Kathryn A. Neeley
· Associate ProfessorUniversity of Virginia · Engineering and Society
Active 1992–2025
About
Kathryn A. Neeley has been on the faculty of the University of Virginia School of Engineering & Applied Science since 1979. She began her career as a writer, editor, and producer working on research teams in materials science and chemical engineering, developing print and video materials to promote SEAS research programs. Her experiences provided her with a broad view and first-hand knowledge of engineering research, design, and culture. She is inspired by the potential of technology to promote human flourishing and views engineering as a combination of practicality and vision. Her academic background includes a Ph.D. in English Literature, Language, and Pedagogy from the University of Virginia, an M.A. in English from the same university, and a B.A. in English from the University of South Carolina.
Research topics
- Political Science
- Sociology
- Computer Science
- Engineering ethics
- Engineering
- Social Science
- Engineering management
- Public relations
- Medicine
- Law
- Knowledge management
- Management
- Epistemology
- Business
- Pedagogy
- Medical education
- Library science
- Marketing
- Psychology
Selected publications
2025-08-21
article1st authorCorresponding2021 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access Proceedings · 2024-02-20 · 2 citations
articleOpen access1st authorCorrespondingand received the Sterling Olmsted
2024-08-04
articleOpen access1st authorCorrespondingThe field of social foundations of education emerged in the early 1930s with the aim of developing a comprehensive understanding of "the cultural phenomena-institutions, processes, practices, beliefs, values, and ways of knowing-that underlie any society's educational ideas and practices" [1].By extension, social foundations of engineering-a field that does not yet exist, but should-would seek to understand the institutions, processes, practices, beliefs, values, and ways of knowing that underlie engineering education and practice.The fundamentals of these foundations have emerged in critiques of engineering grounded in several different perspectives including science, technology, and society (STS), engineering ethics, and engineering and social justice.Thus far, however, these perspectives have not coalesced into a coherent intellectual framework.In this paper, we draw parallels between engineering and social foundations of education as the field has evolved over time and argue that social foundations of education provides a promising model for social foundations of engineering.We draw on the literature in philosophy of engineering, STS, and engineering and social justice to identify intellectual traditions and frameworks that can be used to flesh out the conception of social foundations of engineering.
2024-02-07 · 1 citations
articleOpen access1st authorCorrespondingAbstract The earliest comprehensive report on engineering education in America was A Study of Engineering Education: Prepared for the Joint Committee on Engineering Education of the National Engineering Societies (1918). It is usually referred to as The Mann Report not only because that title is much more manageable but also because it was authored by a single person, Charles Riborg Mann. Like many individuals whose expertise crosses multiple disciplinary boundaries, Mann is not easy to describe in a few words, much less a single word like "physicist" or "applied scientist." In addition to his report on engineering education, he published a widely used physics textbook, a Manual of Advanced Optics, The Teaching of Physics for Purposes of General Education, and several books on education, including The American Spirit in Education, Education in the Army, 1919-1925, and Living and Learning. Mann rooted his analysis of engineering education in its history, focusing largely on the dynamics that shaped the system. He identified two methods of administration in civilian (vs. military) engineering schools: "the autonomous department type," which generated what he called "centrifugal forces," and "the well-designed cooperative type," which generated "centripetal forces" that coordinated the various elements so that they function as a system. Many of his observations and criticisms could well have been written over 100 years later. Fortunately, the innovative approaches he recognizes and recommends are still relevant (if not widely followed) today. His integrative approach to humanistic studies for engineers, an approach that was grounded in what we today might call the philosophy of engineering, recognizes the cultural and structural forces that have shaped engineering education generally and humanistic education for engineers in particular. This paper will argue that his approach provides the foundation for synthesizing the knowledge and pedagogical strategies that have emerged in the extensive but fragmented scholarly discourse on the non-technical dimensions of engineering practice and education.
2024-02-06 · 2 citations
articleOpen access1st authorCorrespondingof Virginia, with specializations in the teaching of composition at the college level and the literary history of science and
Conceptualizing Integration As Transformation And Point Of View
2024-01-31
articleOpen accessSenior authorAbstract NOTE: The first page of text has been automatically extracted and included below in lieu of an abstract Session 1361 Conceptualizing Integration as Transformation and Point of View Kathryn Neeley, Melvin Cherno University of Virginia I. Introduction We have designed this paper as an essay in intellectual genealogy. That is, it traces the ancestry of our own thinking about integration. We have selected five authors and intellectual traditions that we have found particularly useful as sources of models and terminology for thinking through the concept of integrating the humanities and social sciences into engineering education. There are two common threads running through these authors and traditions. First, they conceptualize integration as transformation, in the sense that the process changes the components out of which a new, integrated whole is created. Second, they emphasize the importance of point of view, which recognizes that individuals, groups, and bodies of knowledge typically do not stand in fixed relation to each other, but rather have different relationships depending on the purpose for which they are brought together. None of the authors or traditions provides a solution; all of them provide suggestive ways of grappling with the central challenge of integrated thinking: conceptualizing the complex relationships between parts and wholes. We believe that the foundation of integration is thinking in terms of engineering practice rather than particular disciplines or curricula. As our examples will demonstrate, there is a long history of thinking about the various forms of knowledge that are essential for successful engineering practice. Although there are many authors and intellectual traditions available, we focus in this paper on two historical examples and three contemporary ones. The two historical examples are the Roman architect Marcus Pollio Vitruvius 1 (1st century B.C.) and the medieval concept of the arts and sciences. The three contemporary examples include Robert Pirsig 2, philosopher and author of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance (1974); Günter Ropohl 3 , a German engineering educator; and Arnold Pacey 4, historian of technology and author of The Culture of Technology (1983). For the two historical examples, the integration of various forms of knowledge is a fact. For the other three, the lack of integration is a problem to be overcome. The remainder of this paper outlines the features of each author or tradition that have been most important for our thinking and indicates how they help define the concept of integration. II.Vitruvius: Locating and Complementing Expert Knowledge Marcus Pollio Vitruvius was the author of the Ten Books on Architecture 1 , the only treatise on architecture and engineering to survive from classical times. To understand Vitruvius, it is
2024-08-04
articleOpen access1st authorCorrespondingAbstract Given the strong arguments in favor of diversity and the costs of perpetuating inequity, the persistence of underrepresentation is striking and suggests that we, as advocates for diversity, are not reaching audiences beyond those already committed to promoting diversity. This paper explores how our ways of talking about diversity, equity, inclusion, and social justice (DEISJ) when we address people already committed to diversity may have the unintended consequence of deterring people outside the diversity community from interacting with us. It draws on rhetorical theory, social psychology, discourse analysis, and the concept of analogical imagination to illuminate the ways implicit messages can frame the discourse of diversity in ways that inadvertently deter audiences who do not see themselves as being part of the diversity community. It argues that the rhetorical mode of conversation (sermo) is more suitable than the commonly used epideictic mode (the rhetoric of praise and blame) and offers examples of thematic framing that are more conducive to conversation and thus likely to be more useful in expanding the audience for the discourse on diversity.
2024-02-06 · 1 citations
articleOpen access1st authorCorrespondingof Virginia, with specializations in the teaching of composition at the college level and the literary history of science and technology. She has served twice as the chair of the Liberal Education/Engineering and Society (LEES) Division of ASEE and received that division's Olmsted
2024-02-07 · 2 citations
articleOpen access1st authorCorrespondingAbstract While discussions of engineering ethics often refer to "integrating ethics into engineering," there is no clear consensus about what constitutes integration or how it is best achieved. This paper describes a systems approach to engineering ethics that situates it in the context of goal-oriented sociotechnical systems that are designed and managed by human beings with diverse experiences and forms of expertise. This approach recognizes the organizational, cultural, and technical contexts that both shape and are shaped by, enable and constrain, ethical awareness and action. It integrates three essential and complementary components of the successful, ethical practice of engineering: • Sociotechnical systems thinking, which equips students to analyze the contexts in which new technical capability is developed and implemented and where goals/impacts are realized. It also provides a flexible framework for understanding the many different contexts in which engineers work. • Communication ability, which is essential for articulating individual values, developing shared goals within groups, and synthesizing diverse perspectives into a common understanding that provides the basis for collective and individual action. It encompasses but goes beyond individual capabilities such as writing or speaking to consider group processes and organizations. • Engineering ethics, as traditionally defined, that is, codes, moral reasoning, and case studies. The content of two widely-read engineering ethics texts will serve as evidence of the extent to which these three aspects are implicit in engineering ethics.
Divergence and Convergence in Engineering Leadership, Entrepreneurship, Management, and Policy
2024-02-07
articleOpen access1st authorCorrespondingA little over half (28 of 54) of the divisions of ASEE focus on the intersections between STEM disciplines and different contexts of engineering education and practice. These 28 divisions emphasize three broad areas: (1) humanistic content and goals; (2) particular groups of students, faculty, practitioners, or other stakeholders; and (3) specific arenas of activity and organizational contexts. Four of these "Engineering and. . ." divisions include engineering leadership, entrepreneurship, management, and policy. The divisions share goals such as connecting the technical and non-technical dimensions of engineering and transforming engineering education so that it more effectively prepares graduates for workplace success. Previous research suggested that interest in "Engineering and " permeates ASEE and is concentrated in but not limited to the division most closely associated with the topic. This paper describes a transferable method that combines quantitative and qualitative methods to identify areas of convergence using papers published in the Leadership Development (LEAD) and the Engineering Entrepreneurship and Innovation (ENT) as evidence. These areas of convergence are: (1) program design and effectiveness, (2) individual capabilities (including traits and thinking tools), (3) teams and groups, and (4) identity and culture. Program design and effectiveness dominate the discourse of both divisions, suggesting that the two groups face similar challenges. Areas of apparent divergence include more concern with mindsets and innovativeness in ENT and more emphasis on team skills and mentorship in LEAD. These findings present opportunities for collaboration that could benefit all "Engineering and " divisions and help overcome the inertia that characterizes engineering education. The permeation of topics across ASEE and the convergence of themes across divisions also suggest that forming a new division might perpetuate disciplinary siloes, rather than support knowledge integration across the "Engineering and . . ." divisions.
Frequent coauthors
- 26 shared
Michael Alley
Pennsylvania State University
- 21 shared
Bryn Seabrook
University of Virginia
- 17 shared
Rider W. Foley
University of Virginia
- 16 shared
Andrew Li
American Society For Engineering Education
- 16 shared
Kari Zacharias
Virginia Tech
- 16 shared
Brandiff Caron
Concordia University
- 16 shared
Rebecca Jun
University of Virginia
- 9 shared
Barbara Olds
Colorado School of Mines
Awards & honors
- Seven Society Teaching Recognition
- Harold S. Morton Award for Teaching (2015 and 2006)
- Henry St. George Tucker Award for Dedication to the Honor Co…
- Raven Society Faculty Award (2007)
- Sterling Olmsted Award for Innovative Contributions to the L…
- Resume-aware match score
- Save to shortlist
- AI-drafted outreach
See your match with Kathryn A. Neeley
PhdFit ranks faculty by your research interests, methods, and publications — grounded in their actual work, not templates.
- Free to start
- No credit card
- 30-second signup