, six used qualitative approaches, and five employed mixed methods. Two studies examined climate at the level of the university or campus, nine studies considered climate at the level of the department, and three focused on the lab or research group, but about half (n = 15) examined multiple levels without specifying or distinguishing among them. Regarding study samples, n = 15 comprised graduate students (i.e., sometimes both PhD and MS) exclusively in engineering disciplines, whereas n = 14 studies described samples that included engineering students with students from other disciplines (STEM and non-STEM). Sources provided varying levels of detail about their sample demographic characteristics; a handful (n = 7) were composed exclusively of students from historically excluded groups (e.g., Black students or LGBTQ+ students; see Table 2 for details).
Engagement with Intersectionality
We found varied engagement with intersectionality in reports of research on climate in engineering doctoral education, as evidenced by the consideration of social categories such as gender, race/ethnicity, sexuality, and disability (described in Table 2). Of the 35 reports describing 29 distinct studies, three included no attention to social categories or their power in the research questions, study rationale, design, measurement, or data analysis. Six reports provided only superficial attention to social categories, such as considering them as mere sample characteristics irrelevant to research questions. Eleven reports used an additive approach to a single social category, such as by focusing their study on the experiences of racially minoritized students in STEM doctoral programs (e.g., Rodriguez et al., 2022) or by comparing White and multiracial students’ perceptions of diversity climate (e.g., Kunze & Hopson, 2024). Some noted that they omitted demographic data to protect the privacy of the students in their small samples (e.g., Bakka & Koolman, 2024), which is a potential tradeoff when doing qualitative work with members of historically excluded groups.
While five reports (e.g., Wosu et al., 2019) analyzed multiple social categories within an additive approach, 10 did so within an intersectional approach. The distinction between these two approaches regards whether multiple social categories are considered separately or simultaneously, such as within the research questions, study design, or sample, and/or using measures focused on a specific intersectional group, or theorizing or discussing social categories and their relevance in the context of interconnected axes or systems of inequality. Some reports focused their sampling or analyses on students from specific intersectional groups (e.g., Loyola & Grebing, 2022; Ribble, 2023) or assessed student perceptions of exclusionary departmental practices (e.g., Yoon et al., 2024). Nevertheless, some reports noted insufficient statistical power to conduct quantitative analyses within their intersectional approach (e.g., Fitzpatrick et al., 2023) or analyzed multiple social categories with minimal theorizing about their power (e.g., Anderson & Louis, 1994).
Evidence of Climates
Climates Pertaining to Social Categories
As shown in Table 2, we identified diversity climate within 19 of 29 studies in our sample. Several studies indicated the synergy facet of this climate, which captures perceptions of how departmental practices and policies demonstrate the value of diversity (e.g., Bakka & Koolman, 2024). For example, an item from the diversity climate scale administered by Yoon et al. (2024) was, “My department is committed to supporting doctoral students from diverse backgrounds.” In their study of how department chairs could encourage faculty to play more intentional roles in meeting diversity goals through recruitment, retention, and mentoring, Wosu et al. (2019) described several themes indicating diversity climate. A common theme among graduate student respondents was the importance of better educating faculty on the value of diversity. A graduate student quoted in Miles et al. (2020) questioned their department’s commitment to recruiting diverse faculty, explaining, “We have 180 students in our department, which is huge, and like 60 faculty members. And we have two Black students and no Black faculty. Like none. Where are they?” (p. 1619).
Diversity climate is also indicated in studies describing student perceptions of a lack of departmental consideration of diversity, including within curricula, such as by neglecting the innovations or contributions of scientists from historically excluded groups. In Tran’s (2011) qualitative study, students described departmental silence surrounding race, ethnicity, and gender, leaving them with the impression that issues related to social categories have no place in science discourse. Kunze and Hopson (2024) described how several engineering PhD students in their sample saw social categories as irrelevant to STEM, which the authors framed as “internalized colorblindness” (p. 296). One Asian woman engineering student in their sample stated, “In grad-level engineering, we focus on the physical, chemical, and biological principles that make up the environment and do not discuss the social structure of society” (p. 296). Yet, by promoting this misperception, departments may reproduce and perpetuate inequality. For example, in the study of Black graduate students’ perceptions of how faculty might better support racially minoritized students by Stone-Sabali et al. (2025), one woman shared: “It could be useful just to acknowledge that people are navigating intersecting identities all the time really. . . . The idea that you don’t see race or you don’t see gender is offensive, because to not see those things is to not acknowledge that person’s history” (p. 6). The perception that STEM disciplines are objective and colorblind functions both to repudiate student experiences of bias and to affirm departments’ exclusionary practices and policies.
The fairness and discrimination facet of diversity climate regards how the department or university promotes fairness and responds to bias (Dwertmann et al., 2016). Along these lines, some studies describing “campus racial climate” included items or prompts pertaining to perceptions of institutional efforts to support racially minoritized students, including institutional responses to racist incidents and students’ experiences of racial bias. For example, Li’s (2016) study included binary continua based on Hurtado (1998) and Churchwell (2006), such as “racist–nonracist,” “sexist–nonsexist,” “homophobic–nonhomophobic,” and “inclusive–exclusionary.” Renna and Lawson-Bulten (2024) asked participants to rate how discriminated people are on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, disability, nationality, and religion. These items assess the perception that such forms of discrimination occur in one’s academic context, not whether the individual respondent has personally experienced it. Other studies captured students’ experience and witness of bias under this construct (e.g., Litzler et al., 2005). For example, in Kunze and Hopson’s (2024) mixed-methods study, students described incidents of racist bias and discrimination as well as a sense of shared experience and solidarity. One student shared: “I have seen racial discrimination against the large percentage of Chinese students. There [were] clear statements about suppressing non-English in labs. As someone from a Hispanic background, I felt unease” (p. 297). Perceptions of those policies and practices as discrimination and a devaluation of diversity reflect diversity climate.
Four studies evidenced authenticity climate. For example, May and Kardia (2022) included the item, “I am able to bring my true self to work,” and Yoon et al. (2024) included the item, “My department supports doctoral students to be their true selves.” Tran (2011) collected qualitative data from focus groups with students to explore how they could be scientists and still be themselves. A Black female student who perceived the need to change how she expressed herself among her White male peers said: “I feel I’m being aggressive, but I think like if it was a group of older Black women, I wouldn’t feel the need to be anything but myself, whereas I don’t feel that way with a group of—a circle of older White men, and so to me I feel like I need to be more aggressive or competent in order to survive” (p. 98). Loyola and Grebing (2022) used the Science and Engineering Graduate Student Experience Survey (Litzler et al., 2005), which is composed of a series of items to probe a loosely defined “chilly climate.” For example, the item, “Are you encouraged to freely express yourself in class?” is open to the respondent’s interpretation. We include it as an item with the potential to capture respondents’ perceptions of the extent to which they can express their authentic selves.
Eleven studies in our sample indicated sexual harassment climate, primarily via accounts of sexual harassment incidences, which are outcomes or phenomena associated with the climate. Data specifically regarding sexual harassment climate—that is, student perceptions of organizational policies or response to sexual harassment occurrences—were rare. For example, Jones (2024) examined student’s perceptions of efforts by campus administrators to address sexual misconduct, including how administrators would respond to reported incidents.
More often, studies in our sample described student experiences of sexual harassment and gender harassment. For example, Churchwell (2006) asked participants to rate the prevalence and frequency of sexual harassment. Tran (2011) identified a theme of “hostile climate” due to some form of conscious or unconscious sexism and also noted numerous participants’ descriptions of instances in which women felt that they were scrutinized, misunderstood, or unfairly judged by the biases of their male colleagues. The University of Washington Graduate Climate Survey (Litzler & Lange, 2006; Litzler et al., 2005) included items probing the experience of discrimination and harassment, such as “Since entering the department, have you experienced discrimination on the basis of gender?” and “Since entering the department, have you experienced sexual harassment?” In Ribble’s (2023) study of racially minoritized STEM graduate students and their consideration of careers in academia, several students described perceptions of gender harassment, such as the perception that women are undervalued. A Puerto Rican woman in Ribble’s sample shared: “If I would have stayed in academia, I would have had problems. Indeed, I would have had them. I know of women who have needed to change their names to gender-neutral ones to be taken more seriously” (p. 66). This student quote also reveals how a strong sexual harassment climate may hinder institutional efforts to retain students from historically excluded groups in engineering.
Climates Providing Student Support
Twelve studies evidenced psychological safety climate. In their qualitative study with engineering PhD students, Deitrick and Berdanier (2024) probed students’ perceptions of lab and classroom practices that promote creativity, including via risk taking. Their codebook defined risk taking as, “My professors encourage me to take risks and deal with the uncertainty associated with creativity in my graduate-level engineering course assignments.” This definition clearly aligns with psychological safety climate in highlighting how departmental practices may contribute to the perception that it is safe and valuable for students to take risks while learning. Similarly, one measure of this climate included such items as, “It is safe for doctoral students to take a risk in my department” (Yoon et al., 2024). Other indications of psychological safety climate included asking students to rate how comfortable they felt asking questions or volunteering ideas (e.g., Bowen et al., 2023) as well as taking initiative to accomplish a task and speaking up during research group meetings (Crede & Borrego, 2013). Similarly, several studies included items or factors that asked students how seriously their ideas were taken by others in their department (e.g., Fitzpatrick et al., 2023; Litzler & Lange, 2006; Litzler et al., 2005).
Although some risk taking is clearly centered on the learning process, speaking up about other departmental matters—such as inequitable policies or unethical practices—is also captured by this climate. Kunze and Hopson (2024) quoted a graduate student participant who understood the risk of speaking up about inappropriate faculty behavior: “My advisor asked numerous times if it was okay if he told a [racist] joke. I felt as if that was a no-win situation to be in. Either you hear the joke and just brush it off or say no to hear the joke and be seen as a no-fun person who is always too serious at work” (p. 297). A weak psychological safety climate inhibits or discourages students from speaking up about such incidents or problems, further underscoring why this climate is especially relevant to the participation of students from historically excluded groups.
Psychosocial safety climate was identified in eight studies, primarily by providing insight into outcomes or phenomena impacted by the climate. That is, in most of these studies, the data do not capture psychosocial safety climate directly (e.g., with survey items or quotes regarding department efforts to support students’ psychological well-being or stress prevention) but instead probed constructs associated with it. For example, one project (Litzler & Lange, 2006; Litzler et al., 2005) included the item, “Do you feel overwhelmed by the pace and workload in your degree program?” and Fitzpatrick et al. (2023) included, “How often does your PI give you more work than you can reasonably complete?” Churchwell (2006) collected data on satisfaction with nonacademic and emotional support from the advisor, faculty, and students, including the perception that the primary advisor expects so many work hours that it interferes with personal life.
The perception that their department is unconcerned with student mental health or stress management—that is, a weak psychosocial safety climate—was evident in Morn’s (2024) qualitative study with STEM PhD students. Without prompting, 14 of 15 students articulated the mental health impacts of graduate school, including stress, anxiety, burnout, and depression. They described a critical need for resources to support stress management and mental health because of graduate school demands as well as perceptions that the communications and resources their departments or universities offered were inadequate or inaccessible. One student shared that “stress was in the air” (p. 142), and another offered: “I believe that American graduate school is bad for your mental health actively. It will give you depression. It will give you anxiety disorders” (p. 136). Explicitly identifying the roles of administration and faculty, one student characterized departmental communications about “how to succeed” as both “confusing and isolating” and recounted instances of verbal abuse by her advisor (p. 137). Detailing the link to student attrition, Morn (2024) found that the mental health consequences of graduate school were the primary reason students cited for leaving their PhD programs.
Climates Defining Student Success
Mastery climate and performance climate often were evidenced jointly in our sample of studies in that they were collapsed into a single dimension or even item. For example, both Churchwell (2006) and Li (2016) used the binary continuum “cooperative–competitive.” Likewise, Louis et al. (2007) assessed three department climate indicators, collaboration, competition, and individualism, with 14 scale items. They also identified a construct they labeled “willingness to share,” which asked how willing respondents would be to share scientific information, data, and materials with others (p. 312).
Eighteen studies evidenced mastery climate with distinct attention to collaboration and cooperation (e.g., Coso & Sekayi, 2015; Dechenne et al., 2015), such as the scale item of Bluestein et al. (2018), “I collaborate closely with other graduate students that are in my lab group and/or research area of interest.” Fitzpatrick et al. (2023) included a factor that tapped into mastery climate with the item, “How much do engineering students help each other succeed in class?” And Yoon et al. (2024) included the item, “In my department, doctoral students are encouraged to exchange ideas with each other,” in their mastery climate scale.
Mastery climate includes perceptions of the department’s emphasis on student learning and progress and on providing opportunities for skills development. For example, Collier (2024) included the items, “My academic progress is supported by faculty in my program” and “I feel well informed about the process of degree completion” in their survey of graduate students’ perceived barriers and supports in higher education. By contrast, Coso and Sekayi’s (2015) qualitative findings included statements about difficulties in obtaining information and opportunities from the department to develop teaching skills valued by the doctoral students in the study. Likewise, a graduate student in Morn’s (2024) qualitative study perceived a lack of documentation about the standards for success or how to meet them, which led her to question her department’s support for student learning: “I often was like, is this like by design? . . . it just to me seems so unnecessarily stressful and complicated and wasteful of time. So I think just more structure and more like clarity. . . . You know, what is expected of you? Here are the interim milestones. Here are the processes that you go through to accomplish those milestones” (p. 146). The perceived lack of departmental support for learning and development—that is, a weak mastery climate—may be especially discouraging to students from historically excluded groups. For example, Wosu et al. (2019) included survey items that probed perceptions of department support for learning, finding that Black and Latine students reported feeling less support from their departments and having less access to mentoring.
Fourteen studies evidenced performance climate, such as when a department promotes competition and rivalry between graduate students (e.g., Crede & Borrego, 2013, 2014). For example, Yoon et al. (2024) included items like, “My department encourages doctoral students to strive to outperform each other” in their performance climate scale. Likewise, the process of “weeding out” unsuccessful or lower-performing students was examined by Anderson et al. (1994) and implicated in other studies (e.g., Litzler & Lange, 2006; Litzler et al., 2005).
Some studies pointed to the divergent experiences of performance climate for members of historically excluded groups. For example, Loyola and Grebing (2022) analyzed student responses to the item, “To what extent do graduate students in your department compete for grades?” and found that, relative to their peers, women from historically excluded racial/ethnic groups perceived significantly greater competition. A Latina student in Tran’s (2011) study explained: “My PI is a male, and I find that he tries to motivate through like competition. Maybe I’m stereotyping, but I’ve talked to people about it, and they’re like, ‘Oh, you know, that’s what motivates men.’ Like you’ve got to pin people up against each other, and a lot of women aren’t like that at all, like I back down from a situation. I’m like, ‘I’m not going to compete with you. You can have that,’” (p. 107). The pressure to outperform others to prove or justify one’s identity or status as a doctoral student likely reinforces feelings of impostorism.
Several studies evidencing performance climate in graduate school also connected more broadly with perceptions of competition for recognition in STEM (e.g., Anderson, 2000). For example, Rodriguez et al. (2022) identified a theme of competition among students as a necessary goal structure for STEM participation with little concern for the potential adverse effects of those norms. Participants described competition with peers and the belief that their contribution to STEM hinged on the ability to outpace their peers. For example, one woman of color in that project described how the principal investigator in her previous lab “would essentially pit us against each other and say whichever one of you produces the results fastest will get to publish” (p. 64). Some of the students in this study described their efforts to resist the performance climate.
Discussion
To reintroduce organizational science into higher education climate research and incorporate an intersectional approach, we developed and applied an integrative climate framework in a meta-synthesis of research on engineering doctoral education. Our framework comprises seven climates that have been empirically associated with member retention across a range of organizations and attends to how power and inequality are embedded within or perpetuated by those climates, focusing on those likely to disparately impact students from diverse historically excluded groups.
Within the literature on engineering doctoral education, what is the evidence for the organizational climates in our framework? Reorienting the research on climate in engineering doctoral education to our integrative climate framework, we found that many climates associated with member retention and organizational commitment are also evident in studies of engineering doctoral education research, even if they are not comprehensively or precisely defined, assessed, or differentiated. While molar approaches to climate predominated in this literature, we identified aspects of domain-specific climates—most frequent were diversity, mastery, and performance climates. Still, climate was rarely defined with precision in our sample; most studies sustained the meteorological metaphor and characterized climate as “chilly” or as a general “feel” or “atmosphere” that was positive or negative. Many blended references to individuals (i.e., one’s own experience) and groups (i.e., perceptions of others’ experiences) in their measures. And, while climate is a multilevel phenomenon (Schneider & Barbera, 2014) and members can and do distinguish what happens in different levels (Ehrhart et al., 2014), most studies combined those levels (e.g., campus or university and lab). When the climate’s level is unspecified, responsibility for that climate is ambiguous. In sum, although research on engineering doctoral education has captured aspects of domain-specific climates, often under the umbrella of chilly or negative climate, the literature lacks precise and comprehensive climate definition, assessment, and differentiation.
Similarly, the studies in our sample tended to collapse mastery and performance climates into a single bipolar dimension measured on a continuum of competitive to collaborative, which implies that these climates are mutually exclusive. Our analysis reorients those findings and revises our understanding by distinguishing performance and mastery as separate, coexisting climates with distinct implications for equity and participation outcomes, especially among students from diverse historically excluded groups. For example, a department may value a student’s professional development, progress on research projects, and cooperation on a team—all aspects of mastery climate—yet still curve course grades and cull their enrollments to retain only top performers. An organization’s mastery climate may facilitate adaptive outcomes but still be overshadowed by its performance climate (Buch et al., 2017). That is, the benefits of more inclusive mastery-building practices may be undermined or negated by common exclusionary performance-focused practices such as student competitions and end-of-year awards ceremonies that showcase a selective group of students, suggesting that doctoral engineering departments need to assess and address both climates, expanding beyond “weave in not weed out” strategies (e.g., Carpenter, 2024). Capturing this nuance, our work revises understanding of the literature’s findings based on vague assessment of a bipolar performance-mastery climate.
Studies that vaguely assess climates may signal that problems exist, but they provide little information on the policies, practices, or procedures responsible for those problems, where they occur, or who is most impacted by them. The legacy of those molar approaches to assessing climate in higher education is a lack of substantive change in processes and, in turn, inadequate impacts on the engineering doctoral workforce in the United States. By contrast, the domain-specific climate approach facilitates pre- and post- assessment of intervention efforts aimed at improving specific department policies, practices, and procedures, such as student recruitment, instructional practices, professional-development offerings, the process to change advisors, and grievance and nonretaliation policies, to name a few. Higher education climate assessment will provide more actionable results when it is grounded in and guided by contemporary organizational science. In aligning engineering education with best practices in organizational science, we provide a roadmap for actionable climate research to improve academic organizations.
Organizational science demonstrates both that climates are measurable and that precise assessment can yield a competitive advantage to leaders seeking to improve organizational processes and outcomes (Schneider & Barbera, 2014). Moreover, domain-specific climates are more predictive of outcomes such as retention and organizational commitment than broad, molar climates (Ehrhart & Kuenzi, 2017). We applied this logic to doctoral engineering education, providing a framework that is both theoretically robust and practically useful in guiding the research necessary to assess domain-specific climates in doctoral engineering with precision. Moreover, this framework enables academic leaders to move beyond vague calls to “improve climate” and instead assess climate precisely and, in turn, intervene in targeted ways. Our meta-synthesis revealed that, because climate studies in engineering education rarely assess domain-specific climates, their assessment tools lack the precision needed to provide targeted guidance to leaders in higher education. We urge leaders to assess domain-specific climates within their academic units to identify the climates that contribute most to the retention and attrition of their students and the level at which those climates are occurring (e.g., within labs, a department, and/or the university). In addition, we recommend that they also identify the students who are most impacted by the climates and use an intersectional approach.
By incorporating an intersectional approach in our framework and meta-synthesis, we also sought to strengthen research on organizational climate and respond to calls from leading organizational scholars to ground organizational climate research in rigorous theory. Intersectionality goes beyond mere discussion of identities and differences to analyze mechanisms of stratification, identify shared experiences, and build diverse coalitions that promote equity (Cole, 2008; Moradi & Grzanka, 2017). How does engineering doctoral education research engage with intersectionality? Although most reports in our sample considered social categories as relevant to their research aims, only a handful used intersectional approaches. Some climates (e.g., diversity climate, authenticity climate, and sexual harassment climate) point directly to social categories and are theorized as critical to the full participation of students from historically excluded groups, but it would be a mistake to assume that other climates contribute to student outcomes equally or equitably. For example, the lack of research attention to psychosocial safety climate is glaring in the context of the ongoing mental health crises that disproportionately impact students from historically excluded groups (e.g., Lipson et al., 2018; Salk et al., 2017). If higher education is committed to equitably supporting student success, there must be research examining psychosocial safety climate and student well-being. Likewise, practices captured by mastery and performance climates have demonstrated disparate impacts on the outcomes of students from different intersectional locations (Loyola & Grebing, 2022; Settles et al., 2016; Tran, 2011). Such findings echo Crenshaw’s (1991) analysis of political intersectionality and demonstrate how the values of those in leadership can drive climate and thus perpetuate inequality.
Limitations and Directions for Future Research
Our integrative climate framework is a foundation for investigating domain-specific climates in engineering doctoral education, but an exhaustive inventory of all possible climates was beyond the scope of this project. At the same time, the findings from our meta-synthesis identify multiple directions for critical research. For example, inclusion climate (Nishii, 2013) or justice climate (Colquitt, 2012) may be relevant to aspects of participation such as organizational commitment and retention but are higher-order climates that overlap with the others in our framework and therefore may be redundant. To clarify their relative significance and promote precise assessment, future research can identify areas of overlap and uniqueness among, for example, inclusion, justice, diversity, and sexual harassment climates.
Relatedly, our framework comprises seven domain-specific climates but does not make strong claims about links among them. This is consistent with contemporary organizational science literature, which generally has theorized and studied domain-specific climates in isolation (Beus et al., 2023; Kuenzi & Schminke, 2009). Described earlier, the most notable exceptions are performance and mastery climates, which are theorized to coexist and interact in shaping motivation and performance of members (Buch et al., 2017). In addition, evidence has indicated that multiple climates may contribute to similar or related outcomes through multiple mechanisms. For example, an organization can promote the reporting of sexual harassment within diversity climate via organizational value of equity and efforts to eliminate bias (Leslie & Gelfand, 2008) and within sexual harassment climate via explicit and specified reporting procedures and perceived organizational intolerance of harassment (Siuta & Bergman, 2019), as well as within psychological safety climate via its support of voice behavior and interpersonal risk taking (Edmondson & Bransby, 2023; Halliday et al., 2022). Although our framework and meta-synthesis cannot clarify whether or how multiple climates cooperate, this is an essential direction for future research on climate.
Moreover, to facilitate such work, researchers and administrators need comprehensive, reliable, and fair assessment tools that can distinguish climates and identify links between them (Yoon et al., 2024). While organizational science has developed valuable measures for the workplace, they are unsuitable for the unique context of engineering doctoral programs. Climates have a direction (positive or negative) and a strength (strong to weak), and these characteristics are measured within an organization’s levels (i.e., department, research lab, etc.). Future research in higher education can clarify the direction and strength of domain-specific climates as well as links between them and how they are cultivated to support student success.
Higher education leaders and researchers urgently need a comprehensive assessment of sexual harassment climate. Despite progress in assessing sexual harassment frequency in higher education (e.g., Cantalupo & Kidder, 2017; Cantor et al., 2015; Wood et al., 2021), there is minimal research on the organizational climate that ignores, tolerates, or encourages sexual harassment (Dolamore & Richards, 2020; Goldberg & Ahmad, 2019; Lundy-Wagner & Winkel-Wagner, 2013; Siuta & Bergman, 2019). Echoing prior critiques (Bondestam & Lundqvist, 2020), we found that one third of our studies assessed the student experience of sexual harassment victimization, but only one (Jones, 2024) examined student perceptions of the organizational response to that violence. Yet, if those studies had been guided by an organizational science approach, results could have identified specific policy gaps or norms that perpetuated harassment and hindered reporting within those organizations. For example, an academic engineering department may post a reporting policy or zero-tolerance statement, but without a careful assessment of sexual harassment climate, it is unclear how students perceive implementation or believe the department will act. To understand whether students believe the department ignores reports of harassment, takes them seriously, or retaliates against those who report, for example, a careful assessment of sexual harassment climate must be conducted.
Critically, the literature’s bias toward documenting the prevalence of victimization without analyzing the organizational policies, practices, and procedures that actively or passively support its perpetration treats sexual harassment as an individual, micro-level problem rather than a structural, macro-level one. Given the significance of sexual harassment and its impacts on student well-being and performance, leaders and researchers in engineering doctoral education must assess sexual harassment climate. Assessments will be most useful if they attend to all forms of sexual harassment and the ways in which harassment may be entrenched within intersecting systems of oppression.
As a recent addition to the organizational science literature, authenticity climate is an important direction for future research in engineering education. Drawing from research on defining the self in terms of unique traits, valued roles, and social group membership and how that facilitates a sense of identification with or belonging to an organization (e.g., Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Ashforth et al., 2008), research on authenticity climate may be especially important for students from historically excluded groups. For example, it can shed light on how students balance their personal desire to be authentic with the potential pressure to downplay one’s social identities within their department. Indeed, evidence from a recent study with Black professionals in White-majority accounting firms demonstrated that authenticity climate can facilitate social identity affirmation by enhancing their social certainty in expressing their true selves, which further promoted their identification with and involvement in the organization (Wang et al., 2025). Thus, we might expect engineering departments with strong authenticity climate to be more effective at retaining students from historically excluded groups compared with departments with a weak authenticity climate. We propose that future work use our framework and explore authenticity climate in doctoral engineering to assess how departmental norms around identity expression affect student outcomes such as organizational commitment, program attrition, retention, and time-to-degree completion.
Conclusions
Intersectionality’s critical aim is guided not by cataloguing differences or ranking hardships but rather by building diverse coalitions grounded in the acknowledgment of shared experience within interconnected systems of oppression (Cole, 2008; Crenshaw, 1991). Without intersectional approaches to organizational climate science and engineering doctoral education, the impacts of institutional policies, practices, and procedures for students from diverse historically excluded groups will remain hidden. This project was intended to cultivate this line of research and support institutional improvement, offering a foundation for understanding how climates perpetuate power and inequality and shape student participation outcomes.
Footnotes
Author Note
Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This material is based on work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant Nos. EES-2201100 to NEQ and EES-2201102 to JA.
Notes
Authors
NICOLE M. ELSE-QUEST is a professor of education and chair of the Social Science Interdepartmental Program at the University of California, Los Angeles. Her interdisciplinary research in gender development aims to broaden participation in STEM and expand the repertoire of intersectional feminist methods across the sciences.
JULIE L. ALDRIDGE is a research scientist in engineering education at The Ohio State University. Her research examines how higher education policies and organizational structures shape the future STEM innovation workforce, from graduate training through the professoriate.