Women in Brunel Engineering and Computing: Promote Gender Equality in STEM Education

The Women in Brunel Engineering and Computing (WiBEC) Mentoring Programme at Brunel University London supports female graduates and undergraduates in reaching their full potential in the engineering and computing sectors. Now entering its 10th year, the programme has cultivated a strong community of mentors and mentees, growing to over 1,000 members.

In this conversation, we invited Giselle Hayward, the mentoring manager of WiBEC since 2015, to introduce the programme and share her insights and experiences on promoting gender equality in the higher education sector.

WiBEC: promoting gender equality in STEM

The Responsible Future Designers project (RFD): Could you provide a brief history and overview of the WiBEC programme?

Giselle Hayward(GH):  We’re now in our 10th year. Back in 2014, the university secured funding because they wanted to take positive action to encourage female engineers to study here at Brunel and to study engineering. It was hugely popular. We had a lot of postgraduate female engineers apply, not just to study here at Brunel, but also to participate in a professional skills programme, which included mentoring.

The mentoring part of the programme meant that participants were linked up with someone in the industry. Industry was so interested in supporting this that even after the funding stopped, the university decided to keep the mentoring programme going. It’s been growing stronger ever since.

We have a very strong, diverse, and multicultural community here at Brunel, and we’re always looking for ways to support our EDI policies. The delivery of this programme aligns closely with what’s really important to us.

RFD: How does the mentoring work? Who can participate in?

GH: We have mentors from industry and student mentees. The mentors are professionals who volunteer their time, so they are not paid at all. It’s entirely a voluntary opportunity for industry stakeholders. The fact that they are willing and eager to participate shows just how much they value the programme and believe it’s a worthwhile initiative to be part of. For mentors, they first complete a profile form. Then it is the matching process which is very intense and personal—I handle it myself. I look at what I know about the mentor, what they’ve shared in their form, and what the student has expressed about their challenges. So, it’s a very personalised matching process, and I think the mentors really appreciate that. It’s not just about pairing someone with a mentor who has the job the student wants in 10 or 15 years; it’s about finding the right human connection. This matching process is crucial to making the most out of the relationship, and both mentors and students have mentioned how important it is.

For students, there are certain criteria they need to meet. They must be registered as female on their birth certificate, be studying one of the eligible courses—which currently includes about 73 different programmes—and they need to be in their second year or above. Typically, we have about 80 to 90 students apply each year.

The programme runs from November to September, requiring a minimum commitment of a 2-hour meeting once a month. In practice, it can be a lot more than that. Some students, if they really connect with their mentor, might have a quick half-hour session each week, or they might prefer a longer 2-hour session—it’s really up to the individual matched pair to figure out what works best for them.

Beyond the mentorship, we also organize skills training, events, site visits, and opportunities to attend conferences. For instance, this year, we had our largest group—42 students—attend the annual Student Conference hosted by the Women’s Engineering Society. This gave them the chance to participate in various workshops, build their skills, boost their confidence in networking, and hear from role models about different roles that women have taken on—roles they may not have considered before. Students have shared that the experience is incredibly valuable because many of them had never attended a conference before or lacked the confidence to apply for one. This provides a safe environment for them to learn what conferences are like. While attending conferences becomes normal as you progress in academia, it’s not as common for a second-year student.

We also organise activities such as Mock Interview Day, where industry professionals conduct mock interviews with our mentees or run skill sessions—all on a volunteer basis. During site visits, students have the opportunity to ask various technical questions. Companies participate in these visits because they are actively looking for the right students and encouraging applications.

Sustaining impact and growth

RDF: How do think that this programme can run sustainably for such a long time?

GH: The financial side of it is completely supported by the College of Engineering, Physical Sciences and Design here at Brunel. So it’s fully funded by the university. This continuity has allowed us to not only deliver the programme through myself and team members but also to provide a lot of opportunities—skills training, events, site visits, and chances to attend conferences. Financially, the funding comes directly from the university.

What’s also very important is that we have a very active community where everyone supports each other. For example, a mentor might mention that their student is still looking for a placement, and someone else in the group might say, “I know someone in chemical engineering who can help.” So, it’s not just the one-to-one mentoring that takes place—there’s a broader network of support. The students really benefit from that, of course.

RDF : How do you measure the success of the programme?

GH: At the end of the day, we measure success by looking at their destinations—where they end up after the programme. We do gather feedback at the end of the programme, asking questions like, “Do you feel more confident?” or “Are you more likely to stay in STEM?” But really, the proof is in the pudding. After they leave Brunel, we look at whether they continue with further study in STEM or find work in the field. And if they stay in STEM, are they moving up to senior positions? We collect that data as well.

It’s a bit of a slow burn when it comes to quantifying success. Sometimes students don’t fully realise the value of the programme until they’re out in the workplace. Then they see how understanding what a mentor can do for them has been so important. In terms of data, we do keep in regular contact with our alumni. A strong indicator of success is that we have 35 former students who have gone through the programme and now come back as mentors. That’s definitely a sign of success, though they need to have at least four years of experience before they can return as mentors.

RFD: Are there any particular case studies or success stories from the programme that you would like to share?

GH: There are so many. For me, hearing from a student about how much being part of this programme has changed their life is just incredible. We recently did a survey of the students who have been through the programme, and of those who replied, nearly 90% are working or studying in STEM, that is exactly the aim of the programme to support the pipeline of female engineers into industry. Additionally, nearly a quarter of them are still in contact with their mentor as professional friends, which shows the lasting success of the relationships they’ve built. They continue to support each other even after leaving Brunel and moving on with their careers.

Mentors also tell us how much they learn, not only about themselves but also about the younger generation—the challenges they face and what’s needed to support and encourage females to stay and build their careers in STEM.

There are a lot of stories I could share, but one example that stands out is about a mentor from a company in Birmingham. She’s been with the programme for about five years. Last year, she mentored a second-year mechanical engineering student who was very diligent but struggling to get interviews despite applying to many places. The mentor, Adriana, paid for her to attend a local conference where she introduced the student to several of her colleagues. This led to an opportunity for the student to apply for a placement, which she got. The company was so impressed with her that they’ve now offered her a graduate role. She’s the only female engineer in that company, which really highlights the impact this programme can have.

Promoting EDI in Higher Education: the evolving landscape over a decade

RFD: Over almost 10 years of running this programme, have you encountered any differing opinions? For example, have any male students argued that it gives females more opportunities?

GH: It’s never really been a problem. Occasionally, if I’m running an event, a male student might come up and say, “This looks like great networking. Can I join in?” I would explain that it’s only for female students, and sometimes they ask, “Why is that?” I explain that it’s about positive action. The reason we do this is because the gender diversity in engineering is not equal; it’s not a level playing field. We’re taking positive steps to try and increase that 16% of females in engineering, which is still quite low, especially in terms of those who stay in the field.

In all the 10 years I’ve been running the programme, once I’ve explained it that way, it’s never been a problem. I often ask them, “How would you feel if you were in a lecture room with only three other men and the rest were women? How would that make you feel?” They usually realise that it would be quite overwhelming, and they might start questioning whether they’re good enough or feel like they’re in the minority. It helps them see what it’s like when the situation is reversed.

RFD: what do you think are the key factors for promoting EDI in the higher education sector and beyond?

GH: I think it’s really important to have specific initiatives. The key is to run programmes but also to listen carefully to what students actually want. It’s all very well coming up with ideas—an idea might look or sound good, but what do the students actually want? What’s going to help them feel valued and give them the confidence to be the best they can be? I think that’s particularly important in large institutions. Sometimes, a great idea might not quite meet the need. So my advice would be to really talk to the students, identify their needs, and then work out what can be delivered to support them.

RFD: We often emphasise getting students’ voices, but some groups, like international students, may engage less in teaching and activities. This can lead to biased EDI audit results, as we may only hear from those willing to speak up. How would you address this concern?

GH: That’s an interesting point. Often, it’s the quiet ones who don’t ask for help. In my experience, particularly with the mentoring programme, some international students join saying they don’t know anyone else at the university. They don’t have any friends, or they just sit in their rooms. But when they become part of the mentoring programme and find themselves in a room with 90 other mentees being trained, they suddenly realise there are all these people from different courses they can talk to. It’s really powerful.

The key is to get students out of their rooms, to encourage them. Student societies are great at that. By organising extracurricular events and encouraging people to come along and talk, we can make a big difference. Anyone running EDI policies or initiatives is likely aware of this, and I think the personal touch is really important.

RFD: How has your involvement with the programme influenced your views on EDI in education and professional settings?

GH: I’m a careers advisor by trade. I used to work in a girls’ grammar school as a careers and pathways advisor, so that’s where my background is. I’m not an engineer, but I’m a people person, which is why I can handle the matching process. However, I didn’t initially realise how difficult it was and what obstacles women face in engineering. Sadly, ten years later, those obstacles are still there.

For example, we ran a skills conference last year, and during lunch, a group of alumnae were chatting about the day-to-day challenges they still face, like struggling to get their voices heard in meetings or being given the task of writing minutes just because they have “nice” handwriting. These issues still exist and need to be challenged.

On a positive note, I’ve met so many male mentors throughout the programme. When we first started, we included both male and female mentors because it’s essential for students to be able to work with male engineers. These male mentors are incredible allies. They fully understand the value of diversity of thought at the table and want to learn more about what’s preventing women from applying for roles at their companies. They engage with our students in a meaningful way. Sometimes students express a desire for a female role model, and I encourage them to think about what the mentoring relationship can offer beyond just gender—it’s about the individual and what they bring to the relationship.

Now, we have more female mentors, which is great because it shows that there are more role models to choose from. However, we also have some fantastic male mentors who are truly passionate about EDI and actively promote these values within their companies and management teams.

RFD: What are some of the differences or interesting things you’ve observed between female and male mentors?

 GH: With female mentors, they often share the challenges they’ve faced and how they overcame them, which can resonate with students who might be experiencing similar issues. Many mentees can easily associate with that. However, there are also many who don’t see gender as an issue—they see themselves simply as engineers focused on advancing their careers. Some female role models emphasise that their gender doesn’t define them; they’re engineers, and they focus on how to succeed in that role.

When it comes to male mentors, they’re often very tuned in to understanding what their businesses need to do to attract more female engineers. They recognize that achieving a 50-50 gender balance, which is still quite rare, can greatly improve productivity and creativity within a company. These male mentors are genuinely interested in figuring out what might be deterring talented women from applying for roles—is it the job description? The way assessment centres are run? They’re eager to work with our female students to explore these questions and find solutions.

RFD: Looking back to your first or second year in this role and comparing it to now, what has been the most significant change or the biggest difference?

 GH: I think one of the most significant changes I’ve seen over nearly a decade is how many companies now have women in their workforce and have established support groups within the company that focus on networking, support, and supervision. Ten years ago, these kinds of initiatives were few and far between.

Industry has really stepped up and asked, “How are we going to tackle this?” It used to be that there were only one or two female role models who were expected to do everything, leaving them with little time to actually do their jobs. Now, with these communities in place, they can offer sessions like lunch-and-learns and sessions on unconscious bias, which male colleagues can attend as well. It’s about sharing the learning across the board. I’d say this development has been a very specific and a significant change. Often, it’s these groups that reach out to me, saying they’re interested in being part of the programme and asking how they can volunteer and get involved in WiBEC.

RFD: What is the one message or takeaway you would like to share with other educators and institutions working to promote EDI?

GH: I think the key is to make it as personal as possible. Having a dedicated manager to run programmes like this is crucial. They can keep a close eye on what’s happening, and students have someone they can turn to if they’re unsure or need guidance. Just as it’s important to ask students what they want, it’s equally important to have a visible, designated team that students can easily access, rather than being hidden away.

In large institutions, it’s easy for students to feel lost, even with great student centres. I often meet with students one-on-one, and many say they didn’t know where to turn. If you have EDI initiatives with a visible team that students know they can approach, it encourages them to get involved and seek help when needed.