IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/reihed/v65y2024i3d10.1007_s11162-023-09760-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Celebrating Differences: A Conjoint Analysis of Senior Year Mechanical Engineering Students’ Occupational Preferences

Author

Listed:
  • James N. Magarian

    (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)

  • Warren P. Seering

    (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)

Abstract

Given its ongoing struggles at attaining demographic diversity and its key role in nations’ economies, the engineering workforce receives considerable attention from researchers and policymakers. Yet, prior studies and STEM recruitment initiatives have often underemphasized the variety among available engineering jobs and careers. It therefore remains unclear which attributes of engineering work are most salient in shaping students’ choices to persist in or depart from engineering pathways. This study introduces a novel conjoint survey experiment conducted with over 1000 senior year mechanical engineering students. This randomized experiment allows the authors to disentangle supply-side and demand-side factors to assess engineering job attributes’ marginal influences on students’ occupational preferences, as well as to examine these attributes’ interaction effects with supply-side factors. Toward strengthening persistence in engineering pathways, findings suggest that broad STEM recruitment initiatives, though potentially advantageous in pre-college years, should give way to more targeted campaigns that increase university students’ awareness about key dimensions of variety across engineering work roles.

Suggested Citation

  • James N. Magarian & Warren P. Seering, 2024. "Celebrating Differences: A Conjoint Analysis of Senior Year Mechanical Engineering Students’ Occupational Preferences," Research in Higher Education, Springer;Association for Institutional Research, vol. 65(3), pages 463-509, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:reihed:v:65:y:2024:i:3:d:10.1007_s11162-023-09760-9
    DOI: 10.1007/s11162-023-09760-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11162-023-09760-9
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11162-023-09760-9?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Carnes, Nicholas & Lupu, Noam, 2016. "Do Voters Dislike Working-Class Candidates? Voter Biases and the Descriptive Underrepresentation of the Working Class," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 110(4), pages 832-844, November.
    2. Hankinson, Michael, 2018. "When Do Renters Behave Like Homeowners? High Rent, Price Anxiety, and NIMBYism," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 112(3), pages 473-493, August.
    3. Ashok Bardhan & Daniel L. Hicks & Dwight Jaffee, 2013. "How responsive is higher education? The linkages between higher education and the labour market," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 45(10), pages 1239-1256, April.
    4. Vithala R. Rao, 2014. "Applied Conjoint Analysis," Springer Books, Springer, edition 127, number 978-3-540-87753-0, December.
    5. Jeff Biddle & Karen Roberts, 1994. "Private Sector Scientists and Engineers and the Transition to Management," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 29(1), pages 82-107.
    6. Alberto Petroni, 1999. "Career route preferences of design engineers: an empirical research," European Journal of Innovation Management, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 2(2), pages 63-70, August.
    7. David J. Deming, 2017. "The Growing Importance of Social Skills in the Labor Market," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 132(4), pages 1593-1640.
    8. Jaewoo Ryoo & Sherwin Rosen, 2004. "The Engineering Labor Market," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 112(S1), pages 110-140, February.
    9. David H. Autor, 2001. "Wiring the Labor Market," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 15(1), pages 25-40, Winter.
    10. Marx, Matt & Singh, Jasjit & Fleming, Lee, 2015. "Regional disadvantage? Employee non-compete agreements and brain drain," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(2), pages 394-404.
    11. Xiaoying Ma, 2021. "Higher Education Research," Springer Books, in: The Economic Impact of Government Policy on China’s Private Higher Education Sector, chapter 0, pages 89-102, Springer.
    12. Leonard Lynn & Hal Salzman & Daniel Kuehn, 2018. "Dynamics of Engineering Labor Markets: Petroleum Engineering Demand and Responsive Supply," NBER Chapters, in: US Engineering in a Global Economy, pages 243-262, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. Hainmueller, Jens & Hopkins, Daniel J. & Yamamoto, Teppei, 2014. "Causal Inference in Conjoint Analysis: Understanding Multidimensional Choices via Stated Preference Experiments," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 22(1), pages 1-30, January.
    14. Paul E. Green & Abba M. Krieger & Yoram Wind, 2001. "Thirty Years of Conjoint Analysis: Reflections and Prospects," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 31(3_supplem), pages 56-73, June.
    15. Jens Hainmueller & Daniel J. Hopkins, 2015. "The Hidden American Immigration Consensus: A Conjoint Analysis of Attitudes toward Immigrants," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 59(3), pages 529-548, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Leeper, Thomas J. & Hobolt, Sara & Tilley, James, 2020. "Measuring subgroup preferences in conjoint experiments," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 100944, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    2. Henrik S Christensen & Marco S La Rosa & Kimmo Grönlund, 2020. "How candidate characteristics affect favorability in European Parliament elections: Evidence from a conjoint experiment in Finland," European Union Politics, , vol. 21(3), pages 519-540, September.
    3. Yoshiaki Kubo & Isamu Okada, 2022. "COVID-19 health certification reduces outgroup bias: evidence from a conjoint experiment in Japan," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-11, December.
    4. Vrânceanu, Alina & Dinas, Elias & Heidland, Tobias & Ruhs, Martin, 2023. "The European refugee crisis and public support for the externalisation of migration management," Open Access Publications from Kiel Institute for the World Economy 279441, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    5. Daniel Kuehn & Hal Salzman, 2018. "The Engineering Labor Market: An Overview of Recent Trends," NBER Chapters, in: US Engineering in a Global Economy, pages 11-46, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Christian P Theurer & Andranik Tumasjan & Isabell M Welpe, 2018. "Contextual work design and employee innovative work behavior: When does autonomy matter?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(10), pages 1-35, October.
    7. Tukiainen, Janne & Blesse, Sebastian & Bohne, Albrecht & Giuffrida, Leonardo M. & Jääskeläinen, Jan & Luukinen, Ari & Sieppi, Antti, 2024. "What are the priorities of bureaucrats? Evidence from conjoint experiments with procurement officials," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 227(C).
    8. Knoblauch, Theresa A.K. & Trutnevyte, Evelina & Stauffacher, Michael, 2019. "Siting deep geothermal energy: Acceptance of various risk and benefit scenarios in a Swiss-German cross-national study," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 807-816.
    9. Élisé Wendlassida Miningou, 2020. "Matching the Education System to the Needs of the Economy: Evidence from Burkina Faso," Cahiers de recherche 20-04, Departement d'économique de l'École de gestion à l'Université de Sherbrooke.
    10. Claire L Adida & Adeline Lo & Melina R Platas, 2019. "Americans preferred Syrian refugees who are female, English-speaking, and Christian on the eve of Donald Trump’s election," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(10), pages 1-18, October.
    11. repec:plo:pone00:0232424 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Burak Sonmez & Kirils Makarovs & Nick Allum, 2023. "Public perception of scientists: Experimental evidence on the role of sociodemographic, partisan, and professional characteristics," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(7), pages 1-20, July.
    13. Monica Mihaela Maer Matei & Ana-Maria Zamfir & Cristina Mocanu, 2023. "Criteria Weights in Hiring Decisions—A Conjoint Approach," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-18, February.
    14. Lala Muradova & Ross James Gildea, 2021. "Oil wealth and US public support for war," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 38(1), pages 3-19, January.
    15. Poulissen, Davey & de Grip, Andries & Fouarge, Didier & Künn-Nelen, Annemarie, 2021. "Employers' Willingness to Invest in the Training of Temporary Workers: A Discrete Choice Experiment," IZA Discussion Papers 14395, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    16. repec:osf:osfxxx:j43tn_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Alexander Hertel-Fernandez & William Kimball & Thomas Kochan, 2022. "What Forms of Representation Do American Workers Want? Implications for Theory, Policy, and Practice," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 75(2), pages 267-294, March.
    18. Stefanelli, Alberto & Lukac, Martin, 2020. "Subjects, Trials, and Levels: Statistical Power in Conjoint Experiments," SocArXiv spkcy, Center for Open Science.
    19. Lu, Hui & Rohr, Charlene & Howarth, David & Pollitt, Alexandra & Grant, Jonathan, 2020. "What sort of Brexit do the British people want? A longitudinal study examining the ‘trade-offs’ people would be willing to make in reaching a Brexit deal," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 37(C).
    20. Gosciak, Jennah & Molitor, Daniel & Lundberg, Ian, 2025. "Adaptive Randomization in Conjoint Survey Experiments," SocArXiv 69y2j_v1, Center for Open Science.
    21. repec:osf:socarx:spkcy_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    22. Ines Black & Sharique Hasan & Rembrand Koning, 2024. "Hunting for talent: Firm‐driven labor market search in the United States," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(3), pages 429-462, March.
    23. Blaine Robbins & Edgar Kiser, 2018. "Legitimate authorities and rational taxpayers: An investigation of voluntary compliance and method effects in a survey experiment of income tax evasion," Rationality and Society, , vol. 30(2), pages 247-301, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:reihed:v:65:y:2024:i:3:d:10.1007_s11162-023-09760-9. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.