Beyond the pipeline: rethinking retention in engineering

“Over the weekend, HEPI published a two-part blog series on the topic of belonging. Part One is available here , and Part Two is available here . This blog was kindly authored by Dr Salma Al Arefi, Deputy Director of Student Education (Student Success) at the University of Leeds. Women are entering engineering in growing numbers, yet many do not remain. This is not simply a pipeline problem; it is a retention problem . Women account for just one in five engineering students in the UK , and only 16.9% of the workforce. This gap reflects a persistent disconnect between education and employment, raising a more fundamental question: who can stay and progress? Despite sustained efforts to widen participation, a gap remains between entry and progression. I describe this as the “ STEM trap ”: women are encouraged into engineering pathways, but once they enter, institutional support becomes less visible while structural barriers continue to shape their experiences. This is not an issue of capability. Evidence shows that women engineering students perform strongly academically, often matching or outperforming their male peers. Research conducted at the University of Leeds, funded by the Leeds Institute for Teaching Excellence, on exploring sense of belonging among women engineering students through an intersectionality lens, further indicates that women develop a clear and confident sense of engineering identity . Despite navigating structural and cultural challenges, they see themselves as engineers in the making. However, experiences of belonging within the engineering profession were not uniform. Drawing on accounts from students during their industrial placements, these experiences were shaped by a range of factors that reflect their intersectional engineering identities, as engineers, but also as individuals navigating multiple, intersectional identities. This is further supported by wider evidence. A white paper published in June 2024 found that many women report a strong sense of belonging in STEM. However, such findings largely reflect those who remain within the system. They also reinforce that women often develop a strong sense of affiliation with their chosen field, shaped by an intentional decision to enter a discipline in which they remain underrepresented. Yet affiliation with the field does not necessarily translate into a sustained sense of belonging within the profession. This exposes a central contradiction. Women perform strongly and identify with the field, yet they continue to leave at disproportionate rates. This cannot be explained through deficit narratives of confidence or ability. It points instead to the structural conditions that shape participation and progression within engineering. A key distinction here is between inclusion and belonging. Women may be invited into spaces, but this does not necessarily translate into influence or a genuine sense of belonging. One participant reflected that identifying with a marginalised identity meant she was “always given fewer chances than my white women peers, always next in the line.” These experiences point to a wider pattern in which access is granted, but influence remains limited. The picture becomes more complex when examining ethnicity alongside gender. Data from EngineeringUK suggests that some groups of women from minority ethnic backgrounds, particularly Asian women, are more likely to be represented in engineering relative to other sectors. However, this is not consistent across all groups, with Black women remaining underrepresented. This demonstrates a critical limitation in current approaches. The challenge is not uniform. Treating women as a single category obscures how structural barriers operate differently across groups, and risks reinforcing the inequalities such interventions seek to address. The issue lies not with women, but with systems that fail to harness diverse talent. Too often, success in STEM is framed in terms of how many women enter the system, rather than how many remain and progress. Policy approaches have historically focused on increasing participation and recruitment, particularly through outreach initiatives, while the conditions shaping long-term participation receive far less attention. Until these conditions are addressed, efforts to widen access risk reproducing the inequalities they seek to resolve. Retention must be treated as a central policy priority, but this requires more than the existence of supportive frameworks. A key limitation lies in the lack of systematic evaluation of how these policies are experienced in practice. While many institutions have introduced initiatives to support women in engineering, far less attention is paid to how effectively these are taken up, who benefits from them, and what impact they have on progression and experience. What is needed is a shift from policy provision to policy evaluation, embedding mechanisms to assess engagement, measure outcomes, and generate evidence of impact. Without this, policies risk remaining symbolic, with limited influence on the structural conditions shaping participation and progression. A further challenge concerns how responsibility for change is distributed. Much of the work to support inclusion continues to fall on the very groups these initiatives are intended to support . Women students frequently take on the burden of organising networks and leading initiatives, often adding to https://womeninbalance.org/2025/09/09/stress-affecting-women-in-engineering/ while women staff are expected to contribute as part of academic citizenship . This often invisible but emotional labour is rarely recognised and can constrain opportunities for progression. If inclusion is to be meaningful, it must be treated as a collective responsibility. This requires moving beyond symbolic commitments towards structures that recognise, resource, and reward this work. Without this, responsibility for addressing systemic inequalities risks being informally delegated to those most affected. Too often, women leave engineering not because they lack ability, but because they encounter environments that limit their capacity to grow and to lead. Inclusion, therefore, must be understood not as representation alone, but as the ability to influence, to progress, and to shape the future of the profession. The challenge is not simply to open doors, but to examine what happens after women walk through them. Without sustained attention to retention, progression, and institutional culture, the STEM trap will persist, quietly filtering out talent the sector cannot afford to lose. Get our updates via email Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email. Email Address Subscribe The post Beyond the pipeline: rethinking retention in engineering appeared first on HEPI .

Summary generated from the RSS feed of HEPI Blog. All article rights belong to the original publisher. Click through to read the full piece on www.hepi.ac.uk.